| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 08:44:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Your involvement with the trust creates it Lewis Vincent.
That is what I am saying about perspective.
I believe the office manager at the SSA was correct. |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 08:51:12
|
I believe you are correct in saying that...
They...they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 12:58:26
|
Greetings brothers,
You certainly have a right to believe anything you wish. I will simply state, that in my federal Court case, where they were trying real hard to send me back for another two years of lockup, everything came to a screeching halt, when I revoked the fiduciary liabilities. I have NOT revoked the SSN.
I have not reported to the U.S. Probation Officer since september, and the Court Order says I am to be immediately arrested if I don't report in person within the first 5 days of each month.
Just my thoughts and position on the matter.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 15:31:26
|
Yes; I understand Lewis.
Your name is "Lewis Vincent: Hughes". And that is the same as Lewis Vincent Hughes to the clerk of the federal court (in Denver anyway). That is a legal name. I keep talking about perspective Lewis.
I am viewing a video and other material about firing the trustees from the trust and filling those shoes for myself. [From the one known as "Kevin, family of Hines".] I do not really like alter egos but it may help me understand Form 56 - revoking the fiduciary liabilities. Anyway when the trustees are treating the beneficiaries chattel until they wise up enough like you and revoke the fiduciary liabilities, they are behaving like the beneficiary so one might follow suit out of necessity? Combining that with the HJR-192 as a bond then I might have enough confidence and control to have a SSN again. Supposing that I might need one for a job or whatever.
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/history/pay_debts.htm
Being in your shoes I certainly can appreciate that you would do something like revoke the fiduciary liabilities.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Dec 2005 15:36:49 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2005 : 05:48:18
|
Greetings brother Lewis:
Peace be unto the house.
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes, brother Lewis. You wrote: “I have NOT revoked the SSN.” Neither have we; nor do we advise anyone to.
If the PERSON is dead IT cannot have a SS number to revoke. That LEGAL NOTICE in the newspaper is not an attempt at revoking the SS number, it is simply announcing the death of the PERSONA. The number is there for easier identification of just which PERSON has died, and nothing more.
“…it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word [PERSON] in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested…” American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910
[A]t whatever cost! What a telling statement that is! But that aside for the moment, we see here that a PERSON, in their so-called law is not the living man or woman, it is the status or condition with which he or she is invested; it is an office, the office of PERSON. And while we remain in the office of PERSON Yahuwah, the ‘Elohiym of the living, cannot hear us because the office of PERSON is a dead thing, and it is written, Yahuwah is not the 'Elohiym of the dead.
And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves. And Yahuwah [the Living One] can not answer you in that day.
Why? Because He is Moral, and we have chosen a different jurisdiction! We announced to the world, by our works, that we no longer want Him to reign over us (1Shama'el 8:7), so don't blame Him! So how do we return to our original state (estate)? We must die! This is where the Christians got the idea that one has to die to go to the third heaven, the abode of Yahuwah; it’s true, just not in the way they think.
civil death. Law. The change of status of a person equivalent in its legal consequences to natural death. – Webster’s 1960 New Collegiate Dictionary, page 151
Once this death takes place, we have a second chance at life, we are born again, this time we are born without mother, without father, and we are born from above, from the Highest Authority. Our first nativity was of water (the 1st Adam [man]); the embryonic sac is filled with water; the second nativity is a virgin birth (the 2nd, or new Adam [man])!
Can there even be a “federal Court case” if one is civilly dead? We believe not, because once you are civilly dead, you are no longer a PERSON, i.e. one is no longer one of their JURISTIC PERSONALITIES. Once a man is born again he is a living being and who is the 'Elohiym (Judge, Lawgiver, King and Saviour) of living beings? We gurantee you it is not GEORGE BUSH!!
…Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to “person.” - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 791
One might even hear him, or one of his predecessors, say...
And you will cry out in that day because of your King whom you have chosen for yourselves. And the PRESIDENT/CAESAR [the FICTION] can not answer you in that day.
