[nicodemus]

“An infant is the decedent…that has yet to receive an SSN”.Just thinking out loud here… But if one goes to court and the court asserts you have received a SS Number, that means by their own assertion you are no longer a “lost”(decedent) infant, but are reappearing as one who reached the “age of majority” and as such can now set up your estate. Now, If one were to assign all the reversionary interest of the estate for protection of the host Nation, in effect making the Govt. the usufructary for the estate, would that not make the assignor the usufruct? And as an usufruct is subject to indemnification for its needs and maintenance ? Would such a set of circumstances free a person up to “do the will of the Father” ? simply by rendering to Caesar what is his?

[nicodemus]

The Republic will be in “abeyance” and suspended until the war effort is over with the people accepting the treaty that was offered. Lincoln made this clear in the liber code. Until someone can show me a presidential proclamation confirming the war effort over and the “usufruct” has been completed, All I will hear is blah blah blah and I will continue to see good people who are not seeing the big picture continue to get into trouble… The bible teaches to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The “NAME” is property of the Govt. which allows it to administrate the martial occupation. Just Let them have the usufructary with all the benefits and liabilities, all I am going to do is to replace the “surety” bond at the SS with a govt. obligation bond (B/C) and let them run the whole show for their property. In the meantime I am imdemnified of all debt.  It is similar to the offer God offers us, we pile our “sins” on the Christ and he takes it to the Father to be remembered no more. If I give up the claims to the worldly things and pile my debts on its version of “Christ” (NAME), the state will take them to the Father (Wash. DC) and they will be remembered no more. (without recourse) 

[nicodemus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWXFtUcmUeE            This seems to be a peaceful path, I am studying his philosophy and cites… has anyone else looked at this ? if so, what say you ?  

[nicodemus]

I have reviewed what evidence was available and cannot find the smoking gun, the talkshoe #28 just briefly mentions Mr. Turner but doesn't address the issues described above. I have heard Mr. Turner say that the RAP was discontinued because some of the people involved with him had an agenda and ulterior motives and they parted ways. I noticed when he first began he was aggressive and made emotional statements,but since then has toned it down and is promoting forgiveness for the defacto criminals when their house of cards fall. I have not heard him speak on commercial redemption lately either. He, like we all, is not perfect, but I just don't see the evidence to start calling him names. Until then,I will assume he is a christian who is trying his best to help his country and it is going to take us all working together without fighting and being divided to restore America to the people and the Godly principles she was founded on. But I am more than happy to look at any evidence of deceit or wrong doing on the part of Mr. Turner.

[nicodemus]

I WILL read some more,… but I wasn't trying to prove the existence. If I am the holder of the original title and they are using it for commercial purposes with an attached number. Why couldn't the owner show up and use the law of trusts and contracts to either control, or demand compensation for, and/or terminate the authority for its use?… business is business 🙂 I was tricked into operating under the ALL CAP title when relating to the Govt. which puts me in the position of agent for govt., which in turn is an agent for Me, the holder of the original title. If I am a son(agent) of the King,why not act like it? God's word is full of covenants, contracts and laws. He is holder in due course of everything …including me and my name.

[nicodemus]

Bing,

I especially like suggestion #3,Media Savvy. I am somewhat new to this,But I have taken every opportunity when discussing certain issues on other social sites like Facebook etc. to post a link directly to a page on these sites to 1) point the “assumer” to the law and facts on a subject and 2) raise awareness of these sites in hopes they may return for more info. I agree that a more aggressive media program like you speak of would be of great benefit to the cause of freedom and knowledge. One thing I had to overcome when I first found this site was that I had to learn to mix Law with “Religion”, as I had always been taught that we were “under grace not law” by the church and was taught by the “State” that I couldn’t understand law and therefore needed a lawyer..

I also am aware of a general “mistrust” of not knowing who you are talking to on here and the possibility of being “found out” by the “gestapo”. I have read many of your posts and thank you kindly for your dedication and information. I also would like to send a “kudos” to the one identified as Admin.-female who is communicating in a more welcoming manner while sharing info. and makes me more inclined to speak up, even if it turns out to be unsubstantial compared to other posts. Thanks guys for this tremendously invaluable resource, one which will certainly become more acknowledged and required in the fight for freedom and truth in the near future……And yes,I agree that sometimes the “need to be right” interferes with open discussion

[nicodemus]

Thanks neo, I was studying on it today and imagining my own diagram in my head from the perspective of only what pertains to me and I think I'm getting it now. Finally !!…….

