Commerce, Not Law: UCC Courts Opperating Under Maritime Admiralty Law

My position on going to court has always been: never voluntarily go to court. Live men and women are not meant to be in any place designed solely for the business of fictional entities. When we attend court, we are deemed dead, in fact, they cannot deal with us until we admit to being dead…. a legal fiction ….a trust. Court is for titled persons: judge, prosecutor, defendant, bailiffs, cops, and attorneys. Live men and women are not recognized, so it makes sense to send in a dead person––an attorney––to handle our cases …. except for one thing: they do not know how the system works, due to their indoctrination.


Since common law courts no longer exist, we know that the case never has anything to do with “facts” or live men and women and so, anyone who testifies (talks about the facts of the case) is doomed. ALL courts operate in trust law, based upon ecclesiastical canon law–– ritualism, superstition, satanism, etc.––which manifests as insidious, commercial law and we are in court to take the hit, if they can get us to do so. They use every trick in the book––intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses, in order to change the jurisdiction, when they know they are losing, in order to make us admit that we are the name of the trust. When we do so, we are deemed to be the trustee––the one liable for administering the trust.


So, as the case is NOT about “justice”, it must be about administering a trust. They all represent the trust owned by the state and, if we are acting as beneficiary, the only two positions left are Trustee and Executor. So, if you detect a judge’s partiality, although I doubt the case will get this far, you might just want to let them know that you know this.


Since state employees want to be the beneficiaries of the trust, the only way they can do so is to transfer, to us, the liability which they hold, as trustees and executors, because they also cannot be both the administrators and beneficiary of the trust.


When we were born, a trust, called a Cestui Que Vie Trust (“CQV”) was set-up, for our benefit. Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what is the value which must be conveyed to the trust, in order to create it? It was our right to property (via Birth into this world), our body (via the Live Birth Record), and our souls (via Baptism). Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee…. the one that administers the trust. Since they, also, wanted to be beneficiary of this trust, they had to come up with ways to get us, as beneficiary, to authorize their charging the trust, allegedly, for our benefit (via our signature on a document: citation, application, etc.), and then, temporarily transfer trusteeship, to us, during the brief time that they want to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust.



the only way, under trust law, for them to be able to charge the trust is to get the authorization from the beneficiary––us, and the only way for them to benefit from their charge is to get us to switch roles––from beneficiary to trustee (the one responsible for the accounting), and for them to switch their role––from trustee to beneficiary because no party can be both, at the same time, i.e.: within the same constructive trust. They must somehow trick us into accepting the role of trustee. Why would we do so when the trust is for our benefit? …. and how do they manage to do this?


Well, the best way is to get us into court and trick us into unwittingly doing so.



So s/he appoints the judge as trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor as executor of the trust. The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it was s/he who brought the case into court (created the constructive trust) on behalf of the state/province which charged the CQV trust. Only an executor/prosecutor can initiate/create a constructive trust and we all know the maxim of law: Whoever creates the controversy holds the liability and whoever holds the liability must provide the remedy. This is why all attorneys are mandated to bring their cheque-books to court because if it all goes wrong for them…. meaning either they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant, or the alleged defendant does not accept their offer of liability, then someone has to credit the trust account in order to off-set the debt. Since the prosecutor is the one who issues bogus paper and charges the trust, it is the Prosecutor/Executor (“PE”) who is in the hot-seat.


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?”



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.



Because the JAT is the trustee––a precarious position, the best thing to say, in that case, is “JOHN DOE is, indeed, in the court!” Point to the JAT. “It is YOU! As trustee, YOU are JOHN DOE, today, aren’t you?!”



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?”



Then point to the JAT: “So you are the trustee”, then point to the prosecutor, “and you are the executor? And I’m acting as beneficiary, so, now we know who’s who and, 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. You have committed fraud against all laws!”



Likely, we will not get that far before the JAT will order “Case dismissed” or, even more likely, the PE, as he clings tightly to his cheque-book, will call, “We withdraw the charges”.



We have exposed their fraud of the CQV trust which exists only on presumptions. The CQV has no corpus, no property, ergo, no value. Trusts are created only upon the conveyance of property and can exist only as long as there is value in the trust. But, there is no value in the CQV trust, yet, they continue to charge the trust. That is fraud! (Consideration my friends)



If we claim our body, then we collapse the presumption that the trust has value.



Our having exposed their fraud gives them only three options:



1. They can dissolve the CQV trust––the one for which the clerk of the court is trustee and from which s/he created a constructive trust––the case––for which s/he appointed the judge and prosecutor titles which hold temporary liability––trustee and executor, respectively. But they cannot dissolve the CQV or the entire global system will collapse because they cannot exist without our energy which they obtain via that CQV trust, not to mention that they do not want to do the accounting and disperse the funds to the beneficiary––us. We must challenge and resolve this on our own behalf, as “the system” is not prepared to do so.



2. They can enforce the existing rules of trust law which means, as trustee, they can set-off their debt and leave us alone. Now they know that we are onto their fraud and every time they go into court to administer a trust account, they will not know if we are the one who will send them to jail. The trustee (judge) is the liable party who will go to jail, and the executor (prosecutor) is the one who enforces this. This is why they want us to take on both titles, because then, not only do we go to jail but also, by signing their paper, we become executor and enforce our own sentence. They cannot afford to violate the ecclesiastical canon laws, out of fear of ending their careers, so they are, again, trapped with no place to run.



3. They can dismiss the cases before they even take the risk of our exposing their fraud …. which also makes no sense because then their careers, again, come to a screeching halt.



What’s a court clerk to do!? Pretty soon, none of these thugs will take any cases because the risk is too great. This will be the end of the court system. ‘Bout bloody time, eh?

