[SansRecours]

"The state can force the public TRUST FAMILY-NAME into anything once they have your consent to ACT as a co-trustee/beneficiary to the TRUST. Remember they created it and they OWN it."

Please show me fact, evidence, law, cases supporting this family trust name thing.

"It is game over as everything unto the TRUST is military law and the law of necessity. And as you have volunteered it is voluntary servitude instead of involuntary servitude. And if you don't say no you just said yes."

Please back this statement up with the same.

"They get around the constitution by WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS which are still in effect from Lincoln’s time."

Same here.

I have never seen anyone prevail going into any kind interface with the government reliant upon the presumptions you advance.

I have never seen this presumption advance by any court, any statute (although I see where the war powers people aka "Schroederites" are coming from).
However, all my study of martial law leads me to factually conclude that martial law historically, has never been used over the whole nation. One of those rebellion cases, either Dorr, or Shay, I cannot recall, gets into this matter. Even in the 1861-65 conflict, it was not over the whole of the United States.

While I agree that the state can regulate that which it creates, I can find no conclusive factual and evidentiary precedent attaching birth certificate, ALL CAPS, trust, this alleged account for "x" number of dollars, etc.

Bailey says that what the state cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly. If one has a right, and it is unalienable, why does one waste time and energy studying these convoluted theories? Is it not better to stand on the right than to succumb to the theory?

The way I see it, if you are to advance that there is this trust thing going on, why is there not a statute existing declaring that ALL entering into the (what passes for a) legal sytem MUST absolutely have an attorney, because the statutes and all rules of pleading require attorney representation by legal fiction.

Next, it seems absurd that one would even bother entering into the legal system believeing this to be true.
On what authority could you speak for it or about it?

SansRecours