. . . and the names/titles of the entities that accompany it:

  • a newborn child
  • a Private Estate
  • a Public Estate
  • a Public Trust account
  • a Social Security Trust account

It must be determined with certainty what the correct entity names are. The public entities’ names are known, but since the Private Estate is invisible in the public we are left to make assumptions as to its correct name. It seems logical that it’s the child’s given name, provided by the mother, and usually styled in proper case on the COLB, which is a certified copy of the Birth Record and serves as public notice of the Private Estate. If it’s not, then what logical basis is there for the name being something else, such as some variation of the birth name? If the Private Estate name is the given name as styled on the COLB, then does it necessarily follow that the name of the fictional infant is necessarily the same? Or might it be a variation? And if so, by what reasoning or operation?

It should be possible to discern the correct name by examining the fictional presumptions evident in the birth registration process. The underlying presumption is that the infant is a bastard foundling of whom the mother is the informant of its discovery. In signing the birth registration, the mother presumably testified (gave information; informed) that an abandoned infant (described in some detail on the Birth Record) mysteriously and quite literally landed in her lap from God only knows where.

Upon receipt of the Birth Record the United States assumed the role of the father in custody of perfect title to the infant’s Private Estate under the doctrine of parens patriae. That perfect title, represented by the Birth Record, is exactly equivalent to the Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin issued for a new automobile. The Certificate of Live Birth is the notice of receipt of that title and the legalization of the infant estate into the public; making the COLB exactly equivalent to the legal title issued to the purchaser of an automobile.

The mother, as finder and informant, gave the child a name in the registration process and was granted parental custody of (and legal title to) the infant/portable land to which the State retained custody of the equitable/beneficial interest. It’s that given name, sans family name, that’s the correct name of the fictional, bastard, foundling, infant’s Private Estate. This is because the Birth Record was informed by the mother and it was presumed that the father is unknown since he failed to step forward and claim the title to the Private Estate of the infant (his issue).

The “father” listed on the COLB is nothing more than the other custodial parent with the responsibility to maintain the collateral; i.e, feed, clothe, shelter, change the diapers of, and pay for or acquire insurance against any damage to the child/collateral of the Public Trust account. In exchange for these services the custodial parents derive the emotional/psychological benefits of parenthood and are granted an income tax exemption by the assumed father – the United States.

That Public Trust account was created by the deposit of the initial COLB to the United States Dept. of the Treasury. Treasury then leveraged the Birth Bond from the Public Trust and deposited it with the Social Security Administration to create the SSN Trust account for the purpose of backing the SS bonds for that account. The Birth Bond was then traded to the Fed (monetized) for newly-issued FRNs resulting in a lien in favor of the Fed in the nature of a mortgage on the collateral of the Public Trust (coochie, coochie!). The United States then spent this credit derived from the infant estate to help finance its budget deficit.

The SS account was created to be a government contracting office of the United States and the trustee of the Public Trust account. The infant became the holder of that office (a U.S. employee/citizen/officer) by incompetently submitting a Form SS-5 as “Self” in exchange for the benefits accruing to such an officer (retirement and disability). The infant, now acting as trustee of the Public Trust, became liable for the bills of the Public Trust, especially including the federal income tax/mortgage payment for the trust funds that come into the public that are not subsequently returned to the Private Estate.

The submission of a new SS-5 application, by the Grantor, expresses a non citizen, national status of the SS account. This rebuts the citizen/public office status assigned to the account by the U.S. when it was created following the birth of the infant. This is significant in that a citizen is a U.S. person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In contrast, a non citizen national, while also a U.S. person, is not subject to the jurisdiction (statutes and codes) of the United States. In the case of the SS account, the national status means that the SS account is an agency that is created by and on par with its foreign Grantor in that it is without the jurisdiction of the United States, but, unlike the Grantor, it’s a U.S. person that can be seen and heard in the public as the Authorized Representative for the Grantor, i.e.. his attorney in fact.

But just who is the Grantor and how does he gain that status and thereby the authority to express the SS Trust account?

To find this out it must first be recognized that the newborn child is seen only as collateral property (i.e., portable land) and cannot be seen or heard as a living being. This applies to the adult, but legally still a minor, version of that child as well. Real physical things, even living beings, are invisible in the public realm as anything other than inanimate chattel or real property. The rights of that child (including the title to his portable land) are vested in the Private Estate pending the claim of the missing infant/decedent. The Private Estate, in turn, has been deposited as the presumed pledge of the infant/decedent to underwrite the public debt.

In order for this invisible private being to reclaim his rights from the public he must claim them in the private and then engage proxies and use the correct methods to express his claim in the public. The means to do so exist although they are anything but obvious to the uninitiated. Nor are they intended to be.

One method begins with the execution of a Security Agreement between the Public Trust and the Grantor (the fictional capacity or character of the living man expressed in the agreement). That agreement, certified and sworn by the Grantor in the court of record(1), constitutes a foreign summary judgement outlining the rights and obligations of the parties to the agreement. The substantial right acquired by the Grantor is a $100 billion security interest in the Public Trust. The challenge is in how an invisible private entity is to express and enforce that private claim in the public.

(1) the court of record in this context means the competently compiled and maintained private administrative record of the Grantor. It’s the repository of authenticated evidence, and proper notice of that evidence, in support of his claim.