Understanding the Law, Risks, and Potential Consequences
by Justin Deschamps,
What if we could pay our debts with money from a government account? Well a small group of individuals appear to have found a way to do just that. They are accessing what are apparently called Treasury Direct Accounts to pay credit cards, mortgages, student loans and so on. It might sound like the latest internet scam—and I’m not necessarily saying that it isn’t—but there’s a very real lawful and legal reality to comprehend behind this latest promise for “legal remedy.” But before you get your latest credit card bill out, there are some major risks in law that needs to be considered.
Before moving forward, I want to express that I have the utmost respect and admiration for all those brave souls who seek to gain freedom and prosperity in a world of seemingly endless fraud and deception, who have devised very creative ways to gain a measure of freedom. This is my attempt to clearly articulate the risks involved in using your treasury account, by describing the lawful realities at play along with any historical precedents that imply potential consequences. In no way am I passing negative judgment on
those who have already accessed these accounts or who have spent years paving the way for others to do the same.
DISCLAIMER: The following article is not meant to be taken as legal advice. Any and all suggestions, statements, or assertions are solely the opinions of Justin Deschamps and are provided for informal, educational, and research purposes only. Any actions taken by you, the reader, are entirely your responsibility. You are encouraged to seek legal council with a licensed legal professional before engaging in any potentially risky behavior.
I understand that the vast majority of people who are reading this likely have never studied law, the legal system, finance, or civil policy. And likely even a smaller proportion have studied the hidden side of law, and the legal slavery mechanisms that make our world what it is. In light of this, I will do my best to describe the concepts in as simple terms as possible, sometimes reiterating ideas in different ways to emphasize the information.
I’ve spent several days revising and re-writing this article for ease of comprehension, which has been quite challenging because there are so many different levels of understanding and trying to write for a wide audience is no small task. This is not meant to be a one stop shop for everything to do with this topic, it is meant to be for the lay person who may not understand the foundational concepts in law that support the idea of an account created in your name, and managed by the State.
In order to describe the whole situation, a book would be required. Here is a good overview for those seeking a more comprehensive explanation of the hidden side of the financial and legal system.
For those with a legal background, or who have studied much of the “freeman sovereignty” material out there, much of the descriptions of concepts might not be the way you learned them, but the core ideas are effectively equivalent. For example, some might say that these accounts are not trust accounts, but the pure concept of a trust is most definitely at play, as all commerce requires trust at some level for contractual obligations to be met. The words and terms use below have many meanings within society, but I have taken the time to define them within the context of the article, and it is these definitions that should be used in trying to understand what is described.
Finally, if you think a concept is presented in error, feel free to send me an explanation as to why ([email protected]), demonstrating a superior argument, so it can be added here.
Update: I received this information from Jordan Sather of Destroying the Illusion. On July 12th, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta warned that using your social security number and Fed routing numbers to pay your bills (which is the Treasury Direct Account process), could result in delays and late fees. Notice they didn’t say it was illegal.
Consumer Scam Alert: Do Not Use Federal Reserve Routing Account Numbers to Pay Bills; Could Face Late Fees, Other Charges
For immediate release: July 12, 2017
Recently, the Federal Reserve Banks have received a number of unauthorized transactions in which consumers have tried to use the Fed’s routing numbers and their Social Security numbers to pay their bills.
It is important for consumers to know that when making online or e-check bill payments, they cannot use Federal Reserve routing numbers. Federal Reserve routing numbers are used for sorting and processing payments between banks. Any video, text, email, phone call, flyer, or website that describes how to pay bills using a Federal Reserve Bank routing number or using an account at the Federal Reserve Bank is a scam.
The Federal Reserve provides banking services only for banks. Individuals do not have accounts at the Federal Reserve.
The bill payments being attempted using the Fed’s routing numbers are being rejected and returned unpaid. Consumers who have attempted to use the Fed’s routing numbers to pay their bills may be subject to penalty fees from the company they were attempting to pay. (source)
In my view, within the context of the following discussion, this is a carefully worded statement. Consider that people have gone to jail for years for commuting bank fraud. But all that is being said here is that a person might be “subject to penalty fees from the company they were attempting to pay.” This suggests that they cannot say it is illegal because it actually is legal to some degree.
But as will be described below, this doesn’t mean the system condones this behavior either. Quite the contrary, they are calling it a scam, and will likely treat people who use this process as scam artists. This means you can expect all kinds of mafia-like tactics from law enforcement intended to intimidate you into not using this process. Bear this in mind as you contemplate if this is something you want to do.
Here’s a short explanation of where the money for these accounts comes from and how people are accessing it.
Lets say you have some debt that you want to pay off, (referred to as a discharge of debt in legal terms). Normally, you’d have to earn the money to pay the debt. But what if I told you that the government created a trust account in your name when you were born? This is exactly what happened.
The government creates an account and then uses various methods to fund them—like quick turn around investment schemes—which accumulate value to the tune of millions and sometimes billions of dollars. While these accounts are most definitely real, the government never tells us they exist. They use these accounts to fund all sorts of things, including nefarious programs and black budget projects.
Although the government never tells us about these accounts, you can access it using your social security card. A social security number is not just a government ID, it’s also the account number for your personal account, allegedly known as a Treasury Direct Account (TDA). Using the code on the back of your social security card, you can locate the routing number associated to your account. At this point, the process works just like paying any other debt using a check. You go online, enter the account number (your social) and routing number (found on the federalreserve.gov website) into a e-bill payment system—a standard feature of most financial services—and pay your bill as if you were using your own bank account. And that’s it.
One question a reader had was: What do you see when you access your account? You don’t see anything. You can’t go online or go to the bank and give them your TDA information so they can pull up an account balance for you. In this sense, when you use the TDA to pay a debt, you are doing so “blind,” as if a friend gave you their bank information to pay a debt—you don’t see their account when paying it.
