ENTRUST + INTRUST = TRUST (Part-3)

Posted: Thursday, January 1, 2015 in Born Without Money

Again, everything done IN the PUBLIC reflects Trust no matter what the circumstances are. This then reflects what is in the heart. The difficulty is in seeing how everything is Trust because the knowledge of Trust and Trust Law has been hidden, and sadly, even forgotten. So then, how is everything Trust?

Take for example a simple deposit made into a bank account. In order to open that bank account you had to sign an agreement. That agreement is a bona fide contract that lists all the duties and obligations according to the statues and codes that govern it. But, the more important point here is, how did you sign that document? For that matter, when checking out at a cash register, how did you sign the credit card receipt, or the insurance papers, or the court papers, or the hospital papers? Well, as much as the answer to this question sounds like a no-brainier, the asking of this question is necessary.

Of course you signed the same way that you always have, which is usually some derivation of the First-name along with the Last-name, correct? Okay, so here is what you just did. You just signed that document/instrument in your official capacity, and this capacity should not be used when engaged in the PUBLIC, for this is your private capacity as a private person. Remember, I have said before that understanding PUBLIC and Private is an essential key to, “Walking on the waters of the commercial world.” The ramifications of signing in your Private Capacity while in the PUBLIC commingles the PUBLIC and the Private and that not only causes a trespass, but lawfully speaking from Gods Law is type of ADULTERY as that which is Private is to remain Private and separated from the eyes of the PUBLIC. One has to learn how to bring something from the Private into the PUBLIC honorable, else they will be making a terrible mistake. Furthermore, the failure to Private things Private will also puts you directly on the hook legally speaking. But, get this, the Trust is not on the hook, only you are in your personal private capacity as that is exactly how you signed, so that is exactly who will be liable.

Everybody is operating in trust whether they know it or not. The question is whose trust are you operating in and for? The bigger question is, who is the beneficiary that you are serving for that trust, in the capacity of trustee? If it is not a Private Trust that you have created for the benefit of yourself, family, and estate, to hold your estate in trust, then it is no doubt for the benefit of some one else other than one your estate’s beneficiaries, which would also include you.  This means that you are under the authority and jurisdiction of another, and as a result of that, you are in servitude to that other and their appointed beneficiary as their Trustee. Are you beginning to see the spiritual ramifications of this? Do not forget to consider the Biblical Maxim that, “No man can serve two masters,” and how it applies.

As I have written of in previous writings, the name and number is a vessel that floats on the high-seas of the commercial world of capitalism. You can either use a vessel that you have created, and thus control, or you can use the vessel that someone else has created, and thus BOW A KNEE to their control over you because you use theirs, and not your own.

There is an extremely high probability that the vessel you are using right now was not created by you. Yes, that vessel is a Trust, too. Why do you think it is called the SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST? You have been using that vessel for everything in the PUBLIC from education to the purchase of food, clothing, car, house to opening a bank account. Guess what? The things purchased by you for that Trust do not really belong to you then do they? Does the SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST belong to you? Did you create that Trust and its indenture/law/certificate? Certainly not! (Look up the Social Security Act of 1935 and you will see who did) Well, that thing is not yours then is it? But, you have been using and operating it as if it were, correct? So that thing does indeed belong to another, does it not? If you disagree, then how can it belong to you? Are you a thief? Because you would have to be for you to claim that it does belong to you after having NOTHING to do with its creation.

Let us just say for the sake of bringing my point home that the vessel that you are using is owned by none other than CAESAR. (And it actually IS) So then, when you now use that vessel and you sign in your private capacity you have just volunteered to become totally and fully liability for whatever that entire matter is. And, since no man can serve two masters, exactly where are you showing that you have placed your trust? Put another way, to whom have you entrusted your trust with? Think about this for a while, for I have written on this matter before. You see, when you create and use your own vessel then it becomes clear that you cannot connected to CAESAR and/or BABYLON as your vessel will bare the name of your King, for it is your vessel and you will of course do all things in the name of your Lord and King as they ought to be done according to operation of law… that is to say, according to the Law of God, yes? Again, are you beginning to see how what you are doing in this physical world reflects things of a spiritual nature? Believe it or not… they are connected!

