Trusts in Court?

[ArturoDekko]

Here is an interesting compilation regarding trusts: http://goldring.wetpaint.com/page/Court%3A+Who%27s+Who+and+What+to+Say

Just a snippet here:

"When the Name (of the trust), e.g.: JOHN DOE, is called by the Judge aka Administrator aka Trustee ("JAT"), we can stand and ask, "For and on the record, are you saying that the trust which you are now administrating is the JOHN DOE trust?" This establishes that we know that the Name is a trust, not a live man. What’s the JAT’s first question? "What’s your name?" or "State your name for the record". We must be very careful not to identify with the name of the trust because doing so makes us the trustee. What does this tell you about the judge? If we know that the judge is the trustee, then we also know that the judge is the Name, but only for this particular, constructive trust. Now, think about all the times that JATs have become so frustrated by our refusal to admit to being the Name that they issue a warrant and then, as soon as the man leaves, he is arrested. How idiotic is that? They must feel foolish for saying, "John Doe is not in court so I’m issuing a warrant for his arrest" and then, the man whom they just admitted is NOT there is arrested because he IS there. Their desperation makes them insane, so they project that insanity onto us and order US to get psychological evaluations for THEIR insanity!!!) This is when we can ask, "By that order, are you suggesting that you do not know what I’m talking about? Are you admitting to your incompetence? Shall we get someone in here who DOES know what I’m talking about?" They must get us to admit to being the name, or they pay, and we must not accept their coercion, or we pay. Because the JAT is the trustee––a precarious position, we might need to say, in that case, "JOHN DOE is, indeed, in the court! With respect, are you not acting as trustee for this case? Is the prosecutor acting as executor?" We must remain polite and respectful, otherwise we just end up sinking to their level.


During their frustration over our not admitting to being a trust name––the trustee and/or executor of the trust, we ought to ask who they are. "Before we go any further, I need to know who YOU are." Address the clerk of the court––the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state/province, "Are you the CQV’s trustee who has appointed this judge as administrator and trustee of the constructive trust case #12345? Did you also appoint the prosecutor as executor of this constructive trust?" As I’m acting as beneficiary, I authorize you to handle the accounting and dissolve this constructive trust. I now claim my body so I am collapsing the CQV trust which you have charged, as there is no value in it." Likely, this will dismiss the case or, even more likely, the PE, as he clings tightly to his cheque-book, will call, "We withdraw the charges"."

What do you think?

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

What do you think?

to which part?

[ArturoDekko]

Challenging a judge and plaintiff to identify the trust and accept their responsibility

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

I would say it's like walking in to the lion's den armed with a single lion's tooth..: in this country the judge will not publicly humour this.

[retlaw]

of coarse it could work if done correctly,

you don't even have to go to the court case to do it,

send it off to the crown prosecutor before a summons is even written, notice the chief judge of it,

if the system knows before they even create the summons to appear they know it is not business as usual and they are going to waste time on the money making machine,

if they still do create a summons to appear after being noticed then an abatement would fit right in for you to not appear in their courts, lawful excuse,

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

of course it could work if done correctly?.....isn't that like saying a pig 'could fly if it had wings.

Are you speaking from experience or from 22 Guessland street on the island of hope?

[retlaw]

of course it could work if done correctly?.....isn't that like saying a pig 'could fly if it had wings.

Are you speaking from experience or from 22 Guessland street on the island of hope?

how the hell did you become a moderator?

[jobsaboba]

Do you recognise the court as having any power over you at all ?........ answer NO
Do you recognise any other being having power over you at all?......... answer NO
Do you recognise the creator as the only thing you answer to ?.......... answer YES

Fuck em all lol.........

True Freedom ......... The rest is Fear

Regards

Jobs

[the_common_law_reverend_kenny]

of course it could work if done correctly?.....isn't that like saying a pig 'could fly if it had wings.

Are you speaking from experience or from 22 Guessland street on the island of hope?

how the hell did you become a moderator?

How I became a Mod is not the question. If I seem harsh it is because I have seen people lose houses ( my family has lost two) because they go in to court expecting success using half baked theories that just will not work. ( and they lack the real comprehension of 'trusts'.) If someone goes in court like that they will be taken down by tptb.

So if you can say 'of course it could work if done correctly?' back it up with a little real life examples, but there is no back up in this case...is there????. So let me apologise for my comment because It wasn't an attack on you (retlaw), it was a statement about the flawed logic that has surfaced here on this thread (from you).

I agree with Jobs.

[jobsaboba]

This might explain it a little better.....

Everything the court, judge, and jury knows, is based on what they understand and believe at this moment in time.
You may pitch up with a different viewpoint, and to all intents and purposes, your understanding may well be greater than theirs at that moment in time, BUT you will not win.... YET !

Heres why,

imagine that you were a fish that lived in water, you only ever knew water, you had no experience of air.
another fish swims up to you and says, hey if you swim directly upwards, you will experience a new place where water doesnt exsist !

As you swim up you experience the light getting brighter, you are getting out of your comfort zone, and you turn back, but the experience remains, and you wonder whether it really is true.

Again you swim up just a little bit further, the light is brighter now, and fear kicks in, and you again turn back.

eventually you decide that there must be a better thing than water so you go for it, up you swim, the light gets brighter and brighter till....whooosh you experience a whole new exsistence, but only for a second, and you return to the water.

After you have done this a few times it holds no fear for you and you do it regularly.

Now for those who live in the fear of the air and dont swim upwards theres a little problem occuring that niether they or the ones that do swim into the air have yet to experiece.......

The sun is drying out the pond and the water is evaporating and the light is getting brighter.

Soon there will be no fish for water will be gone....

the fish have become birds !!

You have understood the concept of soveriegnty, but not all are ready yet.... But heres the thing, as life gets harder across the globe people are letting go the fear in so many different ways, be it fighting back, giving up,asking questions they never dared to ask e.t.c.

everything is in a state of change, and we are lucky enough to be able to experience these times.

You cannot tell anyone else, the best you can do is live your life according to your beliefs and principles, and be there for them when they ask.

You dont need a badge or a certificate, and anyway who would you show it to ?

conciousness itself is evolving....and so are you and everything

Be patient.....the times a comin

Jobs