At the time of this writing, dozens of people have successfully paid debts using this method. But, there are many others who have had payments reversed, stopped, or their online services locked after trying to use the TDA. One man by the name of Randy, used his account to purchase an RV, but when he went to go pick it up, he was arrested for an older charge that had nothing to do with the use of his TDA—more on this later.
What does this mean? Can I use my TDA account to pay debts? Is it legal? Is it risky?
In my opinion, based on all my law research and knowledge of the current state of the legal and justice system, I would personally not use these accounts. There is too much risk involved and uncertainty at this point; additionally the method for accessing these accounts may not be lawful, as I will attempt to detail in lay terms.
These accounts are secret. The government never wanted you to know about them, let alone use them. But the fact that they are secret also means that they likely don’t want to prosecute people for using them, instead, they’ll find another way to arrest you, like they did to Randy. So on this score, think of it like this: the government is effectively the mafia, and uses criminal methods to achieve their goals—you don’t want to go stealing from them unless you know what you’re getting into. This is one of the reasons why it is risky, because even if you do have a valid right to use your TDA, the criminal government might still come after you.
The accounts are also held in trust for you, but you don’t really have the authority to use them. Think of it like this: just because someone bought you a gift for a holiday doesn’t mean you can go take it beforehand. For your TDA, you would have to establish the correct authority to use these accounts, and then prove that to the government. It isn’t clear to me, at this point, if anyone accessing these accounts has the proper authority, and as such, they could be acting unlawfully.
Access to these accounts might be a glitch in the new electronic and automated financial system. Within this electronic system, there might be vulnerabilities that allow people to bypass blocking methods used by the government for these accounts. If true, then as time goes on, more and more people won’t be successful using their TDA, and they will likely be liable for attempting to do so. Consider that a lot of people are having payments from these accounts reversed, which suggests that some factions within system are becoming aware of the situation.
All this being said, there is a very real risk involved in using your TDA, and like all things in life, it’s generally not wise or prudent to jump into something you have only a hazy understanding of. If you decide to use these accounts, do so at your own risk, ideally by gaining real knowledge of what this risk means. I strongly encourage you to read on so you can gain a better understanding of the law. At the very least, this situation is helping to reveal the fact that there really is a hidden side of the financial and legal system; thus this is an excellent opportunity to gain key knowledge and understanding.
What follows is a much more detailed explanation of the history, law, and implications of using these accounts. While this information is likely boring to most, it is incredibly important to understand the legal and lawful drama that has led to where we are today. The law is the rule book for existence, and the better we understand the rules the better we’re able to work with them to manifest abundance and prosperity in life. What’s more, if people gained knowledge of the law, they would have the tools in hand to restore justice and end the tyranny that has plagued humanity for ages.
The activities and exchanges of humanity are managed and governed by law, legal systems, and finance, which are ideally designed to help the individual work in society to achieve their life goals. If these goals are properly refined and discerned, the individual will beneficially contribute to their culture and civilization. And if society was truly lawful, then it will enhance the individual’s creative capacities.
But we don’t live in a world where society is managed in trust and in honor of the rule of law. Instead, all people, the world over, are secretly declared by the State to be insane, incompetent, and spiritually dead, incapable of managing their lives or their affairs in trust and honor. These declarations happen in secret, using the hidden side of the legal and financial system.
The legal system, although founded on real lawful principles, has become a mechanism for tyranny and enslavement—not unlike a hammer being used to kill instead of being used to build. The consequence of the fallacious presumption of incompetency of the individual establishes the debt-slavery model used throughout the world today: the Commonwealth system. Debt-slavery is a literal and legal reality, which is obscured or hidden, and yet can be understood, as the following attempts to detail.
In order to manage the overt debt-based society, a hidden credit-based system was needed. The value held in this credit-based system is managed in trust for our benefit, in this case known as your Treasury Direct Account.
Basis of the Treasury Accounts
The idea that the government has a secret set of books is nothing new, as various freeman and sovereignty researchers have long asserted that the birth certificate is a receipt for the creation of a legal estate, given the same name as the individual.
Reference Material: For specific examples within the legal code of the estate creation process, see the following detailed video.
Creation of Your Estate — The Credit-Based Hidden Financial System
When you’re born, your parents create an estate on your behalf and sign the title over to the State for it to manage, via your birth certificate. Jane Doe, born on such and such a day, is evidence of a new living being with well-nigh limitless creative capacities, who will undoubtedly do things in the world to generate value, be they goods or services. This estate or legal person is given the name JANE DOE—the corporatized version of you or legal person—which is used in all legal matters throughout life, such as job and loan applications, credit cards, drivers license, and so on.
Theoretically, in order to provide for the development of that individual, so they can be the most productive member of society, the State creates various structures, such as civil utilities (townships, cities, states, etc.), financial organizations (banks), educational systems, and so on. All these are developed and provided in trust for the benefit of the individual, with the obligation that they will honor the laws and legal policies of that society.
Simply put, if the government really served the people, it would have to provide resources and tools to help you become the most intelligent, productive, and competent citizen possible. A credit-based financial system simply means that you’re seen as already having value, merely by existing, and then financial mechanisms are created to allow you to access that value in trust with all other people. And in a perfect world, you wouldn’t need to pay for civil utilities, like roads, public services, medical care, education, and so on—because these would be provided for you in a pay-it-forward capacity. The way you “pay back” the government is by being a productive citizen, honoring the laws, and also producing abundance in your life, such as goods and services. And for the most part, the average citizen is a productive member of society—albeit within the limits of the current state of society.