Clouds submerge...
Tickle tree tops.
Dickory dock dew drops
dribble down peat moss.

Birds tweet, crickets creak.
Heat permeates...
amidst the mist-full abysmal guise.
Shines uninvited.

sunlight hits all angles imaginable.
Rays refract... Fractals expose.
Half the whole flowers grow lotus type.
folk alike, posing like posts...

Stand strong... Zhan zhong...
Time spent in alignment.
Meridians siphon,
chi, heavenly vibrant.

Julian Assange: Is He and Forbes Credible? (WikiLeaks)

The latest news coming from WikiLeaks involves its CEO, Julian Assange, andForbes magazine that lends Assange credibility. He states in his interview withForbes that WikiLeaks will soon release tens of thousands of documents from a major U.S. financial firm in early 2011. Assange wouldn't say exactly what date, what bank, or what documents, but he compared the coming release to the emails that emerged in the Enron trial, that provided a comprehensive look at a corporation's crimes.



"It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume," he told Forbes.



Forbes, you may recall from previous Horowitz and Kane articles, employed David Rockefeller's ally, Benjamin Fulford. This Canadian propagandist, working in Japan, forged the last writing of Rockefeller nemesis, Christopher Story (a.k.a., Edward Harle). Fulford threatened journalist Story's death according to Story, the world's leading financial industry whistleblower. Story was murdered last July. Then Fulford, collaborating with CIA agent-provocateur, Greg Szmansky (a.k.a., Eric Samuelson), attached a forged "Knights of Malta" list to Story's last article, libeling Dr. Horowitz in the process, and implicating him in Story's murder.



In the Forbes interview, Assange was asked, "So do you have very high impact corporate stuff to release then?" Assange replied, "Yes, but maybe not as high impact, I mean, it could take down a bank or two."



There is talk that Bank of America, whose stock dropped more than 3% last week, may be one of the financial institutions that WikiLeaks is referencing, because In an October, 2009, interview with Computer World , Assange said, "At the moment, for example, we are sitting on five gigabytes from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives," he said. "Now how do we present that? It's a difficult problem. We could just dump it all into one giant Zip file, but we know for a fact that has limited impact. To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it."



Assange the Fugitive or Instrument of the Hegelian Dialectic?



Assange, we are told, is currently a fugitive, wanted by Interpol, allegedly for two sex crimes against women. In one case, he was reluctant to wear a condom during consensual sex.



The "fugitive" label now given to Assange works best for the Hegelian dialectic--the main method of mind-manipulation--challenging newsmakers' and whistleblowers' credibility,generating mass confusion.



This Hegelian, "mix-it-all-up," strategy evidences a CIA-COINTELPRO double agency: Assange, supposedly working for the good guys, appears discredited, yet assigned to operate as controlled opposition, a news maker that takes the heat of condemnation, a general distraction, only to be cleared later of wrongdoing in weakly evidenced cases.



Assange describes himself as an "information activist." He says, "The fundamental human struggle is between individuals and powerful institutions."



Increasingly, legitimate activists think Assange is "controlled opposition"--a shill for the "powerful institutions" he indicts. The bad guys have names that Assange neglects to mention.



Surely the gravity of America's economic collapse is sufficient to warrantForbes's and Assange's full disclosure. Failure to do so is treasonous and genocidal given millions of lives are risked by their censorship and conducting their "business a usual."



Many people now see Assange as a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Thierry Meyssan, who made himself an enemy of the U.S. by declaring in his book that 9/11 was orchestrated by George Bush, is one of many activists that may have once supported Assange. His mind, along with many others, changed when Assange disparaged the 9/11 Truth Movement. Assange reported, "I am constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."



Real conspiracies for war? What the heck was 9/11? Follow the money from the Partnership for New York City's profits and losses from 9/11 to Las Vegas's latest attraction called the "City Center." There's your "smoking gun." The equity investors' in "City Center" feature the 9/11 Memorial--two leaning Veer Towers--sufficient to indict Assange, Larry Silverstein, David Rockefeller, Rupert Murdoch, and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, for treason and mass murder.



Let's pin the tale on the right donkey. Meyssan has denounced Assange as being part of the American government "political diversion." But the first "diversion" is thinking the American government, not the Rockefeller and Rothschild League of Bankers, is the root cause of chaos benefitting the NWO.



Assange, Ellsberg and Rand Corporation Propaganda



Now here's a shocker--history is repeating from the pre-WikiLeaks era. . . .



Assange is being promoted, and endorsed, by Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon papers that, like Assange's leaks, neglected Rockefeller family and CIA involvements in the profitable Vietnam War.



Ellsberg was employed by the Rand Corporation, a major propaganda contractor for the military investment community, especially the Illuminati.



Today, Ellsberg and Assange are heavily involved in public persuasion and distraction, strongly suggesting Rand Corporation's involvements in engineering this publicity campaign that could bring down the banks.



In 1971, Ellsberg generated worldwide attention by releasing copies of the 7000-page top-secret Pentagon document on the Vietnam War. He is a master in economics and developed the "decision theory," now known as the "Ellsberg Paradox," related to "game theory, " used in war making decisions. With his intelligence background, and globalist connections, there is little doubt Ellsberg and Assange are hiding more than they're telling about their bosses' NWO plans.



Assange's squealing in the media, in harmony with Ellsberg, foreshadowing social unrest, martial law, and foreign and domestic military operations, is obviously self-incriminating in lieu of Ellsberg's connections and endorsements of Assange.



In counterintelligence operations, two agents are better than one, especially when mutual admiration among "controlled-opposition leaders" leads to mass persuasion and deadly profitable distractions.