The “NON ASSUMPSIT” Question

Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 in Born Without Money

In short, my conclusion is do not use, “non-assumpsit,” in a letter that has been composed by you having your orders within it to be carried out by the office and officer of the PUBLIC OFFICE so sent and instructed, and here is why.


From Websters 1828 Dictionary – ASSUMPSIT:

1. In law, a promise or undertaking, founded on a consideration. This promise may be verbal or written; An assumpsit is express or implied; express, when made in words of writing; implied, when in consequence of some benefit or consideration accruing to one person from the acts of another, the law presumes that person has promised to make compensation. In this case, the law, upon a principle of justice, implies or raises a promise, on which an action may be brought to recover the compensation. Thus if A contracts with B to build a house for him, by implication and intendment of law, A promises to pay B for the same, without any express words to that effect.
2. An action founded on a promise. When this action is brought on a debt, it is called indebitatus assumpsit, which is an action on the case to recover damages for the non-payment of a debt.

From the first definition I perceive that such a letter composed is an assumpsit pertaining to the benefit that one would receive from having and knowing their the proper identity allowing them to
PASS through any PORT, unmolested by tax or charge, which would then in turn, become the act of the other in the right-honorable performance of their duties.  The compensation has already been given and received by them in the form of giving everything to the PUBLIC TRUST through the Birth Certificate, (the evidence is in one form the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES), plus supplying all of the positive energy put into the TRUST baring the NAME (FIRST MIDDLE LAST) that we use, but did not create, and neither do we claim ownership thereof, for to claim ownership of such a THING is tantamount to clear declaration of insanity.  [Some how I can imagine Obiwan saying, “Come to your senses!  You will be expelled from Equity and Usufruct.” Not the Jedi Order in this case. ]  So then, this pretty much does look like they are obligated to perform for the consideration that has been provided for them enabling them to perform their duties, and the evidence for that is the receipt/security called the Certificate of Live Birth.
From the second definition, and this is why I like to use Websters 1828 Dictionary as a primary reference tool, it clearly indicates to those with, “Eyes to see, and ears to hear,” that the debt is what they owe us; NOT, what we owe them.  Again, this is because we have given, donated, and sponsored the PUBLIC TRUST first with our Love and then with the Labor of our Love.  The Love has got to come first!  ALWAYS!  So then, “Where is the Love?”  Well, tell the Black Eyed Peas that IT IS WITHIN! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc) [Perhaps the song should be titled, “Where is the Faith,” after Luke 8:25, because Faith is acted upon in and through Love, and ALL already have the Love within, so where is the ACTION that expresses that, which is why I say, “Where is the Faith” would be a more accurate question to ask]  Since those serving in the PUBLIC TRUST are PUBLIC SERVANTS serving those who are peaceful and know that they have contributed to its well-being and continue to do so, they would then owe that duty to Us, and not just because they literally owe their existence to Us either.  It would be more because of our knowledge of knowing who we are, and backing that up with the actions of Love, Forgiveness, and Trust.
HOWEVER, we as Sons and Heirs (Ambassadors and Royal Priests) must take the needed and necessary responsibility to show that One is worthy of their own servant, for the servant is none other than a reflection of Us, because the servant is Us, for we all serve One another and when we have, “Done it unto the least of [men],” we have done it unto Christ, for Christ is all and in ALL, no exceptions!  Hence the symbol of the reflecting pools all around the world in every Capital City which symbolized this very thing.  For we have already shown them love by the giving of everything we were given, to the PUBLIC TRUST (Usufruct).  So then, if they do not return that love, then is there just cause for, “Indebitatus Assumpsit,” and would this rightfully and honorable lead to one withdrawing their pledge of full faith and credit to the PUBLIC TRUST?  Maybe, … but…but…but…, we had better make sure that we have done everything we can do to help them help Us, as well as done everything that can be done to maintain the peace even in the face of harsh resistance because, “…the testing of your faith (or Love) produces endurance,” (James 1:3).  Especially focusing on the correcting of our mistakes that they have contributed to any presumptions and to image and likeness that we do not desire to be reflected back at Us.
For the very first maxim of Equity states, “Equity regards done what ought to be done,” and we as Sons and Heirs are to be about our Father’s/Creators business, which is of the world of Equity and Natural Law; not, of the world of TAXING, CHARGING, and DISCHARGING, thereby violating, “Freely you have received, freely give,” (Romans 8:32 & Matthew 10:8)  Therefore, the first maxim on the topic of Equity builds upon a solid foundation of Love in and through Peace with Responsibility thus maintaining that peace at all times.  One can only build upon that foundation for it can never be destroyed.   So then, if One were to even hint at withdrawing their pledge of full faith and credit, the ramifications of the mere suggestion might just be enough to make the servant(s) jump…if this tactic is necessary, and it just may be for some occasions as we have recently witnessed, but this too shall pass, because as we change, so will the reflection change.  I am becoming more and more of the opinion that this maneuver IS NOT necessary, but the reason for why that is, is for another time.

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Non+assumpsit
NON ASSUMPSIT, pleading.  <<< We do not plead with or to our servants and perhaps this is what needs to be declared for certain court situations

  1. The general issue in trespass on the case, in the species of assumpsit. Its form is, “And the said C D, by E F, his attorney, comes and defends the wrong and injury, when, &c., and says, that he did not undertake or promise in manner and form as the said A B, hath above complained. And of this he puts himself upon the country.”

  2. Under this plea almost every matter may be given in evidence, on the ground, it is said, that as the action is founded on the contract, and the injury is the non, performance of it, evidence which disaffirms the obligation of the contract, at the time when the action was commenced, goes to the gist of the action.

Notice the second definition of this wherein it says, the action is founded on the contract, and the injury is the non, performance of it, evidence which disaffirms the obligation of the contract, at the time when the action was commenced.”  This is more or less saying that non-assumpsit can become the foundation of an action against the one that is to provide certain specific performance and did not, thereby entering into breach of contract/trust.  Do you think that to require a charge, which is a tax , for any service that the Government provides is actually a breach of Trust/Contract because of having already donated everything to them, which is evidenced by the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth?  But, do not think to hard on this one, and do not get to upset with them if you find that the answer is, “Yes,” for there is, I feel, a very valid reason.


I believe this to be a part of the testing of our faith to reveal the true nature of our heart.  Do we know who we are…Have we gone to peace…Are we at war with the system, within ourselves, or our neighbor?  The Servant needs to know these things of Us because I, in pure speculation, believe that this is what is required of them through unwritten natural laws pertaining to our Sonship and attaining,
“…the time appointed of the Father,” in accordance with Galatians 4:1-12.  Now, why should the servant serve somebody that may turn right on around and stick a knife in their back?  Would it not be better for them to not serve and die rather than always be worried and concerned when the Master may just order their death just for the fun of it?  How sadistic!  Have we not seen this type of scene played out in movies?  The best servants are the kind that KNOW that the Master is of the highest moral integrity and honor, for what they will do for their Master knows no bounds, and we have also seen this scenario played out in movies as well.  Perhaps this is why it has been said, “Be the change you want to see.”


From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumpsit

as·sump·sit

1. An agreement or promise made orally or in writing not under seal; a contract. (non-assumpsit means NO CONTRACT)

2. A legal action to enforce or recover damages for a breach of such an agreement.


One last thought and idea.  If we can properly isolate the FIRST MIDDLE LAST and the non-assumpsit together, that may fit the bill for use, such as in the following example…

by; First FOR: FIRST MIDDLE LAST

Non Assumpsit
This should indicate that you intent no trespass, and that you recognize that you have nor fiduciary obligation through any contract for the NAME.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.