Debt-Based Slavery System
Here’s the problem. The State doesn’t honor their part of the bargain. Instead of truly educating you about your powers of creation, the faculties of your being that create value, they dumb us down via the education system, which makes us literally mentally incompetent, not mention the weapons of mass destruction like electro-smog (the grid) and geoengineering. Within the hidden legal system, the State declares us incompetent, dead, or lost at sea, which means we can’t manage our affairs. Common law is the legal system that was created in the 16th and 17th centuries to manage the citizens that were declared insane and incompetent, also called wards. Admiralty law was created later to manage the estates of these lost souls. And the Uniform Commercial Code U.C.C. is the latest and greatest version of the equity- (commerce-) based slaver system.
What does being declared incompetent, dead, and lost at sea mean?
I know this sounds like some kind of superstitious nonsense, but this is exactly what happens in the hidden legal system. By declaring this, the powers that should not be claim we can’t use our credit-based value—the trust accounts. Think of it like this, if you were at a party, and you were intoxicated, you wouldn’t be capable of driving your car home safely. As a result, a friend may take your keys from you to prevent you from doing harm to yourself or others—owing to the fact you aren’t competent in your intoxicated state to drive your car. The same premise is involved here. By declaring us incompetent and dead, the legal system takes control over the accounts and uses it for their own purposes.
By declaring us lost at sea, the legal system prevents us from clearing the air or rebut the presumption. And since we’re considered insane, the government doesn’t trust us to use our value. As a result, they had to create a debt-based monetary system, one that assumes everyone is worthless from the start, and only have worth when working to earn a living, and in doing so, actively contribute to the systems of slavery. This is why gaining knowledge of the law is so important, else you are an unwitting pawn of the financial elite.
What this means is that the hidden credit-based system is used to prop up the debt-based system we use every day. So while you don’t see the credit-based system, you most definitely see the debt-based system when you pay your taxes, when you apply for a loan, and when you are charged with a crime (court costs)—to cite a few examples.
The reason it’s often referred to as a debt-based slavery system is because we have to work in the system to survive. Instead of using our inherent value and creative potential to produce our own abundance and prosperity, our energy is used to support the systems of society, largely designed to defraud the people and aggregate wealth and resources into the hands of a few—the so called financial elite, Illuminati, Deep State, Shadow Government, and so on.
But can’t I just go to the government and say: “I’m not dead or lost at sea! I’m right here. Now let me have my value!”
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
The government declared you incompetent within weeks of your birth. You would have had to present yourself to the state, giving notice that you are alive, not insane, and not lost a sea before your seventh birthday. But since most of us had no clue about any of this, we never did. And while there are various techniques for addressing this situation, since the government has abandoned the rule of law and has effectively gone rogue, most people haven’t been successful.
What this means is that in the eyes of the government, we have no power or authority over our own minds, bodies, and the things we do with them. This is how the world has been run for centuries, with a progressively evolving debt-slavery system that eventually gave us the near technocratic one we use today.
Estates, Competence, and Rights
The concept of an estate is another rather baffling idea to most that needs be understood. There are two general types of estates, which I am designating the real you and the estate or legal person for the purposes of this discussion. Estates are always “fictional” in that they are purely conceptual or metaphysical things, they are a fictional representation of the real person and what that person does in life; just like how a map is not the territory, the estate is not the living being, only a legal/fictional person.
The Real You
The real you is everything you do with your being, your body, mind, and energy system, along with all the things you create with your being, most especially, the nature and quality of the relationships you have with others and the world. This is also known as a True Trust, but we will stick with the term the real you. When you create something, you can transfer it to another, who receives the right to use it—ownership is the right of use and right to delegate, which includes physical possession. The right to delegate us, or the right to let someone else use what you own, whether a physical object like a car or a metaphysical object like your name.
For example, the “state of your being”—happy, sad, uplifted, depressed, creative, bored, all affect your output, the fruit of your labors—thus your mood is one example of the real you. The products or things you produce with your time fall under your care—your house can either be messy or clean, depending on how you manage it. And again, these “objects” also include metaphysical things like, ideas, beliefs, desires, and the stuff of your consciousness—clearly the things the real you uses everyday.
The very fact that you exist in reality and do things in it means you have relationships to things and people, which can be described legally as an estate. But how you manage your affairs demonstrates if you are competent or not. For example, if you have a car in your possession, but lack the skill to drive it, this status would be one of incompetence. If you drive the car without knowing how, you might hurt yourself, other people, and damage property. As such, your ability to manage your affairs, what you do with your time on this planet, reflects your competence. One who can manage their affairs or estate in trust with all other beings is often referred to as a sovereign.
An Estate — The Legal Person
The real you, as was just defined, is also codified legally as a legal person, also known as an estate. An estate is the tool you use to interface with the legal world, where business is done between other people, in a given jurisdiction of law. The integrity of the legal system where you live manages the estates of other people, which means that technically you can use your estate but you don’t own legal title to it. Since what gives your estate legal power is ultimately derived from the legal system where you live, you have the right to use your estate but it isn’t yours in the sense that you own your name. (I know it’s hard to keep track of these concepts when the words we use to refer to them are the same. The legal system intentionally did this to make it even more confusing for people to understand the law.)
What this means is that there is a legal “reflection” of you that keeps track of everything you are, do, or will do, in relation to the government—your legal person. This estate is the thing we use to engage others in society, often called commerce. In most governments the social security number is the identifier that links your physical being to your legal person, hence you need it to get a job, a bank account, approval for a loan, etc. For example, we might provide our social security number to the IRS to pay taxes, which links the real you to your legal person or estate.
The legal person is tool the State uses and maintains as an interface between the real world and the purely conceptual world of the legal system. While the idea of a legal person is often vilified, it is not inherently evil or nefarious. For example, your name is one aspect of your purely conceptual self, something that was arbitrarily given to you, but has no material substance. Despite the wholly non-material nature of your name, it is still an incredibly useful thing to use, especially in social settings (whether casual or in business). The legal person is very similar in that it is a purely conceptual tool we use to do business or cooperate with others.
