Reply – Re: "...and under international law all you gotta do is show where one ...
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: "...and under international law all you gotta do is show where one party made beneficial use of the usufruct..."
— by iamsomedude iamsomedude
right there in the 1856 Bouvier’s article

DOMINIUM, empire, domain. It is of three kinds: 1, Directum dominium, or usufructuary dominion; dominium utile, as between landlord and tenenant; or, 2. It is to full property, and simple property. The former is such as belongs to the cultivator of his own estate; the other is the property of a tenant. 3. Dominion acquired by the law of nations, and dominion acquired by municipal law. By the law of nations, property may be acquired by occupation, by accession, by commixtion, by use or the pernancy of the usufruct, and by tradition or delivery. As to the dominium eminens, the right of the public, in cases of emergency, to seize upon the property of individuals, and convert it to public use, and the right of individuals, in similar cases, to commit a trespass on the persons and properties of others, see the opinion of chief justice McKean in Respublica v. Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, 362, and the case of Vanhorn v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. Rep. 304.

PERNANCY. This word, which is derived from the French prendre, to take, signifies a taking or receiving.

USUFRUCT The RIGHT of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the substance of the thing.

CONSOLIDATION, civil law. The union of the usufruct with the estate out of which it issues, in the same person which happens when the usufructuary acquires the estate, or vice versa. In either case the usufruct is extinct. In the common law this is called a merger. Ley. El. Dr. Rom. 424. U. S. Dig. tit. Actions, V. 2. Consolidation may take place in two ways: first, by the usufructuary surrendering his right to the proprietor, which in the common law is called a surrender; secondly, by the release of the proprietor of his rights to the usufructuary, which in our law is called a release.

This is where this statement: "...and under international law all you gotta do is show where one party made beneficial use of the usufruct..." was derived ... And none have provided any evidence that overturns these convictions:

If one takes something that does not belong to one without permission, then one just violated Natural Law. Plain and simple. Immutable Truth.

The Natural Remedy for violations of Natural Law is Usufruct: the one of whom took is usufructuary to the one from whom was taken of whom is now "Naked Owner" with respect to the one whom took and all property acquired or serviced by the one of whom took is now subject to disposal rights by the one from whom was taken until such time as "true forgiveness" occurs and the balance within Natural Law restored. Again, plain and simple. Immutable truth.

It is my conviction that the BC only serves to identify an estate: identifies Interests in Property, and the Holder of the BC holds the Natural Law remedy for "naked ownership of property in question" to be delivered to the holder to account for the "Use or Pernancy of the Usufruct", enforced by the Rules of Usufruct. The execution of such is the REASON "the system" was built: to enforce the Usufruct by way of operation of God almighty's immutable Laws. (a social structure built for sinners, not saints)

It is also my conviction that this is the Covenant. The BC is Christ and one must accept Christ to receive absolution of Sin. So, one acknowledges the FACT by way of conviction (exercise of Faith) that the BC is not identity of self, but identity of interest and one is to tender that interest to a Governmental Unit for absolution of debt = Tender for Law = When that interest is given back (surrendered or release) to a Governmental Unit, then CONSOLIDATION of Sin/Debt can occur for both the usufruct and naked ownership are MERGED which extinguishes Debt and releases possession of the property to the one of whom CAUSED the consolidation.

I am of the further conviction that if one REJECTS Christ, then one rejects this COVENANT, thus becomes DEAD to God almighty and thus the STATE (Romans 13), and agrees one's ass is to be surety and insurance for Debt and SIN. That simple.

I am of the even further conviction that Federal Reserve Notes (or any Central Bank Note) ARE the prima-facie evidence the taker (purchaser/STATE) made beneficial use of this taking by receiving such Notes as a "Loan" by and through pledging the property-interest taken during the Birth Event recording to secure these "Loans", thus now possesses a corresponding duty to account for obligations (sin/debt) of the one from which the property-interest was taken and pledged AS consideration in exchange.

This is like me giving a restaurant $50K, but instead of receiving the $50K back, plus interest, I just get my meals comped when dining in that restaurant; operates just like outlined in the Carey Currency Letter.

Thus, by using simple logic, it is my conviction that the Central Bankers, corporations and the governments of this Earth (LORD (Romans 13)) are usufructuary of the inhabitants of this Earth for they only issue "promises to pay" and since they claim to be GOD by exercising some "Right to control the people", then they also possess the Duties of God almighty when the inhabitants keep to God almighty's commandments and faith, correct? Thus the failure to discharge those duties means a FALSE claim, by a FALSE God, seeking to impose FALSE rights which results in an injury to a living, sentient being: a violation of Natural Law, thus creating the Natural Remedy: USUFRUCT: the COVENANT.

But to answer to question "Have you ever seen the definition for COVENANT in Black's Law 9th edition?" ... the answer is "No, but should I? Has it changed its meaning "legally" since the 2nd edition?"
~ Boris

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.