When one dies the death, one becomes what is known as an non person or unperson, i.e. a living being.
non per-son (nan’ per’ sen) n. UNPERSON; specif. one who is officially ignored by the government – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, page 923
If any man have an ear, let him hear.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 23 Dec 2005 07:34:21 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2005 : 06:12:14
|
Addendum
non per-son (nan’ per’ sen) n. UNPERSON; specif. one who is officially ignored by the government – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, page 923
When I brought out that dictionary and showed that definition to the man who wears the mask of CHIEF OF POLICE in a place where we sojourned, he got a stunned look on his face and said, “That’s you!”
"How very good of you to notice." And who says that the blind cannot be made to see?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 23 Dec 2005 06:32:56 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2005 : 07:40:37
|
quote:
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes, brother Lewis. You wrote: “I have NOT revoked the SSN.” Neither have we; nor do we advise anyone to.
Exactly! I was presuming that Lewis was not saying it under the impression I have ever revoked any SSN. I simply have no SSN; that is all.
I am studying Kevin of the Hines family's trust indenture. It says that if the trustee (me) ever resigns or leaves (dies etc.) the trust is destroyed. It just disappears and any assets (for which all title is claimed in the indenture) revert to my heirs. This would include any monthly SSI premiums due. I am not making a lot of sense of that yet...
I suppose the important thing is that the six trustees are all fired and replaced by the man. Therefore any court but common law (in Texas at least they have a constitutionally established "county court of record" that seems outside the scope of the district United States) is clearly the wrong forum and there can be no arraignment - "I am entering a plea of 'not guilty' for you..." In light of the indenture all the police and attornies in black robes are simply administering the trust for the six trustees - they are all fired.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 23 Dec 2005 07:42:51 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2005 : 07:51:53
|
Greetings and salutations:
Peace be unto the house.
“Therefore any court but common law…is clearly the wrong forum and there can be no arraignment - "I am entering a plea of 'not guilty' for you..."”
'not guilty' = 'I find no fault in this man.'
Say, "Thou sayest it; thank you", turn around, and leave. I believe, their JUDGE has just declared you ‘not guilty’.
Who says the blind cannot be made to see.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 23 Dec 2005 08:18:18 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2005 : 09:52:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations:
Peace be unto the house.
“Therefore any court but common law…is clearly the wrong forum and there can be no arraignment - "I am entering a plea of 'not guilty' for you..."”
'not guilty' = 'I find no fault in this man.'
Say, "Thou sayest it; thank you", turn around, and leave. I believe, their JUDGE has just declared you ‘not guilty’.
Who says the blind cannot be made to see.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Excellent use of testimony. Just make sure you refuse for cause the notice of the next (pretrial readiness) hearing.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2005 : 12:18:16
|
Hello David,
If you look at "THE LAW OF TRUSTS" by Austin Wakeman Scott, it says that when the beneficiary and the trustee become one and the same, the trust disolves and disappears.
Now, consider that in light of the pieces I have told you about in my court case, and maybe, just maybe a new light will shine in your thinking.
Peace,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2005 : 17:39:12
|
Yes indeed - alter ego. That is my reservation.
I am only trying to fit the speaker's views into that kind of reality. HJR-192 as a bonding to stave off the law for example. That is when the people (beneficiaries) of government trust became chattel. With the growing account deficit and growing enforcement capabilities to collect - Mainland China, one has to consider that government sold the beneficiaries up the river.
The man, Kevin of the Hines family understands true name and uses it for the trustee - the flesh and blood man. Also he never seems to be claiming to be the beneficiary directly. The SSA contract is treated like an insurance policy in the indenture. Otherwise he is using the new indenture to control the venue and jurisdiction only.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. To offer a better explanation Lewis; the indenture does not attempt to collect on anything but Social Security Benefits in the traditional sense as an insurance policy (premiums). For which of course the man has already invested 40+ quarters of payments. However the trust does take over title to everything ever generated in the trust name. But it still allows the South Korean, Chinese and Japanese banker/investors to generate all that capital floating bonds and securities on the trust as chattel. Kevin says, "What do I care. I just take the title from the fired trustees and all their subordinate agents." (paraphrased from memory)
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Dec 2005 10:34:09 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2005 : 15:01:12
|
David,
I seem to be missing this Kevin of the Hines family discussion on trusts. Where is that thread located?