As an interesting, but non-critical side note (skip this if you’re already confused): The name United States of America also has a secret meaning of united estates of America. Recall that the U.S.A. is supposed to be an “enlightened republic” which means the individual and their rights are held in trust as the highest measure of lawful authority—meaning, the State or the mob can’t trump the individuals inalienable rights. The legal consequence of this precept of law is that in order to manage the affairs of all the “sovereigns” on the land, they employed estates or legal persons—tools to manage all the rights of the individual people. Prior to the dissolution of the de jure constitutional republic in 1861, these estates were managed under the best constitutional law that existed at the time (hardly perfect, but better than what we have today.) Since that time, the constitutional republic was dissolved—due to congress being abandoned—and martial law was instituted along with the second american bankruptcy, which applied all the estates of the people as surety liquidation of assets related to the original social contract—the constitution. This is important to consider when trying to understand the pure concept of a legal person and estate. In this case, the original use was a tool for lawful governance but then was later used as a tool of enslavement. Ergo, the tool is not the source of evil itself, it’s how it is used. Today, martial law and bankruptcy have continued. The third american bankruptcy took place in 1933, which reorganized the proceedings, removing constitutionally defined lawful money (gold and silver) and replaced it with debt-money, backed by the “full faith and credit of the people.” It is this present day situation that is unlawful and insidious.
The problem with the legal person is how it has been defined and used by the State. If the government was acting lawfully this legal version of us would be maintained in trust for our benefit—without fraud, deceit, or dishonor. It wouldn’t be used to enslave us or to commit fraud. How the legal person, as it exists today, is used as a tool of your enslavement is a large discussion. But in the main, the legal system can’t deal with the real you, it can only deal with your estate or legal person. However, you didn’t design or create your legal person, the State did, and as such they own it (retain legal title) and misuse this legal version of us in all manner of insidious, deceptive, and dishonorable ways.
Think of it like this: If you are a musician in an orchestra, you might play a piece of music that was written by a composer. What you play, your performance, is yours, but the music itself was written by someone else, which means it isn’t completely your own creation—it’s a marriage of performer and composer. In the same way, the legal person is the thing the government creates for you to use, to perform things in society with, ideally in a lawful capacity. This legal version of you is useful because the State maintains a system of law to ensure everyone’s estates are managed fairly (in trust)—this is the pure concept anyway. Of course, as many know, the system is hardly lawful, and yet, the essential fabric of what makes a legal person or estate what it is—an agency of the State—still holds true.
Hidden Accounts Used By the Government
The estates created by the birth certificate are managed on our behalf by the State. As was discussed earlier, the credit-base side of the legal system assumes we have inherent value, and creates monetary instruments to support that, what we refer to as money, bonds, stocks, and so on. Although the value is theoretically derived from our own life energy and creativity, we don’t automatically get to take a managerial role with regard to said value—keep this point in mind.
The value was generated using various financial means, by way of speculating on your creative potential, like: the issuance of bonds, the conversion of promissory notes, and so on. Also, the so-called collateral accounts (global wealth accumulated by dynastic families), also seems to be a funding source. We benefit from this value by way of the creation of State-run money via the issuance of Treasury bonds that the government sells to the Federal Reserve, who then prints the money we use. All of the things that make a country, society, or nation what it is, was produced by way of these hidden accounts or the estates of the citizens, all used as collateral on the debt-based side of the books to compel everyone to work in the system and earn a living.
The problem is, at present, we don’t have power to manage our estates, which is where the hidden credit-based funding mechanisms of society come from. We have to use the fraudulent loan system to access value in these accounts, which is known as the conversion of promissory notes. In other words, money that was placed in these accounts is fraudulently lent to us at interest, which we need to work in the world to pay off using our blood, sweat, and labor. In the process, the government gets to use these funds for their own purposes. This misuse by the State is made possible by declaring us incompetent.
Competence, in a lawful and general sense, is established by demonstrating real working knowledge of something, also known as wisdom or skills.
You are a competent chef if you can cook a meal from scratch—without a recipe. You are a competent musician if you can play a piece of music perfectly. And you are competent in law if you consciously know the law, can describe it explicitly, and can act within it—honorable conduct.
Gaining competence over your estate, whether the real you or the legal version, requires true knowledge and understanding. You should to be able to manage your affairs without causing harm or damage to property.
In a truly lawful world, the fact that you can manage your life with competence, by not harming others and not damaging property, along with declaring your will to the world (your purpose), would be the only requirement of demonstrating competence. But within the existing legal system, additional steps are needed to establish competence or authority to manage your estate (legal person), which often requires filing paperwork of some kind—giving notice to those figures within the government.
If the State actually held up their end of the bargain, people could easily assert their valid authority and competence, and in doing so, gain access to their accounts. But the State makes this all but impossible, by refusing to honor their own processes. In other words, the State pays lips service to the idea a citizen can re-establish their competence, but never honors such citizens—revealing the State’s defunct and criminal nature.
Again, the State uses these funds to operate the slavery systems of Earth. The insidious programs of geoengineering, weaponized agriculture and food production, mass-mind control technologies, and so on, are funded via these treasury accounts or estates.
Rights and Defense
Given all this, an individual who gains knowledge of this incredible fraud will likely choose to do something about it—as in, they likely want to defend their rights and help defend the rights of others. Hence, one definition of the word sovereign is savior of the world.
The fact is, societies are obligated to support the individual, to provide systems that facilitate them in the lawful use of their rights—and it is equally true that people are obligated to give back to the systems and societies that support them. When we actualize ourselves by gaining knowledge and competence, we can take a stand against injustice, giving back to society in the process.
An individual who knows the law has the right to act in defense of their estate, and even to reclaim their estate from those (the government) who have failed to manage it in trust.
