the nature of the present voluntary indentured servitude and how to “opt-out”
previously, this writer defined “royal" + "priesthood” (hereinafter: “rp”), and now continues illustrating it thru an act of “ministering” to educate the "captives" how one might “do all things to become free.” but, before understanding a more beneficial choice, would it not be best if one learn how one initially "volunteered" and became “captive”?
when discussing the rp’s perspective on "healing" one might start by defining "life" as “spirit” and then “spiritism” as the philosophy defining the method intended. the simplest definition of the rp’s mission could be summarized as: a facilitator aiding “spiritual emergence” thru any act(s) that help define and bring about an ideal state of “wellness”. likewise, would any suppression of “spirit” be a primary defining cause of all ‘dis-ease’? so could aiding those in “spiritual crisis” by any/all special assistance be an act of “healing” for overcoming any existing “spiritual emergency” (a psycho-spiritual crisis)–not to be confused with “illness”? e.g. maybe the reader has been awakening into a growing “dis-ease” with a materialistic world governed by “silent weapons for quiet wars” resulting in a spiritual emergency at odds with one’s heart-felt intent to live life by good morals, a clean conscience and the creator’s calling to love all but money? to learn more see: 5 ways to understand Spiritual Emergency.
ever consider what good there is in defining wrong-doing, if one doesn’t have examples for right-doing (i.e. "righteousness" / "equity") and maxims to back them up? a few maxims of equity help this proposition: e.g. - equity wont aid a volunteer, must do equity to receive equity, equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy, equity abhors a forfeiture, he who comes into equity must come with clean hands, etc. but why equity? because of its priority - i.e. in any dispute between law and equity: equity always prevails! isn't it best to start with the "good news" and solution source (equity) before getting lost in "adventures in legal-land"?
how did one voluntarily enter into indentured servitude to “the state” anyway? before considering this, consider this warning: how will tearing down something make anything better (or as history shows, only make things worse) if not accompanied by a plan for development of a moral, responsible self-governing people to replace rulership from without? i.e. what good is overthrowing “what is” if one doesn’t have an alternative practice for personal/individual responsibility?
next we need to define the difference between “alive” and “dead”. If we use the "bible"[*] as our source for definitions, then all those born of “adam” (i.e. unregenerate "man") are defined as “dead in their sins” (i.e. under the old covenant, if one breaks a law it = breaking all of them and the penalty is death. so that makes those born only “of adam” under the curse of death/dying, but all those born new (as a new spiritual creation) are “alive” in “the christ” and under a new covenant “will” by acceptance of the ‘free gift’ of the conquest of death by his final payment for all sin/debt. one can "bank" on such a promise and trust one will ‘never die’, even after the body returns to dust. (see: the “living heir workbook, vol.1”)
[ * maybe before dismissing the 'bible', investigate why both houses (by joint-resolution) in the UNITED STATES made "public law 97-280" which declared the bible the "word of god" and a need for the nation to "read, study and apply it"? two administrations under one authority: old = governed by law (Rom. 13:1-6) and new = self-governed by equity (Rom 13:7-10). see Rosevelt's quote on self-governing: "...it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others...."]
and most important of all: without understanding the nature of one’s present voluntary self-indenture-hood, how can one correct the mistakes that created one's current status? As suggested before, the book (and audio presentation): “U.S.ofA. vs. U.S. - loss of legal memory of the American state” defines the source of one problem:
“The authors recognize that for the reader to maintain political control in respect to today’s Composite state circumstances, the reader must be able to assert control in all negotiations. Such negotiations must be preparatory to agreements and contracts and include capacity, choice of law form, time, place, space and plane. to be politically effective such negotiations must be undertaken with a high state of knowledge and learning by the parties seeking political control. The authors argue, today, the legal community is the actual party in control, in relation to the level of political and legal knowledge of other parties. The legal community’s pre-selected “democratic” political choice is the actual controlling condition precedent. The authors argue this political control is unwittingly silently accepted by many people who, given alternative political and legal knowledge and understanding, would never accept the legal community’s political orthodoxy. Failing negotiations, the democratic political presumption is certain to operate.” (footnote 40, pg 197, emphasis added)
what are some of these "silently accepted presumptions"? here are a few one must rebut/overcome to “come out” of the mortgage against one’s estate:
* prove one is not “incompetent” - i.e. not a “ward of the state”,
* prove the ‘heir’ is not missing or “dead” [maxim: god, and not man, make the heir.],
* learn how one opted into “U.S. Citizenship” thru “invisible contracts” in the record that are silently noticed (judicially, and otherwise). it began with an act of registration of a “birth” event (the state does not registered “people”- that would be people ownership by the state) and the social security number (“SSN”) that’s assigned at same time (and later “accepted” thru use or application) – together NAME + SSN = “the account”. this “account” is operated in an open probate, because by statute definition the “person” defined by the NAME registration is a “decedent”. from this we can assert the following facts:
1. the birth certificate = a death certificate, and
2. the "decedent" is being 'probated' as an 'open' account in the county where it operates. the following quote comes from "Understanding Our Relief of Redemption w-o Money"
"what is not generally understood is the term ‘qualified heir’. Some years ago ... investigation into this situation... came upon a device being used by judges and attorneys whereby they were justified in taking property from ‘decedents’ -- meaning the STRAWMAN. What they had done was to research the township they were living in and found that the whole township had been listed on the tax roles as a ‘cemetery’. And who do we find in a cemetery? Well we find dead people (i.e. "human beings"). And then they got to looking at just how the judges were raiding the estates of all of these decedents. They were doing it under the status as “qualified heirs”. The judges and attorneys were actually stealing the assets of the alleged decedents under a pretext as qualified heirs. But what they found out was that these grave robbers were not filing the tax return on the theft. So, they were reminded of Al Capone and his problems with the IRS for not claiming and paying taxes on Al’s bootlegging, etc. So, what was done was that they simply reported the crime to the IRS by utilizing the IRS 706 and 709 forms to put a stop to the grave robbing that was going on in the court house."
