The purpose of this brief is to give the reader a clearer understanding of the nature of their relationship with the UNITED STATES, Inc. (US, Inc.; or any corporate entity listed in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America).
This brief focuses on what is done both prior and immediately after our nativity arrival (separation from host expressing life in a new entity). Make no mistake, it is done solely for profit. It is all about the money, control and power over ‘the man’.
While we are whole, private, sentient beings when we arrive on this planet Earth, there are forces that anxiously await our arrival for a very specific purpose that takes a very different view as to who we are.
Upon our nativity arrival we were pure, innocent and ‘men of the land’. However, when delivered at the hospital, they forbade your departure with your private distinctions legally intact. The hospital (as well as birthing centres and mid-wives) is under obligation by contract (license/statute) to record and report all new arrivals (babies) – whether still-born or healthy – to the government.
Why is this so? On the surface it is easily believed it is simply to keep track of the population and for purposes of well-being for the baby. Beneath, the reason is not as simple. It is in this ‘transition period’ where things get murky and complicated as actions are taken and paperwork executed that transforms us into a ledger item in an accounting equation for monetary gain by the informant’s recipient. Specifically, Treasury Order 136-01 created the Bureau of the Fiscal Service(1), consolidating the operations of the Bureau of the Public Debt and the Financial Management Service.
Q: Now why would the Bureau of Public Debt be interested in a new born?
A: The government is inherently interested in our arrival as United States Citizens have been collateralized as an asset backing the Corporate Government (US, Inc.) debt based upon each individual’s potential labour. This allowed the government to come out of its 1929 BK reorganization in 1933(2).
Great scheme, New Deal (?) - if you can pull it off. To do so, the Government needs us to volunteer to be the liable party for the collateral. The issue became, ‘how to entangle/retain this new life?’ How do we take a ‘man of the land’ subject to natural law/private equity and encumber this entity into the legal world of Maritime/Admiralty law and monetize his future labour potential? Trusts were the answer to their dilemma.
This is where it starts to become rather insidious.
When you look at your Certificate of Live Birth (aka: Birth Certificate), you will see a line where your mother (most likely her) signed. Did she sign as your mother? No, she didn’t. She signed as “Informant”. (3)
Admittedly, this is rather bizarre; what was your mother doing acting as an informant on her new born child? Further, what had the child done to be accosted and accused of some wrong? Let us leave this unanswered for the moment and move on to what happens next.
Your mother is presented with government forms and asked if she wishes to obtain a Social Security Number for her new born child. As she has been indoctrinated that everyone is required to have such a number to work and receive benefits, she complies and happily fills out and signs the US Treasury SS-5 Form(4). Unbeknownst to her, she has just enslaved and indebted her child within ‘the system’.
This is how they remove you from your natural right/existence as a free man of the land and ‘place you at sea’, but how does the government set this all up?
As previously stated, it is done with trusts. A Trust is a specific performance contract containing trustor, executor, trustee, beneficiary and res (at a minimum). As it turns out there are several trusts involved with this process. The first of which is the ‘naked trust’:
Naked trust(5) - when a child is born and an entry is made on the hospital record as to his/her existence - prior to a name being applied to the child. A non-specific statutory trust waiting to be identified. It is just a creation without title or name. It is in fact an Unincorporated Association (UA)(6); not a creation owned and operated by the government nor subject to government codifications or laws. This is an entity truly ordained by God and to exist by God’s rules. The trustee or director of the UA – whether existent or not, or implied or not(7) – has no legal obligation to execute anything on behalf of the trust – there is nothing on behalf of the Trust to execute. The trust is simply a ‘place holder’ similar to a “0” in the numerical system until the child is identified (aka: a name is given).
As there is an expectation that the child will be named, the Naked Trust ‘just exists’ waiting for the naming to take place and the Certificate of Live Birth to be executed. The child is still a pure ‘man of the land’, in rem(8). Thus, he falls under Ecclesiastical law which can only give remedy, not restitution. There is no value; ‘In rem’ holds no commercial value.(9) Whereas Chancery Equity gives remedy to living things (private beings) (10), again, with no commercial or monetary value.