A right is an action an individual can take that affects the world (a freedom), and as a result, the individual is responsible for what happens. Freedom and responsibility are inextricably linked, forever bound to one another. If a society fails to provide knowledge and tools to the individual so they can exercise their rights in trust (with competence), or in harmony with all others, then that society is defunct and unlawful by nature.
The State is in Breach of Trust or Defunct
This is where we find ourselves today.
The individual’s estate was commandeered from them via an admiralty process (declaring us incompetent), and the value in the accounts tied to their estate was used to fund all manner of insidiousness. What’s more, there is no way to resolve the situation. That is, despite the fact that there is a legal method to prove you are not insane, dead or lost at sea, such appeals are never honored by the State—at least not in any meaningful way.
For example, due to the bankruptcy of 1933, when all constitutionally defined money in the US (gold and silver backed currencies) was canceled, there was no legal way for the citizen to discharge debts using asset-backed money. As a result, HJR 192 provided a legal remedy whereby individuals could discharge their debts by using their treasury accounts, sometimes known as an Acceptance For Value (A4V) process, which by all accounts, appears to be an invalid method of access. But in almost all cases, when people took the time to learn about this, and follow the correct process, thereby establishing competence, they were unlawfully and illegally denied access by the State.
Accessing the Treasury Accounts
Given all this, the citizen/individual is up against the wall, and some researchers might have discovered a way to access funds in their treasury accounts, or TDAs. The group in question, as was said earlier, has had what appears to be some success doing this but there are serious risks involved.
What are the Risks?
The question is: Do those individuals who use their TDAs in this way have the legal and lawful right to do so? And even if they do, will the defunct State condone such actions?
From what I can decipher, Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf is the person that is spearheading this endeavor. Using a somewhat formal process, she effectively declared herself an agent of Source (creator of the universe), the Original Depositor of a Factualized Trust (the real you), and claimed authority over all the accounts. This was an attempt to dispel the presumptions of the State listed above; and if accepted, would grant her powers to manage these accounts for the people. Stated again for clarity, Heather asserted that the State was a defunct criminal enterprise, and as a result, has no valid right or authority to manage the estates of the people. As such, she is using a defensive right to arrest these accounts from the State. This apparently happened via various document filings earlier this year and in previous years.
What is unclear is whether or not the State has accepted these declarations as valid.
Understanding Trust Law and the Relationships of Trust
Here’s some trust law to consider.
While you might not think of the relationships you have with others as working within the laws of trust, these principles are alive in reality, inescapable and ever-present. This is part of the reason why it can be so difficult to comprehend—not unlike a fish that can’t perceive the water it’s swimming through.
A grantor or principal places value in the hands of a person (an administrator) who manages this value for a beneficiary. The rules or policies for managing the value are established via agreement between the principal and agent(s), at which time it can be said a trust has been created. Trustees are brought on board as agents of the principal, who carry out the policies of the trust, hence the term agent. Trustees are obligated to follow the policies of the trust. The beneficiary is the person or entity that receives the value, dependent upon some set of obligations defined by the principal—the policies or rules that describe how a beneficiary can receive their benefits. The beneficiary may or may not—and often doesn’t—have discretionary power over the trust, unless it is explicitly given to them by the principal.
Here’s an example.
A father and mother decide to buy a car for their child, but in order to use this car, the child has to ask permission first. The parents are the grantors, they placed the value (the car), in the trust, and as the principals, they devised the policies (rules) that describe how the child (the beneficiary) can use the car. The child, in order to use the car in trust—in harmony with the rules set-forth by their parents—needs to ask permission first. If they fail to ask permission, they might lose access to the car—and in doing so breach trust.
What should be clear is that the beneficiary can’t just take the car because they are the named beneficiary, there’s a precise process to follow to ensure that all parties are aware of what’s happening, so all parties are on the same page. In effect, when you are on the same page with someone, when you know what they do (also known as a meeting of the minds), you are in trust with them.
De jure and De facto Authority
Getting back to the treasury accounts, the government is effectively the principal within this trust relationship—they devised the rules of how you can access these accounts in trust. These rules are described or written down as statutes or legal policies of the nation-state of residence, in this case, the United States of America. A beneficiary of these accounts would need to follow the policies set forth by the principals in order to gain de jure or lawful authority—a valid right to use the funds held in trust.
De jure is a term referring to explicit authority, a proper and lawful conveyance of rights from the holder of said rights to another person or an agent. In this case, the rights in question are the ability to use the funds in the accounts. A beneficiary can be both an agent and beneficiary at the same time; and by gaining de jure authority, becomes an agent acting in trust. Citing the above example, when the child asks permission to use the car, and the parents agree, the child has established de jure authority over the value held in trust (the car), becoming an agent of the principal.
De facto is a term referring to implied authority, an improper and unlawful conveyance of rights. De facto control is a term that refers to real world use of property, whether or not de jure authority has been established. If a child were to drive a car with permission from his/her parents, then he/she would be in de facto control of the vehicle while also legitimately possessing de jure authority to exercise such control. But in general, de facto means implied, not explicit. If the child failed to ask their parents to use the car, and the parents knew of this and let it happen anyway, then it is implied by their lack of action that they agree to let their child use the car. While the child still receives the benefit of the car, the child did so without express permission, and therefore, is acting in breach of trust.
De facto authority, is by nature, lawfully inferior to de jure authority, as no lawful conveyance of rights took place.
Here’s a bit of prima facie evidence from Senate document 43, stating that the ultimate ownership of property is the government, due to the
bankruptcy of 1933.
“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” (source)
In other words, we don’t have a de jure authority over our own property, any of it, partially because the State considers us incompetent.
Lawful Consequences of Using the Accounts
What does all this mean within the context of using your treasury accounts?