So my Place of birth (block three) in a state of the Union,sets my nationality status as an American national.per 8 USC §1101(a)(21)?

Then Citizenship (block 5) Legal alien allowed to work, sets my civil/domicile status as an alien per 8 USC §1101(a)(3)?

Where does the term non-citizen national come into play ?

[nicodemus]

I'm studying over the diagrams trying to understand non-citizen national v/s non citizen national of the US.

If I am understanding you correctly, the phrase in 8 USC 1452(:cool: which reads “A person who claims to be a (national, but not a citizen), of the United States…” should be interpreted instead as “A person who claims to be a (national),but not a (citizen,of the United States)…

Also in 8 USC 1408, should the title be read “(Nationals) but not (citizens of the United States) at birth” or “(Nationals but not citizens) of the United States at birth” ?

I am having trouble getting it.

I will read “why you are a national….” again before addressing anything else in this post.

Thanks

[nicodemus]

Quote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.// 14th amendment sec.1

If they are describing a citizen of US* or US**, according to this you would still be a state citizen also,but the state citizenship seems to be secondary here,with a reference to “reside”.

While looking up info for my state concerning the reconstruction acts,I came across some interesting quotes concerning the 14th amendment;

This was from James G. Blaine in “political discussions”1866 #64

Quote:

And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some one of the States : now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by denning in advance his National citizenship and our Amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

http://www.archive.o…espie00blairich

And in “20 years of Congress” page 303 he had this to say;

Quote:

“As the vicious theory of State-rights had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended that no standing-room for the heresy would be left.”

and later on page 312 he said;

Quote:

The first section of the Constitutional amendment(14) which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights, which constantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Republic; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain.

And Andrew Johnson in his Veto Address concerning the reconstruction acts on July,19,1867 said;

Quote:

“Another ground on which these reconstruction acts are attempted to be sustained is this: That these ten States are conquered territory; that the constitutional relation in which they stood as States toward the Federal Government prior to the rebellion has given place to a new relation; that their territory is a conquered country and their citizens a conquered people, and that in this new relation Congress can govern them by military power. A title by conquest stands on clear ground; it is a new title acquired by war; it applies only to territory;”

So I am asking this of myself,

Did my State change it's constitution and become just another “territory” to the federal Govt. still under military rule? And Am I then a US** citizen first and state citizen second?

Well, moving on,I read on here somewhere,where the 14th amendment had been repealed,I hope it is sacked because that would take care of cases like “Murray v. Curlett” 374 US 203, and “Roe V Wade”, and “Stone V Graham”449 US 39(1980) and others where they quoted the 14th as being violated, and reverse them.

And I'll shut up now and let the professionals on here tear my argument to shreds and teach me something…..

[nicodemus]

Thank you.I know with the lord's help the truth shall set me free and no, I have never been a lawyer. In fact I have always had a natural dislike for them, but now I find it ironic that by reading man's laws I wish now I was one! The only lawyer I ever liked was the fictional one on tv, matlock ha ha ! I was always too much of a gypsy to study. I believe that the story of nicodemus was in john 3 and maybe referenced several more times. I thought it very typical of human behaviour for him to approach jesus at night, when his friends were not around. But he looked after jesus what he could. But the reference came from going to my sister and her husband's bible college. I had to speak on a pre chosen subject, the new birth. I did the notes and the whole bit,but I should have thrown the notes away when I got up and just let the spirit guide me…I don't like being too formal I guess. But hind sight is 20/20 eh ? But anyways I appreciate this site very much and I know alot of work and sacrifice went into this. Thank you for being led of the spirit and doing this.- It really bothers me that people don't seem to see how far off the path we all have been led…the enemy is very crafty. I just want to be free, wise as the serpent and harmless as a dove !!

And again thank you for your response.