It is not unTil the Certificate of Live Birth, filled out by the hospital as a third party witness to the existence of the child, complete with child’s name, is then available to be placed as rem into the still private statutory equity Dry trust. Please note, that both statutory trusts and business trusts are not required to have an “Inc.”, or “trust” or “corp.” after the name.(11) Hence, the use of JOHN HENRY DOE (without Trust or Inc., etc.…)
Dry trust(12) – This is aptly also referred to as the ‘transition trust’. The child is not the trust. The child has an Estate and is the Estate(13) which is in rem. The Dry trust is created as the transition interface with the public commercial world. The trust name, which mirrors the child’s given name, is recognized in the commercial world as a ‘legal person’(14).
“A ‘citizen of the United States’ is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and cobeneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of the US, Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US, Inc. in section 4.”(15)
Do not commingle the two names of the child. “For there is no respect of persons with God” (16) Commingle is defined by Blacks 5th Ed., p246, “To put together in one mass.” In this context it refers specifically to making distinct the private man from the public entity.
The child, now with name yet still no commercial value, is still a ‘man on the land’. Once the informant (aka: mother who is also the original grantor/trustor for both the Naked as well as the Dry trusts) gives the newborn an ‘official name’, the process to transform him into a commercial entity can now be initiated.
This is analogous to being ‘launched’ into commercial activity – the informant is unknowingly abandoning the child to the sea (maritime jurisdiction) – who then is delegated to being a ward of the court via the Trustor’s ‘complaint’. The signed Certificate of Live Birth is the catalyst. This Certificate is the informant’s affidavit (sworn statement) and testimony to a 'false' “…accusation against another whom he suspects of the violation of some [unknown] penal statute.”(17) Thus, the transition from a private man of the land to a commercial vessel ‘lost at sea’(18) is almost complete.
The Dry trust – which is also an Unincorporated Association (UA) – is the liaison between the private world of man and the public world of entities. The UA, by Rule of Necessity(18) (there is an inherent conflict of interest for a private entity to interact commercially with a public entity), interacts with the commercial world in a specific and limited fashion. Its sole purpose is to transfer the rem to the coffers of the private constructive trust*.
To complete this transition, the SS-5 form – making the formal complaint – is completed and executed by the informant (aka: trustor). Therefore, under the legalsystem (Maritime), the child (being a minor and now abandoned to the sea by their mother/informant/grantor/trustor) immediately becomes a ward of the court and a slave in the commercial system.
For the court to formally acknowledge/accept such a ward, the child must have a commercial Citizen persona as the court can only deal within their own jurisdiction which requires the ward to be a Citizen in commerce (res).(19) The court has no jurisdiction over foreign or alien people.(20) Commercial Citizenship has been completed by both the Certificate of Live Birth and the ‘request’ for a SSN via SS-5 form setting the stage for the rem (private man) to be transformed/transferred to the public, government created/controlled constructive trust.
All court, legal and government action is done exclusively amongst commercial entities.(21) All commercial entities engaging in accusatory action requesting injunctions require a liability bond.(22) This is in contrast to private equity where one’s word is one’s bond.(23)
Q: Why is a liability bond even required?
A: There is a false accusation, inferred in the Certificate of Live Birth affidavit, made under duress (without full disclosure), and because of that, the Court, in taking control of the child (trust/rem), is now engaged in human trafficking (slave trade24). Hence the requirement for a liability bond. As we all know, slavery has been banned by the United States in the 13th Amendment(25) and by International Treaty(26). With the transfer ofres and liability bonding in place, the next trust in play is the newly formed cestui que trust.
The problem of jurisdiction is also remedied with this transition as the law of cestui que tended to defer jurisdiction to courts of [Maritime] equity as opposed to common law [private Chancery equity] courts.(27)
Cestui que trust – this trust, which only is applicable to living human beings(28) (res – civilly not living thus being the mirror image of the private rem), is purportedly set up for the child’s commercial benefit. Like all trusts, it must contain value. The value contained is in the form of the res transferred from the Dry trust. This transference by the co-trustee (registrar, who took receipt of the Certificate of Live Birth and the SS-5 Form) confirms the acquiescence of the grantor (informant) passing the rem (private man without commercial value) to the public cestui que trust as res. Res carries commercial value. NOW there is a ‘legal person’ to whom commercial value may be applied.
This is a vital requirement enabling the government to monetize your future labor as collateral for the USA and US, Inc. debt as well as to hold the trustee/surety liable for any complaint against the Trust. The cestui que trust is now a publically recognized ‘private trust’, "for the benefit of a certain designated individual or individuals or a known person or class of persons, clearly identified or capable of identification by the terms of the instrument creating the trust."(29) This is from where the all caps JOHN HENRY DOE comes. This is the name of the cestui que trust.