Unless you have received express permission from the principals of these accounts (ostensibly the Secretary of The Treasury), using some valid process, you do not have de jure authority, you are only exercising de facto control. And it may be the case that such usage of these accounts is in breach of trust, also called dishonor in law.
However, there might be a provision within the policies of these trusts that allows a named beneficiary to access the accounts, without express permission, at any time. If such a provision really exists, then you wouldn’t need to ask permission from the principals to discharge your debts using the treasury accounts; you would have de jure authority by way of the legal provision. Citing the above example, if the parents said the child could use the car at anytime without permission, then if the child used it in this way, they would be acting in trust and have de jure authority.
But I have yet to find any legal provision that allows people to use these accounts without establishing de jure authority first. What’s more, given that the government has declared every citizen as a ward of the State—a dead soulless thing incapable of making any choices insofar as their estate is concerned—any such legal provision, should it exist, may not even apply.
Another thing to consider is what is the fine print for using these accounts? If a person does discharge debt using their TDA, what else are they agreeing to? In law, everything you do has many meanings and consequences that reflect your status in relationship to other things, legal polices, and so on. For example, by appearing in court, and making a plea of innocent or guilty, you unwittingly agree to 12 legal presumptions that effectively give the State power over you, a kind of admission that you are incompetent and the State is your master.
Thus, from a law perspective, to use these accounts without de jure authority is unlawful. The State has the lawful right to seek redress or remedy when the beneficiary violates the trust, which it often does via criminal proceedings. In the past, other freemen have accessed these treasury accounts, and discharged some debt, only to have law enforcement agencies prosecute them later. In such cases, those persons were not only liable for violating the statutes of the legal system, but were also liable for the full dollar value of the funds misused. Despite the fact, some freeman followed a valid legal and lawful process, they were still prosecuted as criminals, which reveals the defunct nature of the State; and also highlights the real risks involved.
No Rule of Law
Another point to consider is that, because the State breached trust first, because they unlawfully declared us insane, dead, and lost at sea—because they don’t honor the lawful process by which an individual rebuts these presumptions—they demonstrate incompetence of governance. In other words, the government must act as a legal body to uphold the rights of the people in trust, which it has failed to do. In this sense, since there is no legal or lawful way to manage the fraud of the State, since there is no lawful way to restore trust by redress and remedy, the State proves itself incompetent.
What this means is that there is effectively no rule of law.
The only reason a state has authority is because it acts lawfully, in trust with the citizenry, and maintains honor and good standing in all matters. But when the citizen acts lawfully, when the citizen manages their affairs in trust, despite the government, the citizen can be said to have more authority in law than the government and all that it manages. In this sense, Heather’s declarations have a valid justification, so long as she properly demonstrated competence and accurately described all the lawful factors needed to support this declaration of authority. However, it is unclear if she actually did this.
Responsibility and Liability
If the government was acting in trust or lawfully, it would be unlawful to access these accounts without proper notice and permission. But since the government is defunct, and the citizen is robbed of their rights, and such funds are used to harm and enslave others, the citizen has a measure of authority to act in defense of themselves and in a custodial capacity to defend all others. But in such cases, these brave individuals would need to have complete knowledge and understanding so that they truly are fully responsible and liable for their actions.
In other words, anyone using the treasury accounts as an attempt to arrest their value from defunct authorities would need to really understand what they’re doing, lawfully and legally, and they should also proceed fully aware that, at the present moment, one should not under any circumstances count on the system acting lawfully even if you are. Following a recipe is, by nature, not complete understanding. And in such cases, these persons are accessing their accounts in dishonor, despite the fact the government is also in dishonor. Consider the axiom that the party who acts in trust and honors the law has the most authority. This suggests that the solution to dishonor and lawlessness is not more dishonor and lawlessness.
A sovereign recognizes and accepts that in order to exercise their rights, they are responsible and liable for their actions. This recognition, in addition to real knowledge and understanding of the law, and how to navigate such things precisely, is what establishes competence.
Secured Creditor via a U.C.C. Filing Process
This section is not directly pertinent to the discussion of TDAs, but it is worth mentioning because it is related to the overarching discussion of value held by the government in trust. It is rather complex, so if this is too much to digest, you can skip this section.
There’s a lot to unpack here and I will summarize and simplify most of this to the best of my ability for ease of comprehension, but there is a lot more the story than what is herein presented.
During the Civil War, congress was abandoned due to the fact a quorum was not present—there wasn’t enough representatives and senators in attendance to conduct the countries business. The same thing happened to all the states, which means there was effectively no constitutional republic any longer. As a result, President Lincoln declared martial law, issued the first executive order and the Lieber Code.
Under martial law, the military seized all property and placed it in trust, for protection, along with declaring the nation bankrupt. Lincoln was killed before he was able to end the Civil War and martial law.
The international bankers stepped in, introduced a corporate version of the United States (USA, Inc.), under the prevailing laws of commerce at the time, and expanded the federalized territory of Washington D.C., turning all states into franchises of the parent corporation, USA, inc.
The people were then declared enemies of the now banker run government, which effectively invaded the constitutional republic. The “on the land” citizens were considered enemies of the international banker version of the government. The people were pledged as surety for the bankruptcy of the first republic, and a liquidation process began, whereby, over the next 70 years the citizens had to pay the new banker run state via their labor. International laws established by the Hague and Geneva conventions (1864, 1906, 1929, 1949) created regulations for the management of non-combatants, which afforded protections to people in a war-time situation.
But the Civil War and martial law never officially ended. In addition, since the government declared citizens enemy combatants, the people were not protected under internal law.
The birth certificate became a bond whereby the State gave “shares” of the USA, inc to the citizen, who had no title to it due to the fact they were enemies of the State. But because of martial law, the State took full liability of all property, including the estates of the people, which meant they had to provide remedy and services. This means that all non-combatants can discharged their debt using the birth certificate bond, but only if they establish that they are the creditor, “owner” of the bond and no longer enemy combatants.
