For a detailed explanation of the Trust relationship we have with our “governments” see this post: Trust Law: How You Became A Commodity – The Creation of Constructive Trusts … “This power over us is, or is about to become, SLAVERY. We are squarely to blame”.
– Justin
Source – Freedom From Government
If you are presumed to be the “trustee” over property (which is usually the case in pretty much any court in the US), and you do not carry out your “fiduciary duties” as trustee, you are in breach of trust.
What if you were using “property” of the US Government… and you claimed it as your own? Would that not be a “breach of trust”? You are NOT your STATE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION! YOU are NOT a PERSON! Do not claim that commercial fictional entity as yourself! If you do, you are presumed to be trustee over state property, and as trustee, you are LIABLE for ALL corporate (trust) policy and can be held accountable for it. Remove the presumption that YOU are property of the STATE. Say that you do not wish to act in fraud, and that the LEGAL FICTION that they are looking for belongs to the UNITED STATES. Give it back! And you will be protected (USC 12 95(a)) EVEN IF YOU DON’T DO IT RIGHT! You only have to make a good faith effort!
Abuse of power, or failure (whether or not deliberate, dishonest, or negligent) to carryout the general and fiduciary duties of a trustee. Trustees are personally liable for any loss to the trust caused directly or indirectly by the breach, and must hand over (to the trust) any profit made from the breach (whether or not the trust suffered any loss).
BREACH OF TRUST Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 566
breach of trust.A trustee’s violation of either the trust’s terms or the trustee’s general fiduciary obligations; the violation of a duty that equity imposes on a trustee, whether the violation was willful, fraudulent, negligent, or inadvertent. • A breach of trust subjects the trustee to removal and creates personal liability.
BREACH OF TRUST. Bouvier’s 1856 dictionary
The wilful misappropriation, by a trustee, of a thing which had been lawfully delivered to him in confidence.
2. The distinction between larceny and a breach of trust is to be found chiefly in the terms or way in which the thing was taken originally into the party’s possession; and the rule seems to be, that whenever the article is obtained upon a fair contract, not for a mere temporary purpose, or by one who is in the. employment of the deliverer, then the subsequent misappropriation is to be considered as an act of breach of trust. This rule is, however, subject to many nice distinctions. 15 S. & R. 93, 97. It has been adjudged that when the owner of goods parts with the possession for a particular purpose, and the person who receives them avowedly for that purpose, has at the time a fraudulent intention to make use of the possession as the weans of converting the goods to his own use, and does so convert them, it is larceny; but if the owner partwith the property, although fraudulent means have been used to obtain it, the, act of conversion is not larceny. Id. Alis. Princ. c. 12, p. 354.
3. In the Year Book, 21 H. VII. 14, the distinction is thus stated: Pigot. If I deliver a jewel or money to my servant to keep, and he flees or goes from me with the jewel, is it felony ? Cutler said, Yes : for so long as he is with me or in my house, that which I have delivered to him is adjudged to be in my possession; as my butler, who has my plate in keeping, if he flees with it, it is felony. Same law; if he who keeps my horse goes away with, him: The reason is, they are always in my possession. But if I deliver a horse to my servant to ride to market or the fair and he flee with him, it is no felony; for e comes lawfully to the possession of the horse by delivery. And so it is, if I give him a jewel to carry to London, or to pay one, or to buy a thing, and he flee with it, it is not felony : for it is out of my possession, and he comes lawfully to it. Pigot. It can well be: for the master in these cases has an action against him, viz., Detinue, or Account. See this point fully discussed in Stamf. P. C. lib. 1; Larceny, c. 15, p. 25. Also, 13 Ed. IV. fo. 9; 52 H. III. 7; 21 H. VII. 15.
Source:
http://freedomfromgovernment.us/breach-of-trust/
Justin, what you are saying seems to go directly against the filings done by OPPT/ETERNAL ESSENCE. Heather's DECLARATION OF REJECTION as in it she states; As I AM the lawful owner, holder-in-due course, trustee, executor, custodian, and original depository of I AM, the Value of I AM, and all that I AM in lawful ownership, holder-in-due course, trustee, executor, custodian, and original depository of, inclusive of __________________.
Filing 2000043135 grants each of us right to use the (our) debtors NAME.
2 points:
1)The state presumes that they own the name and the rights to it, unless you rebut that presumption.
2)There is a difference between using the NAME and BEing the NAME, just like the difference between wearing a costume and being a costume.
The fillings stand in their own right. But the filings, as everyone should be aware of now, do not personally liberate people from the fraudulent system.You cant walk into a court room with a copy of the filings and shut them down. There is something much deeper at work in the 'justice system' a type of 'consciousness' technology that keeps people tied down. This is via their OWN FREE WILL choice to not rebut the presumptions of the 'consciousness technology' system in place.
Until that system goes down, as it were, then we'll need to enforce our own justice by rebutting the presumptions as the above commentor alluded to.