Regards,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2005 : 15:54:40
|
It seems he lectures now and again but is not an Internet presence. I may grab a couple snippets video and link them in a day or two. I will check to see but he does not seem to consider the material proprietary or copyrighted. He just warns that it should not be considered legal advice from an attorney practicing law.
I think you must register, maybe even buy a subscription but I found his material indexed:
http://www.conspiracycentral.net:6969/index.html?search=kevin+hines
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 24 Dec 2005 15:56:37 |
|
|
|
artsfree
Regular Member
Australia
38 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2005 : 05:12:14
|
| I am not a "resident" ( a thing unmoving ) and neither am I a person (legal fiction) but I am a living flesh and blood creation of my creator and I was created in his image. At the age of zero I was not capable of undertaking any part in a legal contract. I declare all who say that I did to be illogical in law. Of the ten great Maxims of Law the Maxim of truth is paramount. Although deceit is legally practiced in "Courts" it is not truth. In Australia today children are being encouraged to get a "tax file number". How can a child enter a legally binding contract? Accept the facts that all law today comes from the "barrel of a gun"or by force in other words. No taxfile number =no job. So coertion is used(force) get one or no work. It is clear to all the judiciary that these are illegal actions. They dont need you or I to tell them what they already know. We can use their systems against them and confound them but you will find that there will be no record of your success and the court documents will vanish from the face of the earth. It "never" happened.In conversation with Prince Leonard of Hutt River Province in Australia (the first of many legal breakaway states in Australia)he informed me that they left the courthouse that night and on the following day everything had "vanished" and that was the end of the matter. All documents and actions were "gone". Another recent case I attended where this man had beaten the Tax Office to a standstill that they walked away only to resurrect it 3 years later. (must be a newbe in the job who thought he could succeed where others couldnt)As an act done by me against my will is not my act how is any of this stuff legal?..It's not. It comes from coertion, force and intimidation in a legal system that is not ours. A system of slavery enforced upon all living humans of sovereign birth. The Tax Office only knows what you tell it. Stop telling them your business. Likewise others also but remember that they have the guns and the force. Dont use confrontation but when attacked , if you are honest in your endeavours, they will shake in your presence. You will "own" your space. I recently had occasion to be arrested whilst going about my lawful business. I stated "What you have done is illegal! I am a loyal Australian and obey strictly the Laws of this Country(the real laws that is)and it is a disgrace for such as myself to be arrested in going about my lawful business" The constable taking hold of the handcuffs I was in was shaking. The young constables were all nervous and felt distressed at the events occurring. There is more to the story but suffice it to say I never raised my voice and reassured them that I would not hurt them. But the "shroud" of power that descended upon me in my righteous actions( I cant find other words to describe it. An inner peace of correctness and kindness)was more powerful than 10 policemen and women. I walked out of that station without any paperwork whatsoever. I doubt if anything will come of it. I take no credit for my withstanding the situation. My creator placed me within his power and they couldn't withstand it. They literally physically shook. I have never seen that before. The power of our creator in action is a wonder to behold. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2005 : 05:30:06
|
| Yes. Unenlightened people quake around it, that shroud of power. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Dec 2005 05:49:36 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2005 : 09:33:54
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
Though 99.9 percent of us are born to people in bondage we do not actually become the Beast System's bondservants until, using the chattel number we were issued at an early age, we covetously, though in most cases ignorantly, apply for benefits; "...they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors". It is at the age of consent that we volunteer to be adopted by the Father, the parens patriae called STATE by asking IT for privileges or benefits. "Father, I pray you, may I please DRIVE a MOTOR VEHICLE?", for many of us, may very well may be our first prayer to the godfather called STATE.