Apparently, the way this process works is you file a document in the U.C.C. system—which is a privately run commercial law system for the settling of contracts—essentially stating you are the living creditor on the land, not an enemy combatant, and transfer your interest to the government. You agree to discharged debts via the birth certificate bond, using the IRS as a kind of clearing house.
That is what I was able to uncover in my research about this process.
Wading through all the complexities, this process effectively employs existing previsions in the legal system to establish control over your credit-based value, secured in a bond via the birth certificate. This pulls you out of the incompetency status, at least insofar as being declared an enemy of the state is concerned, and then gives you administrative power over the accounts so debt can be discharged (paid).
This all sounds well and good, but there’s a few things to consider here as well.
The U.C.C. system is a private banking and equity management system. It owes no allegiance to anything but itself and those who own and manage it. It isn’t bound to honor justice, truth, and benevolence of life. In other words, this international system of law is not derived from natural law, and by extension, divine law, which means that to use it implies you acknowledge its authority. And this is literally true because by filing documentation in it to establish your status, you rest on the authority of the U.C.C.
In addition, such a process validates the fraudulent banker take over of the republic, and it is effectively an admission that the Civil War and Martial law declared in the 1800s is still in effect.
In other words, while this method appears to be a superior form of authority when compared to accessing the TDA without any declaration, it isn’t an ultimate solution to the much greater problems we face on this planet.
That said, I don’t discount that this process works or that there is merit to using it. I’m merely offering insights within the greater context of restoring the true rule of law to this planet, which ultimately needs to derive its authority from the divine creator, the true source of all law, not the U.C.C.
Risks of Using the Accounts
Given that the State is effectively a criminal enterprise that acts unlawfully to maintain its interests, the risk of using these accounts is great.
Even though the citizen is up against the wall, and might even have true knowledge and understanding, and wisdom on their side (sovereignty), that doesn’t mean the criminal government won’t take action; it doesn’t mean you won’t open yourself up to risk if you use these accounts.
According to Heather, her insiders within bank, trade, and finance say that they are “excited people are using these accounts.” She claims that the power to use them was taken away from the State, by way of her filings; and that certain high level figures are now condoning access. But none of this has been confirmed or verified by me. Nor have I seen any incidental evidence to confirm that this is the case, and as such, remains an unproven claim.
During a conference call that took place on Friday July 7th, 2017, it was suggested that the reason people are having success in accessing these accounts is because a new automated form of the financial system went online this year. And because of that, it is easier to use these accounts to bypass any stopping mechanisms that the State would have in the past used to prevent access. If true, then the access is more so a glitch or gap in the system, not necessarily something sanctioned by the State. The fact that some financial systems are allowing these payments to go through, whereas others are reversing them, suggests that the financial system in general hasn’t authorized this access at a system-wide level.
In summary, there are three possibilities to consider in assessing the risks involved.
1. The powers that be, in knowing their system is unlawful and defunct, are letting people access these accounts in dishonor; they are issuing implied consent to allow the citizen de facto authority. If true, then law enforcement may not take action against those who use these accounts to discharge debt.
2. The new automation infrastructure of the financial system did not anticipate that people would figure out how to use their treasury accounts to discharge debt. In essence, a vulnerability is being leveraged by those who are accessing these accounts, but no one knows how long this will be available. (It’s as if the lock on the pantry door was left open—but that doesn’t mean it will stay open, nor does it mean those who took things from it won’t have to deal with consequences later.) In time, the State could find the vulnerability and prevent all access. And people who misused the accounts might be liable for their actions.
3. Heather did, in fact, establish lawful de jure authority to use these accounts and conveyed rights of use to other people. Or, some pre-existing provision within the legal statute allows citizens to access their accounts without providing notice first.
Based on all my knowledge of law, the defunct legal system, and the process used by Heather and those following her, I can’t say with absolute certainty which option is the right one. But what I can say is that to use these accounts is very risky.
“Hope for the best. Plan for the worst. And expect something in between.” — Unknown
At best, the system is condoning access, and you won’t have to worry. In time, perhaps the much prophesied collapse of the debt-based financial system will take place, and those who accessed these accounts won’t get in trouble.
At worst, the people who are accessing these accounts are doing so in dishonor and fraud, and they will be liable for their actions.
Sovereign Status and Use of Funds
Lets say for the moment that all of this is totally legal and lawful, and through hard work of learning the law, you can gain access to these funds, to the tune of millions of dollars. How are you using this money?
No doubt this will earn me some scorn but I think this is a fair question to ask.
If you were given enough money that could help fund and develop projects to restore the planet, heal the soil, provide real education to the people, restore the rule of law, stop human trafficking and pedophilia, and all the other insidiousness in this world, but instead, you choose to buy cars, big screen TVs, or what have you—what would this say about
your “sovereign status?”
Of course not everyone who is accessing funds is using them for only personal spending, but this is something to think about.
Consider that sovereign means savior of the world or defender of the realm. If you found a way to “break out of the debt-slavery plantation,” and when you gained your freedom, you decided to indulged in luxuries and adornments, while your fellow human beings continued to suffer under oppression, would this be the behavior of a sovereign?
Of course, everyone is entitled to do what they like with their money. And I am not passing negative judgement on anyone. But it can’t be overlooked that with power comes responsibility. And to use this power for only personal gain while others suffer reveals the state of consciousness of the individual, their ethical and moral maturity. How would this behavior be any different than the ultra rich monarchs, plutocrats and oligarchs who’ve amassed wealth and chosen not to use it for the benefit of all? In my estimation, a true sovereign recognizes the suffering of others, and willingly chooses to take responsibility insofar as helping their fellows.