OK, now, let’s go back and answer a question from earlier. When the mother is asked to sign as an informant acknowledging the life of her child (Certificate of Live Birth), a constructive trust* is then applied to her execution of the document. Furthermore, neither is she told the true purpose of the document, nor her position as Trustor, nor informed as to the true purpose of the SS-5 Form. This is called ‘failure to provide full disclosure’ and breeches any implied contract between her, the registrar and/or the government to whom the information is given. The failure to provide full disclosure is illegal. It is done to clandestinely subjugate and enslave the child. This is the purpose of the constructive trust.
*Constructive trust –
Constructive trusts are a species of trust that arise from the conduct of parties (covert INTENT) raised by equity for the purpose of working out right and justice, where there was no intention of the party to create a trust relationship. All instances of constructive trusts may be referred to what equity denotes as fraud, either actual or constructive, including acts or omissions in violation of fiduciary obligations.
Whenever a person, in a fiduciary capacity, breaches his trust and purchases property with trust funds and takes the title thereto in his own name, without any declaration of trust, a trust arises with respect to such property in favor of the cestui que trust or beneficiary. (30)
Here is where the entire breakdown starts: Uninformed consent is a fraud. The informant was not told of the purpose of the SS-5 Form other than it was an application for a Social Security Number... Think about it, what mother in her right mind would give/consent to slavery for her child – especially without compensation or benefit? To think she would do so is nonsensical. She needs to be deceived, tricked, have information withheld and be duped into consenting. This is both actual and constructive fraud with intent by the government.(31)
If the government wants to perpetuate such a scheme, so be it; however, if they wish to do so, they must provide an equitable remedy to either come out of the agreement or provide the benefits associated with being the beneficiary of the cestui que trust. Period. There are no other lawful – or legal – options available.
Instead, the child/adult is coerced, lied to and made to believe he is the trustee/surety liable for any and all commercial transgressions of the artificial commercial being created by the government.
The justification for this liability is the informants ‘complaint’ against the child and the subsequent adhesion contracts entered into unknowingly ‘receiving benefits and accepting rights’ extended to the slave (ie: Driver’s License, Registering to Vote, Library Card, Marriage License, Fishing License, etc…); any ‘privilege’ ‘given’ by the government. One is forever treated like the proverbial mushroom. This way the government can have their cake (monetize the living being) and eat it too (benefit from the perpetuated slavery and continued profits on their ‘investment’).
In law – especially private equity – but equity in general, when in contract (read: ‘trust’)the parties must also provide remedy(32) to end that trust relationship. In this case, ending the‘ward of the court, informant complaint’ registered by the mother.
Fortunately, there is remedy for this trust relationship. To do so takes understanding,knowledge, walking the talk and to be able to hold one’s ground when under fire dealing with a system that doesn’t want to let one go. Don’t forget, this is big money.
The child is the actual asset underlying the leveraged and derivatized monetization backing the corporate US, Inc. debt. Without said asset, everything that has been created on top of it becomes null and void – valueless. This would mean the collapse of the monetary system.
Using this basic understanding of ones value in the current system, it is clear that it is not advisable to ‘collapse the trust’ when expressing ones status and claiming ones rights as beneficiary of his estate/trust. Better to express a desire to work with the trustees and have them perform their trustee duties as originally and rightfully required.
One may initiate such a claim upon coming of age at 18 years. The claim process includes a Durable Power of Attorney, an Equitable Will and Testament, Public Notice of your return from the sea (restored status as a man of the land), and – as one is taking the position of Executor of the Estate which contains the cestui que trust – appointment of a trustee(s) to execute said trust for the benefit of the beneficiary (the man).
The documents must be Noticed to the proper agencies and the public officials in their private capacity within the private side of their office. Yes, each government official head wears more than one hat; this is part of the scheme. We are only told about the public side of the office and responsibility, but the fact remains that there is an even more powerful private capacity to their office, one that is well hidden and denied when asked about unless one proves oneself to be an actual ‘live man’. This is the purpose of the documentation/Notice that is required by the ‘man of age’.
“Equity will undo what fraud has done.”(33)
While the Authors fully believe the accuracy of the contents herein, we fully acknowledge the remedy is not listed here in its entirety. It is not the Authors intent the readers of this Brief take anything within as gospel, nor as legal advice, but to use this tool to research and educate oneself to find one’s own truth.