Did anyone here know that a godfather is "...under an indispensable obligation to instruct the child and watch over his conduct"? Does compulsory education by the STATE come to mind here? Tell us that the two and one half million so-called 'laws' of the Father called STATE, wouldn't serve to govern the conduct of ITS godchildren!!
Paul was simply astounded at the sheer ignorance he encountered: "Know ye not (You don't know?), that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey..." That same ignorance, that same lack of knowledge, prevails today, most us not even realizing that we are in bondage..."We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?"; how blind is that, for cryin' out loud? And most of us who are finally just opening our eyes, can't truly figure out how we got into this predicament.
PREDIC'AMENT, n. [L. proedicamentum, from proedico, to affirm.] 2. Class or kind described by any definite marks; hence, condition; particular situation or state.
"Described by any definite marks"!! Well, go figure!
Yahuwah tells us, indirectly, what kind of mark...
"...that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark [G5480], or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
G5480 charagma ...a badge of servitude
Well, duh, your govenment doesn't beg you for benefits and privileges, now does it, it provides benefits and privileges (or so it appears)!! Does the servant issue benefits and privileges to the master, or does the master issue benefits and privileges to the servant?
What charagma is one asked for in the place called UNITED STATES or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA when he or she prays for benefits and privileges from their master the STATE? Now we're back onto the subject of this thread, aren't we!?!? They ask you for your badge of servitude, just like they did back in Rome!! Go ahead try to tell me that the ss number is not the chattel number required to receive benefits and privileges from the Beast! One would have to have their baseball cap on backward to not see this!! Do you need FRN's to apply for the "dainties" that the gubbermint serves up? Of course not!! Put a knife to your throat if you are covetous and desirous of ITS "dainties" (benefits and privileges)!! Why? because the price you must pay is abject servitude!! You must work to pay for your masters generosity!! Generosity?!? Would we be being "generous" if we gave a portion of David's hire to Art? Of course not!! That's ridiculous!!
In a nutshell, it is our very own covetous, slothful nature that plunders our neigbours while they prey upon us; that is what put us in the predicament we are in and nothing else!
Let's play "church", that should solve all our problems!!
This is a great place to vent our frustration, is it not?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 26 Dec 2005 10:12:21 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2005 : 13:40:52
|
Hello oneisraelite,
I totally agree with this: quote:
Though 99.9 percent of us are born to people in bondage we do not actually become the Beast System's bondservants until, using the chattel number we were issued at an early age, we covetously, though in most cases ignorantly, apply for benefits; "...they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors". It is at the age of consent that we volunteer to be adopted by the Father, the parens patriae called STATE by asking IT for privileges or benefits. "Father, I pray you, may I please DRIVE a MOTOR VEHICLE?", for many of us, may very well may be our first prayer to the godfather called STATE.
But, let us not forget the ignorance of the parents. Was it not they who willingly gave up their child to the godfather, when they gave the child's name to the STATE so that the STATE could issue a BIRTH CERTIFICATE to use to create the trust which then gets an account number call a SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? Why did the parents give away some as precious as a name?
I know a couple who recently had a child born in a hospital. The hospital kept insisting that the couple provide a name to them for the male child, who had come into the world there. They refused to release the woman until a name was given so that the SS application could be filled out. As the couple started out of the hospital with their child, the police were called. The police allowed them to leave, but informed them that charges would be filed for violating such and such a law (which wasn't a law but only a code). And the couple informed the police back that would be fine and that they would file a lawsuit and criminal charges against both the police and the hospital for attempted theft of private property. That is were it stands at the moment.
Here are parents who have been granted sight to see, and have a stong enough will to act on what has been revealed to them. Why don't more parents act this way? Is it because as you say, they have been playing "church" all of their lives?
Just a few thoughts.
Peace,
Lewis-Vincent |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2005 : 13:28:54
|
Greetings and salutations my brother:
Peace be unto the house.
We thank you for your kind and thoughtful response.
