PDA

View Full Version : What's in a NAME?



Keith Alan
01-15-14, 07:12 PM
**
What is*NAME?

he*designation*of an*individual*person, or of a firm or*corporation. In law a man cannot have more than one*Christian name. Rex v. Newman, 1 Ld. Raytn. 062. As to the history of Christian names and surnames and their use and relative importance in law, see In re Snook, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 566.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/name/#ixzz2qUo0q8l8

**What is*INDIVIDUAL?

As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or*natural person*as distinguished from apartnership,*corporation, or*association*; but it is said that this restrictive signi- fication is not necessarily inherent in tbe word, and that it may, in proper cases, include*artificial persons. See Bank of U. S. v. State, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 400; State v. Bell Telephone Co.. 30 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583; Pennsylvania it. Co. v. Canal Com’rs, 21 Pa. 20. As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or*belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in*opposition*to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/individual/#ixzz2qUeTcFgl

** What is*ARTIFICIAL PERSON?

A nonhuman entity that is created by law and is legally different owning its own rights and duties. AKA jusistic person and legal person. Refer to*body corporate.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/artificial-person/#ixzz2qUg6GJqT

** What is*BODY CORPORATE?

A*corporation

** What is*CORPORATION?

An*artificial person*or*legal entity*created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a*particular*oltice, but ordinarily*consisting*of anassociation*of numerous individuals, who subsist as a*body politic*under a specialdenomination, which is regarded In law as having a*personality*and existence distinct from that of its several members, and which is, by the same authority, vested with the capacity of*continuous*succession, irrespective of changes in its membership, either*in perpetuity*or for a limited term of years, and of acting as a unit or single*individual*in matters relating to the common purpose of the association, within the scope of the powers and*authorities*conferred upon such bodies by law. See Case of Sutton’s Hospital, 10 Coke. 32; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636, 657. 4 L. Ed. 629; U. S. v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160, 11 Sup. Ct. 57. 34 L. Ed. 640; Andrews Bros. Co. v. Youngstown Coke Co., 86 Fed. 585, 30 C. C. A. 293; Porter v. Railroad Co., 76 111. 573; State v. Payne, 129 Mo. 468, 31 S. W. 797. 33 L. R. A. 576; Farmers’ L. & T. Co. v. New York, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 2S3; State BL.LAW DICT.(2D ED.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/corporation/#ixzz2qUh4BV2S

**What is*OFFICE?

“Office” is defined to be a right to exercise a public or private*employment, and to take the fees and emoluments thereunto belonging, whether public, as those of magistrates, or private, as of bailiffs, receivers, or the like. 2 Bl. Comm. 36. Itow- land v. New York, 83 N. Y. 372; Dailey v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 330; Blair v. Marye, 80 Va. 495; Worthy v. Barrett, 03 N. C. 202; People v. Duane, 121 N. Y. 307, 24 N. E. 845; U. S. v. Ilartwell, 6 Wall. 393, 18 L. Ed. 830. That function by virtue whereof a person has some employment in the affairs of an- other, whether judicial,*ministerial,*legislative, municipal,*ecclesiastical, etc. Cowell. An employment*on behalf of*the government in any station or*public trust, not merely transient, occasional, or incidental. In re Attorneys’ Oaths, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 493. The most frequent occasions to use the word arise with reference to a duty and power conferred on an*individual*by the government; and, when this is the connection, “public office” is a usual and more discriminating expression. But a power and duty may exist without immediate grant from government, and may be properly called an “office;” as the office of executor, the office of steward. Here the individual acts towards legatees or towards tenants inperformance*of a duty, and in exercise of a power not derived from their consent, but devolved on him by an authority which quoad hoc is superior. Abbott. Offices may be classed as civil and military; and civil offices may be classed as political, judicial, and ministerial. Political offices are such as are not connected*immediately*with theadministration*of justice, or the execution of the mandates of a superior officer. Judicial are those which relate to the administration of justice. Ministerial are those which give the officer no power to judge of the matter to be done, and require him to obey the mandates of a superior. It is a general rule that a judicial office cannot be exercised by deputy, while a ministerial one may. Waldo v. Wallace, 12 Ind. 569. “Office” Is frequently used in the old books as an abbreviation for “inquest of office,” (q. v.)Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/office/#ixzz2qUnBlfIX
**