"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth, not going all the way, and not starting."
1. Treasury Order 136-01, Oct. 7, 2012 andwww.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsabout/fs_history.htm
2. HJR 192 as codified in USC Title 12, 95a, section 2 (A)(B) and for foreigners (C).
3. Blacks 5th Ed. p701, see ‘informer’
5. Blacks 5th Ed. p1355
6. CT General Assembly 2012, Sec. 34-501 (2);https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/sup/chap615.htm
7. Maxim, “A trust shall not fail for want of a trustee.”
8. Blacks 5th Ed. p713
9. Gibson’s, Suits in Chancery, 1907, Chapter 3, page 29, section 34, “equity acts specifically and not by way of compensation.” “…thus equity decrees specific performance of a contract instead of giving damages for its breach.” Ecclesiastical restitution not remedy – no commercial value to give remedy.
10. Gibson’s, Suits in Chancery, 1907, Chapter 3, page 29, section 35, “when the parties are disabled, the Chancery Court will act for them.” “Infants are disabled by both nature (can’t read, speak or comprehend) and by law (under the ‘age of majority’ – typically 18 years of age).” “Married women are disable by law alone.” [it is the law part of this that evokes the most disturbing aspect of the commentary, as when one is disabled by law, this means that there has been made complaint upon their commercial being.]
11. Statutory Trust Entity Act 2009, Art. 2, Sec. 207(a)(b)(c);
12. Blacks 5th Ed. p1355. *Note, authors note the synonymous claim regarding Naked and Dry Trusts, however the authors make claim that in fact there is a clear distinction between each.
13. Blacks 2nd Ed., p186, - Cestui que vie, “He whose life is the measure of the duration of an estate.”
15. 1967, Congressional Record, June 13, pp. 15641-15646
16. Romans Chapter II, verse 11, King James Bible V
17. See reference 3 above
18. Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, Chapter 11 18 and 19 Cha 2,
19. Bacon, Maxim: Latin “Illud, quod alias licitum non est, necessitas facit licitum; et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private.” Rule of Necessity: “That which is otherwise not permitted, necessity permits; and necessity makes a privilege as to private rights.” Blacks 2nd Ed., p602
20. “Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations…”
21. Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2006, Austen L. Parrish
22. See reference 20
23. Whomever makes a complaint that brings forth an action with the court is required by Maritime commercial law to post a liability bond should they be exposed for bringing forth a frivolous action to the court. The traditional requirement for a liability bond when in Federal Court is codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; should a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction be granted, the movant is required to post a bond that will reimburse the respondent for any harm done should it turn out that, after discovery or trial, when the facts of the case have been more fully uncovered, the injunction should not have been granted.
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/09/05/litigation-the-bond-requirement-forpreliminary- in Blacks 5th Ed. Page 163, Liability bond: “one which is intended to protect the assured for liability against damages.”
24. KJB, John: verse XVII, Chapter XVII, “Sanctify them through thy truth… thy word is truth.”
25. Blacks 5th Ed. p1245, Slave: “a person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and service are wholly under the control of another.”
28. Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, Chapter 11 18 and 19 Cha 2,
29. Gibson, Suits in Chancery 1907, p714, Section 925, “The trustee holds the direct and absolute dominion over the trust property, in the view of Courts at law; while, in the view of Courts of Equity, the trustee is a mere steward to hold, manage and account for the proceeds of, trust property for the exclusive benefit of the beneficiary.”
Blacks 5th Ed, p1353: Cestui que trust: “a person whose benefit a trust has been created or who will enjoy income or the avails of it. See Beneficiary.”
30. Blacks, 5th Ed. p1355, Private Trust.
31. 4 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, Sec. V, Constructive Trusts § 1044, p. 93 (5th Ed., Symons, 1941) Quoted from: 541 So.2d 618, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 931
32. Gibson, Suits in Chancery, 1907, page 36, Section 42, Maxim: “He who comes into equity, must come with clean hands.” This maxim declares that a complainant, who has been guilty of unconscientious conduct or bad faith, or has committed any wrong, in reference to a particular transaction, cannot have the aid of a Court of Equity in enforcing any alleged rights growing out of such transaction. Fraud with intent negates any standing in Equity.
33. Gibson, Suits in Chancery 1907, page 27, Section 33, Maxim: “Equity will not suffer a wrong without remedy.”
34. Gibson, Suits in Chancery 1907, page 42, Section 48Type your paragraph here.