You wrote: But, let us not forget the ignorance of the parents. Was it not they who willingly gave up their child to the godfather, when they gave the child's name to the STATE so that the STATE could issue a BIRTH CERTIFICATE to use to create the trust which then gets an account number call a SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? Why did the parents give away some as precious as a name?
We respond: Although I also agree with you, for how long, and at what age, do we stop using the excuse; "it's somebody else's fault." When I first discovered that I had been lied to for my whole life, up to that point, by virtually everyone I had known, I was very angry at the world. Then one day I spied the slothful, covetous man who was truly responsible...and of all places, in a mirror...it was me! Sooner or later, my brother, we must accept responsibility for our actions or what the STATE says about us is true.
...and showing mercy unto thousands of THEM who love Me and keep My Commandments.
Just a few more thoughts sent to you in the love of the Messiah.
your brother in the anointing,
Robert: of the house of Yisra'el
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 28 Dec 2005 13:32:54 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2005 : 21:41:31
|
Greeting dear brother Robert,
I completely agree with your response. I am merely pointing out a symptom called the "looking glass effect". If you don't know the story, it was a dark and foggy night, one in which drivers could barely see the road, and one where each driver was carefully following the bare red glow of the taillights of the car ahead. At some point in time, the wife asks, "I wonder why all these people are going to Looking Glass"? (the name of a town) At this point in time the husband realized his mistake and took the exit for Portland, their intended destination.
This is where we are today. We have blindly followed our parents to Looking Glass, when we really wanted to go to Portland. Yes, it is our responsibility, but it is they who started us down the wrong foggy road, following the other person's (intention use of word) taillights. Yes, at some point we are responsible for failing to read the road-signs, but it sure would have helped if they had stuck a little closer to the Word.
Peace to unto you and yours,
Lewis |
Edited by - Lewish on 28 Dec 2005 21:42:27 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2005 : 05:32:01
|
Greetings brother Lewis:
Peace be unto the house.
We are in agreement on this issue, we perceive. Here's a little something on the name Allalimya Takanin, translated Looking Glass.
Looking Glass
Allalimya Takanin
(c.1832-1877)
Looking Glass [Allalimya Takanin] was the war chief who, along with Chief Joseph, directed the 1877 Nez Percé retreat from eastern Oregon into Montana and on toward the Canadian border. The son of a prominent Nez Percé chief, Looking Glass was born around 1832 in what is now western Montana. Although he bitterly resented white encroachments on his ancestral lands, he opposed going to war with the United States over its plans to force his people onto the small reservation assigned to them at Lapwai, Idaho.
When the Nez Percé and the U.S. Army first clashed at Whitebird Canyon on June 17, 1877, Looking Glass was already living on the Lapwai reservation, as he had agreed to do. Nevertheless, General Oliver Howard believed that Looking Glass would soon join the fighting, and he sent a detachment of troops to arrest him. Howard's plans backfired, however, for Looking Glass eluded arrest and fled the reservation to join Joseph and his fugitive band just as Howard had feared.
For both better and worse, the Nez Percé flight bore the mark of Looking Glass's leadership. A respected battlefield commander, he convinced the band to flee to Montana, despite Joseph's opposition, and then persuaded them to stop at Big Hole, where he incorrectly believed they would be free from attack. After soldiers under the command of Colonel John Gibbon surprised the Nez Percé there on August 9, inflicting heavy casualties, Looking Glass lost much of his prestige as a military leader.
Nearly two months later, when the Nez Percé were finally surrounded by Colonel Nelson A. Miles's troops in Northern Montana's Bearpaw mountains, Looking Glass remained stubbornly opposed to surrender. By this time, however, Chief Joseph had concluded that surrender was the only viable option, and on October 5, he rode out to hand over his rifle. That same day, Looking Glass set out to join Sitting Bull's band in Canada, but before he could make it to the border, he was killed by a Cheyenne scout.
"Looking Glass remained stubbornly opposed to surrender." Maybe that was why all those people were going to Looking Glass. 
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 29 Dec 2005 05:59:30 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
No Social Security Number??