You see, when it comes to the PUBLIC and operating in the PUBLIC there are only trustees. So then, if you do not sign clarifying that capacity, then you clearly are in your private capacity and are now fully liability under the statutes and codes to perform all related duties, responsibilities and obligations that the Caesar dictates in worship and service to Caesar for the benefit of his beneficiary, which is the beneficiary of your estate. Do you see how your acts and deeds in the commercial world reflect whom it is that one serves? Again, there is a connection with all things at this planet is a testing ground… a proving ground ultimately to find out one thing… ARE YOU TRUSTWORTHY! Meaning, are you worthy to sit in the throne of the lamb and be ENTRUSTED with His Trust to Rule with Him in His Throne.

When in the PUBLIC, which is to be IN THE WORLD, one has to clearly declare and express that they are operating in the capacity of being a TRUSTEE, else if they use their Private Capacity, then they are also OF THE WORLD. The only question left to be answered is, “To whom do ye serve?” The Trust of the Father of our Lord, or, the trust of another created being… another man.

Finally, a proper signature of indemnification for all things PUBLIC will look something like, “By: Joe/Jane SMITH, Trustee.” Now, Joe and/or Jane cannot be OF THE WORLD, which is to say, OF THE PUBLIC, but is IN THE WORLD as they have needs, duties and obligations to take care of the beneficiary, which HOPEFULLY is their own estate and family as beneficiary, first, as this fulfills all the Law and the Prophets and reveals that one indeed has increased the talent(s) given unto them.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. glad to have come upon your blog. do you have another email that is better to reach you at privately? it is interesting that you leave many of your posts unfinished for the discerning mind to distinguish for him/her self ;o)

    there seem to be a few more questions of importance to figure out privately, as that is my focus now specifically in reference to the treasury account and birth certificate etc,. I am totally with you in all areas of spirituality and private vs public in depth so no need to worry about that. my email is tgroman@verizon.net if you wish to contact me that direction or here if you think it is better for others as well.

    thank you for your posts and insight.

  2. dingo342014 says:

    The common law protects the pursuit of personal gain in the name of individual autonomy…(which I would assume would also include individual’s right to perform their vows/duties, including those to God…so what is good for the goose is good for the gander…or if the common law protects commercialism, it must also protect any action that is the opposite of commercialism, i.e Godliness)…

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/52.html
    DEANE J. It is an incident of human society that action or inaction by one person may have a direct or indirect effect on another. Unless there be more involved than mere cause and effect however, the common law remains indifferent. A person’s action or inaction may be a cause of another’s injury or discomfort; unless there be some particular relationship, personal or proprietary right or other added element, the common law imposes no liability to make payment of compensation or other damages. In a society where material success, commonly measured in comparative terms, is accepted as a legitimate objective and the preservation of individual freedom of action or speech is acknowledged as a legitimate goal, the law must be so restrained if it is to be attuned to social standards and reality. If material success were to be accompanied by legal liability to all who have suffered emotional chagrin or physical or material damage as a consequence or along the way, it would be largely self-destructive. In that regard, the common law has neither recognized fault in the conduct of the feasting Dives nor embraced the embarrassing moral perception that he who has failed to feed the man dying from hunger has truly killed him.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/sa/SASC/2007/365.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=%22autonomy%22
    Individual Autonomy
    1. In a competitive world where one person’s economic gain is commonly another’s loss, a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing mere economic loss to another, as distinct from physical injury to another’s personal property, may be inconsistent with community standards in relation to what is ordinarily legitimate in the pursuit of personal advantage: Bryan v Maloney at 618 affirming Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52; (1984) 155 CLR 549; Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424 at 503. McHugh J has described this as individual autonomy : Hill v Van Erp (1997) 188 CLR 159 at 211; Perre v Apand at 114-117; Woolcock Street at [78] where he said:
    In Hill v Van Erp, I pointed out that “Anglo-Australian law has never accepted the proposition that a person owes a duty of care to another person merely because the first person knows that his or her careless act may cause economic loss to the latter person”. Speaking generally, a person owes no duty to prevent economic loss to another person even though the first person intends to cause economic loss to that other person. This particular immunity from liability reflects the common law’s concern with the autonomy of the individual and its desire to give effect to the choices of the individual by not burdening his or her freedom of action. Thus, as long as a person is legitimately protecting or pursuing his or her commercial interests, the common law does not require that person to be concerned with the effect of his or her conduct on the economic interests of other persons.