Reply – Guardian of Ward
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Guardian of Ward
— by liberated liberated
was making notes from digesting everything I've read from a majority of posts to summarize the "steps"
in coming to peace/leaving babylon (which probably means babble)/living the kingdom of God.

Began searching into "DELIVERY" and "LIVERY" which led me to guardian and wards.

It appears nothing has changed over the course of history and since United States has its foundation from English Law it stands to reason it envelops current conditions, thus everything is warfare. Warfare against the king, the system, the lord, however, with provisions made for minors. As has been pointed out throughout the forum.  2. A writ which may be sued out by a ward in chivalry, on reaching his majority, to obtain delivery of the possession of his lands out of the hands of the guardian. 2 Bl. Comm. OS. (12 USC 95a(2)

So what happened to us? A slight twist to fiefdom.  Appears mother did what she did, however should have been the father. A guardianship was created when the mother basically stated she was unable to care for the child. The guardian (State), seeing the child as a serf/future knight-service (loyalty to the lord) utilizes the child's resources and life as an asset to the kingdom (Nation). Note the IRS code is built on feudal law. Accordingly as a future heir, the guardian(s) makes various letters of credit, investments etc for the benefit of both the child and the guardian. This is probably where the CAFR funds come into play.  HOWEVER, guardianship ends upon the age of majority. Which should, in this day and age, be noticed by the minor coming of age of majority. THERE exists nothing in English law or writings of Coke or other scholars that the child , when reaching age of majority, must turn over their estate to the King. That said a fief was something that the king granted and could take it back at anytime which is supposedly different to the way it was intended in America. It is quite clear that at the age of majority the estate/holdings held by the guardian are to be turned over to the one of Age of Majority. What is unwritten is that the child, now "adult" is still considered a vassel however more then likely in the "olden" days the one reaching age of majority gave their allegiance to the King, keeping in mind they did not 'TURN OVER" their estate to the King.

The most important thing, imho, is NOTICE of Age of Majority(NOAOM), Single biggest and LAWFUL thing one should/must do. Everything else is moot. The NOAOM can cause things to continue to serve both the
Man/Woman and the kingdom, ie Trust indenture. Basically a one step process. Believe it and it is so.

Furthur in researching Depositary, Depositary is an individual or entity (as a business organization) that holds a deposit
the depositary ought to restore the precise object which he received
So a depositary is merely "holding" something by deposit which it received from somebody which ought to be returned to the depositor upon request.

United States
The United States Department of State is currently the depositary for more than 200 multilateral treaties, including the Charter of the United Nations, Convention on International Civil Aviation, North Atlantic Treaty, Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, and the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.[9] Generally, the United States executes its responsibilities in accordance with the will of each individual treaty or, in lieu of such provision, as per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.[9]

Certainly makes sense, if one is self governing, that ones NOAOM (using EO 13526 sec. 1.3(e)) accepts appropriate treaties, Declaration of Independence and other things that matter as well and Deposit with United States Department of State as Depositary. The NOAOM serving as age of majority notice, peace treaty and trust indenture (intervivos trust). The trustee(s) can be both the Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury and perhaps the Treasurer too.  The estate is left intact which can serve to inure to the benefit of the Man/Woman and the kingdom. The NOAOM can get into specifics regarding Christ, kingdom, ie presumption that "government is of God" or whatever ones position is being in harmony to peace.

The cr process being the baby step, as Boris has pointed out in coming to peace or learning how to go to peace.

The Faith, is knowing that ones NOAOM (interesting how it resembles Noah or Name) has fulfilled the Will of God, having dominion but recognizing the purpose of "government" on earth, be at peace or get spanked for resistance. Story of Daniel comes to mind. Lived in captivity but had the keys to the kingdom, never wavering as to who his God was while never disrespecting the existing King at any time.
Daniel did not focus on things like Antifa, N. Korea, FRN's, or Who Matters. He trusted in his God that his people would eventually be restored.

One might look at Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for possible violations of war crimes for enforcement however the United States was a signatory but Bill Clinton never submitted the Treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Bottom line, assuming there are accounts established by and through the Birth record etal, they become the property of the one executing the NOAOM, no if ands or buts. It then come down to what one does with it. If the "government" truly has all the obligations. whatever they may be, including but not limited to all one ones needs might not the NOAOM ratify this once and for all. It is presumed that one is not Esau looking for only pleasure, pretty things, fast cars and jet set life, not to say that those things may not be bestowed upon one by and through God. Thinking more along the lines of a Warren Buffet. Guy makes a shit load of money, lives what appears to be a simple life, and gives a shit load of money away pledging 99% of his wealth at the time of his death.

Esau comes to mind and his life is the story of a man who traded his soul for fleeting pleasure. He sold his birthright, which included not only material benefits and family privileges, but spiritual blessings as well, for a bowl of soup. It says that “he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way” (25:34). He didn’t have a second thought about what he had done. He did it, it felt good, and only much later did he come to regret it.

How much longer does one have to exchange all that is for a bowl of just getting by?