When in court, there is necessity for the counterclaim; WHY we do the Verification of Complaint and CR(tm) "process." HOWEVER, when before a Court, Does the court ask if YOU are that NAME?
(and by NAME, I do mean ANY use of the Name on the BC and/or Live Birth Record in ANY derivation for it ALL identifies the same Trust (PERSON))
Remember, NAME is a cestui que trust, thus the use of the NAME in ANY capacity to identify one, just identified the RIGHTFUL owner/heir of the Estate held in Trust, by operation of the cestui que LAW.
How can they NOT agree? This activates the fail-safe mechanism built within the Public Trust to PROTECT the public trust from unauthorized administration and tyranny; we just did not comprehend the NATURE of the operation of the Trust until recently; WHY that fiction of law (NAME) was created ... its BENEFICIAL purpose.
Again, what is the operation of the Cestui Que Vie Act? IS it: when the one presumed dead shows up living, all administration of the estate ceases and ALL of the Estate AUTOMATICALLY vests with that one?
Rightfully, The Court and prosecutor really have no right to challenge in accordance with the operation of the cestui que LAW, but are GRANTED that right under penalty of perjury as consideration by the one so identified, so what is the rule if no one speaks up?
"Wherever two or more are gathered I will be there?"
Thus, this Present, also appears to create an instant trust and the Court and Prosecutors are Trustees to either rebut the claim under penalty of perjury or yield up (ie: surrender)
and cease administrating the estate; because there is only one jurisdiction: over the estates of the dead man, lest we forget : Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34 (1894)
This is the very ESSENCE of the turnabout. The identification of one to be the NAME by the Trustee (ie: Court) activates one's right to CLAIM the ABANDONED property (ie: estate) held in Trust (ie: NAME) under Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 Jurisdiction of Congress and REMOVE it; NOW one can complete delivery of interest to Treasury for the RIGHT accrued to one when the NAME was used to identify one.
There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the Verification of Complaint and CR(tm) "Process" and this Present: operate under the same principles; one is just a fuck of a lot simpler and sweeter and can be taught REAL quick to everyone. Actually, they could compliment each other for now one would have STANDING to seek Court enforcement of one's CR(tm) "process," if necessary.
And if semantics is your thing and you have a problem with the word Cohoate
, just substitute "no longer incohate," which then indicate "no longer incomplete" ...
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Then it must be done under penalty of perjury .... and try not to get caught up in semantics; this is about PHILOSOPHY.