more sources (out of many) to further illustrate the point:
"The primary control and custody of infants is with the government" Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62 (compare legal definition of “infant” [a “person”] vs english words “baby” or “child”)
"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties - the husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146. (see “secular marriage” and the maxims re marriage)
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra)
"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. The People. 13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481
"...You own no Property because you are a slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor... Don't let this information alarm you because without it you cannot be free. You have to understand that all slavery and freedom originates in the mind. When your mind allows you to accept and understand that the United States, Great Britain and the Vatican are corporations which are nothing but fictional entities which have been placed into your mind, you will understand that our slavery is because we believe in fictions." - Stephen Ames. (“borrower is slave to the lender.”)
"The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, and administrator stand by representation in the place of the deceased are all fictions of law. * ASSUMPTION OF RISK
which brings us to one of the biggest deceptions of all: "money" vs "banking". if "slavery" comes from borrowing, then how was this done thru one's "banking" agreements and use of someone else's "money"? is one's "confusion of money" what keeps one from understanding the next purported "money solution" as misdirection away from the source of the problem?
not long ago people were calling for a return to "gold and silver" as the solution, today the block-chain crypto-currency craze has people chasing the next false path. the "bitcoin" and related copy-cats are just another half-truth, distracting people away from understanding the actual source of the problem of "money"-- that all money problems come from not understanding "property". because most don't understand how money is just a by-product / symptom of banking, most wont find the true root cause of the "money" problem: i.e. banking. finding an answer will require one understand what "property" is and how "commerce" works. (this is described in part by "confusion" (of property) and "unravelling" presentations by servantking.info and in further detailed within "living heir workbook, vol. 2 - kingdom banking" - not available in any form to the PUBLIC, but only thru private, special arrangement (trust) and proof of 'deed' accomplished thru mastery of vol. 1).
one final note re "money" in "commerce":
there is only one way to act in "honor" within "bankruptcy" doing "commerce": i.e. acceptance and return for settlement and closure. in other words, one cannot operate (as trustee de son tort) from an "open" account of an abandoned estate (that one does not hold "absolute deed" to) where "probate" is not closed, which is why a bonding # (SSN) is required (to make the missing heir whole, by restoring the disseisin, if said redeemed "prodigal" ever returns as "heir" with proper "appointment".)
so what can be done to "come out of her plagues” and "be set apart”? is it as simple as the maxim: what is expressed renders what is implied silent? and applying the maxim: "what's included is not excluded, what's excluded is not included"? doesn't this last speak to not being "double-minded" and thus "unstable in all one's ways"? this is answered by another equity maxim for how a "rp" acts in kingship (trust) and priesthood (equity) --"equity follows the law"-- as in equity only "opens" when law "closes" -- i.e. just as public (common) and private can not be commingled, neither can equity with "law" or "legal". thus further defining "rp" as one "set-apart" from all that is "common", and requires "coming out" of volunteer-ships under the dominion/rule of "legal" or "lawful" (contract). this is illustrated from following quote from "equity always prevails":
the maxim, "equity follows the law", unlike equity's remaining maxims, is limited in its application and operates within very narrow limits. adverting to Pomeroy (1 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence [4th ed], § 427, pp 796, 797):
"The maxim is, in truth, operative only within a very narrow range; to raise it to the position of a general principle would be a palpable error. Throughout the great mass of its jurisprudence, equity, instead of following the law, either ignores or openly disregards and opposes the law . As was shown in that portion of the introductory chapter which deals with the nature of equity, one large division of the equity jurisprudence lies completely outside of the law; it is additional to the law; and while it leaves the law concerning the same subject matter in full force and efficacy, its doctrines and rules are constructed without any reference to the corresponding doctrines and rules of the law. Another division of equity jurisprudence is directly opposed to the law which applies to the same subject matter; its doctrines and rules are so contrary to those of the law, that when they are put into operation the analogous legal doctrines and rules are displaced and nullified." (emphasis added)
much more needs to be investigated re acts of kingship - aka expressing "trust" for "peacemaking" to end "commerce". starting with the doctrine of "merger", as key for "closing" accounts from the "priorities" defined by "equity". but that will have to be something to look forward to. in the meantime, one would do well to learn:
the 20 Maxims of Equity, and "Why Equity is King"
1 Equity sees that as done what ought to be done
2 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
3 Equity delights in equality
4 One who seeks equity must do equity
5 Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights
6 Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation
7 Equity acts in personam or persons
8 Equity abhors a forfeiture
9 Equity does not require an idle gesture
10 He who comes into equity must come with clean hands
11 Equity delights to do justice and not by halves
12 Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits
13 Equity follows the law
14 Equity will not aid a volunteer
15 Where equities are equal, the law will prevail
16 Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
17 Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
18 Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
19 Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee
20 Equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner