Redeem Your INTEREST in the Estate via Expressing Law Form

Posted: Friday, September 26, 2014 in Born Without Money

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/
———————————————————————————————
• INA’LIENABLE, adjective [Latin alieno, alienus.]
Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly [lawful/equitable – look up equity/maxims of equity] alienated or transferred to another.
The dominions of a king are inalienable
All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable.

The estate of a minor is inalienable without a reservation of the right of redemption, <—NOTICE THIS CLAUSE,
or the authority of the legislature.

• UNA’LIENABLE, adjective
Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.
• A’LIENABLE, adjective
That may be sold, or transferred to another; as, land is alienable according to the laws of the State.

NOTICE — “WITHOUT A RESERVATION OF RIGHT OF REDEMPTION”
ALSO note the definition for the term REDEMPTION below, and read on:
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
√ In other words, one can legally or lawfully sell and/or transfer to another their estate AS LONG AS their remains the RIGHT OF REDEMPTION by the one selling and/or transferring their interest in that estate.
√ In other words, if the estate in question is under the administrative controls of another via presumption that you either legally or lawfully sold or transferred it to them, then…
√ by the definition of this term, the one who sold or transferred their interest in that estate can indeed REDEEM that estate at any time!
√ I conclude that this can only be done by lawful notice of the Law Form under which one would declare and make such claim.
√ This act and deed will show competence, because of a PUBLIC NOTICE of expressing the Law Form under which they will be administrating their own affairs and the affairs of the estate from the capacity of entitlement holder.

Now, NOTICE the term, “REDEMPTION” once again from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, specifically definition #4:
REDEMP’TION, noun [Latin redemptio. See Redeem.]
1. Repurchase of captured goods or prisoners; the act of procuring the deliverance of persons or things from the possession and power of captors by the payment of an equivalent; ransom; release; as the redemption of prisoners taken in war; the redemption of a ship and cargo.
2. Deliverance from bondage, distress, or from liability to any evil or forfeiture, either by money, labor or other means.
3. Repurchase, as of lands alienated. Leviticus 25:24. Jeremiah 32:7.
*** NOTICE THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION ***
4. The liberation of an estate from a mortgage; [mortgage/mortmain see the Cestuie Que Vie Act of 1666 & 1707, which is codified into the STATE codes under the UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ACT] or the purchase of the right to re-enter upon it by paying the principal sum for which it was mortgaged with interest and cost; also, the right of redeeming and re-entering.
*** NOTICE THE PREVIOUS DEFINITION ***

5. Repurchase of notes, bills or other evidence of debt by paying their value in specie to their holders.
6. In theology, the purchase of God’s favor by the death and sufferings of Christ; the ransom or deliverance of sinners from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God’s violated law by the atonement of Christ. [THIS IS CALLED JUSTIFICATION by the WORKS OF THE BELOVED SON AND HEIR]

NOTICE DEFINITION #4: “The liberation of an estate from a mortgage.”
This would be why when one has to express their claim of interest in the estate and then give an order to settle all debts of any nature against the estate, as that would be necessary as that/those debt(s) would constitute a lien to continue to have said estate administrated by and through foreign administration until those debts are settled and extinguished, which is why the next clause reads, “or the purchase of the right to re-enter upon it by paying the principal sum for which it was mortgaged with interest and cost;”

IN MY OPINION, the only way to accomplish this properly is to claim that REDEMPTION by and through the blood of Christ through My Lord Yehoshuah, Redeemer and Heir of ALL things, asking all things IN (not AT) His Name as My Name is now His Name, one of many co-heirs (Rom 8:17, John 14:13-14, Col 3:17, Heb 1:1-3) under the Law of the Trust (The Law Form, which is the Law of God) in Coverture as a feme covert. This would go to the final clause of that definition for claiming, “The right of redeeming and re-entering,” and I would add … In His Name, as we do not receive because we ask amiss because His Name is the Name above ALL names; and therefore, one has then no doubt asked for their own selfish purposes. (James 4: 1-5)

Ephesians 1:7
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace .”
Colossians 1:14
“in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins/debts.”
 
Now, taking in to consideration all the above definitions, INALIENABLE can be summed up to mean . . . “Your birthright and inheritance CANNOT be sold, or transferred to another legally and/or lawfully, and if by chance one does sell and/or transfer, then that transfer and/or sale can indeed be revoked by the transferee or seller, because you GRANTED the trust of which it is held in.”  So then, since, “The ESTATE of a Minor (See 31CFR363.6 post for definition of the word Minor and Minor Account) cannot be sold, or transferred, WITHOUT a reservation of the right of redemption.”  This can only mean that the STATE will and lawfully must recognize a lawful claim of interest in an Estate via an expressed law form under this reservation!
 
So then, even if the STATE/eSTATE has administration and control of the estate under the presumption that one is an infant and is incompetent to administrate their own affairs.  The STATE is bound to recognize a lawful claim to redeem that estate when such a claim reveals that one has indeed returned to competence.  This means that one must make that claim IN LAW, for all things AT LAW are not IN but only AT it, and not IN it.  For example, the courier was standing AT the Front Door of the House.  The courier was not IN the House, but AT the house, as the courier was only AT the front door of the House.  Being AT is not being IN.  Do you see the difference?  This is critical when it comes to Law Form… very critical, as all Lawyers (Luke 11:52) are AT LAW, and are not IN LAW.
 
Therefore, one must express what their LAW FORM is by expressing what Law they have bound themselves to KEEP. This becomes known as a Law Boundary. This is sufficient attestation for being IN that Law Form, rather than being AT a law form, which is to remain OUTSIDE, or WITHOUT, a law form, therefore, not abiding under any law at all, which is to be LAWLESS, or an OUTLAW! This is what is meant by the term LAW BOUNDARY.
 
For even the Lawyers honor the Law Boundary that they have submitted themselves to and under to serve their masters the Bankers. But, the question is, do we have a PUBLIC RECORD of NOTICE as to what Law Boundary we have submitted ourselves to and under? If not, then the presumption of one being an infant who is ignorant of law, law form and law boundary has standing and most certainly affects one’s status as being an incompetent IN Law, and thus, the ability to administrate their own affair’s and estate IN LAW.  Therefore, one is correctly concluded to be lawless and unlawful… without righteousness, which can only be provided by and through JUSTIFICATION, and from there, one is also easily concluded to not only be an enemy of the state, but also a belligerent hostile and outlaw in need of administration from a foreign source, as they are AT WAR through their lawlessness and also in violation of Romans 13:1-7.  So then, how and why do you expect to be known as a, “Peacemaker,” according to Matthew 5:9?  Notice I did not say a peaceful inhabitant as some are of the tradition of saying, but a, “Peacemaker,” according to the Words spoken of by Yehoshuah, Jesus the Christ.  There is a huge difference as each of those indicates a different law form that one is beholden unto.  Know the difference!
 
Now, do you see what is gravely missing from the current form of Christianity that is taking place in what is defined by the IRS to only be, “Religious Organizations,” not the “Church,” that Jesus the Christ established?  Funny thing about that point.  You can read about that delineation in IRS PUBLICATION 1828.  A certain dictionary was published by Noah WEBSTER in that same year.  How ironic!  Do you believe in accidents?  I do!  Well, when you find out how the legal system defines the term accident, then you will know why I just said what I said, because an accident is something that was done on purpose.  Isn’t this a wonderful accident? 😉
Advertisements
Comments
  1. Excellent information here, but truth be told, most have no clue on how to do so. Is this done through some kind of notice? Is there a place to see such notices to get an idea on how one can do this?

    How does this pertain to one being baptized unto Christ for remissions of sin and becoming a new creation with a new name?

    Thanks!

  2. To whom this may concern. I just wanted to let you know that you are one of the utmost Yehoshuah driven men I have come across in leading men and women to the water to drink. The way you have put together all your articles is such a blessing and i just pray that everyone who takes part in these readings takes the time to really appreciate what you are doing and continue to do through Yehoshuah. May you be blessed as it is such a blessing to me. Thank you,