The elephant in the living room that I think we need to start considering is are we mature enough to handle such incredible power? Money in these quantities, as it exists today, is a tool for world change; it is a motor with a universal adapter attached to it (to quote James Caan from the 2000 film, The Way of the Gun). We can do almost anything with enough money but how we choose to use this energy reflects the quality of our character and our state of personality attainment.
Recall that the system asserts we aren’t competent—we can’t use power wisely. Frankly, if a wealth of cash was dumped in our laps and we just partied with it while the rest of the world burned (a la the great fire of Rome when emperor Nero played his fiddle and watched the city turn to ashes), I think it’s fair to say we haven’t proven ourselves competent, at least in a cosmic sense.
So the question I think we all should ask ourselves is if we had great financial power, what would we do with it? Are we willing to admit we might not have all the wisdom in hand to use it wisely?
I for one can’t say I am totally cognizant of all the factors at play to use such wealth in a wise way. If I had such funds, I’d probably be trying to work with my fellows to ensure what I did with them was truly honorable and beneficial for all.
But again, this is just my upfront and frank opinion. Everyone has to come to terms with this question on their own.
Any relief that people are finding as a result of this process, so long as well intentioned, is arguably well deserved. And I’m not trying to take that away from anyone.
In conclusion, regardless of the justifications one might invoke to use these accounts, it should be clearly understood that doing so puts them at real risk. The system is hardly lawful, and won’t bat an eye when sanctioning people so as to make an example out of them.
Heather’s own documents and process, which is the basis for how others are using these accounts, stipulates that: you are doing so in full responsibility and liability. What this means is that in order to exercise these rights, you have to really understand all of the factors involved, what the laws are, what the legal policies are, and follow them to the best of your ability, always doing so with full transparency, honor, and trust.
But not everyone who is using these accounts has this level of competence, which places them at even greater risk.
The hard truth to consider is that no amount of hopefulness, positive intention, or excuses due to hardship will sidestep or bypass the obligation to be competent and have real firsthand knowledge of the law and factors involved. Rights are only lawful when the person using them acknowledges their responsibility and works to honor it.
How to Deal with Fallout
What if you’ve used these accounts and now worry that you might have made a mistake?
There is a definite possibility that you will be investigated for wrongful access of these accounts. But it’s also possible that the system is more interested in keeping their fraud secret, and as such, they won’t directly prosecute you for accessing your TDA. But they could do all sorts of things to make your life hell, and send you to jail for other trumped up charges, like what happened to Randy.
In principal, you can issue a Notice of Mistake to the authorized manager of the accounts, likely the Secretary of the Treasury, and any law enforcement arms related thereto, stating you used the funds without permission and that you were in error, you will not access them again, and you hope to resolve the situation in trust and in good standing with the law. Such a notice constitutes an act of contrition in principal. However, I do not know for sure what such a move would do, given the unlawful behavior of the system—but it seems to me to be a potentially good step. Again, please take this point, as well as this entire article, as just one man’s lay-perspective. Should you take this course, you cannot continue to access these accounts, else your notice is void or invalid. Again, this is not legal advice, but rather my personal take on what may be a viable path for a solution if you are concerned that you’ve made a false move.
If you accessed these accounts, and decide to do nothing, you may or may not have consequences to deal with. Again, it isn’t clear what the State’s reaction will be, but caution suggests that the criminals in charge of government likely won’t take kindly to the accounts being accessed without permission.
Regardless of what happens, there is much to be learned regarding the hidden side of the financial system, as well as how we as individuals slowly climb up the ladder of personal growth and attainment to achieve true sovereignty.
The fact is the system, for all its problems, lawlessness, and criminality, is founded on principals of law and truth that we can make contact with in our quest for freedom and prosperity.
All those brave souls who took the risk to access their accounts are in a unique position to test their mettle and gain competence, and in doing so, share their experiences with the world for all our collective benefit.
You might not have known what you were getting into, but now you do, and now the burden of learning and education is on your shoulders. Bear this burden gladly, and with cheer, knowing you can take an active role in educating yourself.
TDAs aside, each of us has the power to learn the law and gain competence. The more of us that take on this sacred duty, the more we gain power as a collective to eventually end the rule of tyrannical states who have breached the public’s trust. In this sense, we are each custodians of freedom for all other people—this is the obligation that an individual in a truly free society has to accept. ["In summation: public trust can be resuscitated through numerous means, not simply accessing "your” TDA account.”]
Humanity was never meant to labor under tyranny forever, but liberation requires that each individual accepts their responsibility and forge ahead in the quest for mastery of self.
Again, I strongly suggest that if you decide to use your TDAs in the following way, you take the time to educate yourself about the risks involved. I cannot condone the use of these accounts at this time, for all the reasons listed above.
Given everything that was presented here, it is probably a good idea that you do not use these accounts—at least until it has been clearly established we have the lawful authority to do so. Specifically, ask yourself if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a beneficiary can access those accounts on their own. You should be able to identify where explicit permission for such action is given within the legal system.
A person within the group spearheading this effort has graciously volunteered to post articles and updates about the process, what is happening with those who used the accounts, and how one might try it themselves—listed below.
Please proceed with caution, knowledge, and consciousness.
The preceding text is a Stillness in the Storm original creation. Please share freely.
Justin Deschamps is a truth seeker inspired by philosophy and the love of wisdom in all its forms. He was formally trained in physics and psychology, later discovering the spiritual basis of reality and the interconnected nature of all things. He strives to find the path of truth while also walking it himself, sharing what he knows with others so as to facilitate cooperative change for a better future. He is a student of all and a teacher to some. Follow on Twitter @sitsshow, Facebook Stillness in the Storm, and minds.com.
This article appeared first on Stillness in the Storm.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected] with the error, headline and url. Thank you for reading.
July 27th, 2017: Minor grammar corrections were made to this article.