Question: Under the definition of corporation, the word, 'oltice' appears, which I believe is a typo for 'office'. I also noticed under the same definition that these occasions are "rare" that an individual artificial person might be an incumbent to an office.

So my question is, how much weight should be given to "rare"?

Freed Gerdes
01-15-14, 10:42 PM
I would concur that oltice is a typo for office, and note that when this definition was published, corporate legal entities consisting of one person holding all the offices of a corporation may have been rare, but since the Treasury began registering birth certificates and obligating them into the Federal bankruptcy trust under security agreements, the proliferation of single occupant corporations has blossomed. So I would say 'rare' should be ignored.

Freed

Keith Alan
01-20-14, 10:34 PM
I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.

Michael Joseph
01-20-14, 11:27 PM
It is an Inter-vivos Trust or life trust holding = settled by others UNDER the Seal [or Authority] of another - you might say the Estate is held in WARD or guardianship of a higher power. But you are Trustee for "yourself and your posterity". Therefore it is a vessel of the Public Trust.

I go into much detail about this subject in future expressions. See if you can find ANY NAME listed in the Trust called Constitution. I will wait.

Keith Alan
01-20-14, 11:46 PM
The constitutors entered their names as directors representing their constituents, but of course I think you meant in the articles.

If the birth certificate is evidence of a trust, where is the trust indenture?

Freed Gerdes
01-21-14, 08:05 PM
The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

Freed

Keith Alan
01-21-14, 10:14 PM
The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

Freed

I very much appreciate the way you presented the information, because upon reading it something clicked, and I feel I have a better understanding, although still a bit cloudy.

For instance, I've been studying all I can about THE NAME, and the birth certificate, and I'm still at a loss in being able to find out exactly what they are.

THE NAME, I've discovered, is the appellation designated (by the parent) on the birth certificate, and not the newborn's given name. The legalese is hard to muddle through, but never is the child given a name.

The statement of facts used to prepare the birth certificate is just that - a statement of facts, otherwise known as an information. That's why the mother is identified as informant.

So anyway, I see an implied trust being formed, but never an expressed trust. That's why I wondered where is the trust indenture. The certificate serves as evidence that an entity was created, and that the baby definitely has an interest in it, but so do the state and the United States. I think that much is made clear on the face of the instrument.

So the Social Security trust is not part of the deal unless the parent elects to apply for a number for the child.

In other words, I do believe a trust exists, and that the living man has an interest in it, but it's up to him to give life to the trust by assuming one of the roles of the trust.

Now I think you must be correct about the Social Security trust, after an SSN is assigned and used by the person. That is where - as I see it - exiting the Fed becomes important, if one wants to come out of the beast system, which I do.

But I think it may be possible to exit the system by designating an attorney - like the Secretary - to represent my interest in THE NAME to the State, while recapturing my inalienable rights and responsibilities.

I did not create THE NAME, but I was given an interest in it which I can accept or reject, now that I know it exists. If I reject it outright by collapsing the trust, that will throw my family into turmoil and hardship.

Or I can find a way to make it work for everyone, and maybe I can do that by accepting it on my terms. It's all a big, silly game, but unfortunately my neighbors all think it's real life.

I used to have a friend who, when he went off his meds, became afflicted with delusions that he was a real life superhero. He actually believed that, without his work, the earth and everyone in it would be destroyed. He saw it as his personal responsibility to save the world from utter destruction.

When he was going through these episodes, I indulged him by going along with his fantasy, because he felt very much alone, and needed a friend. I knew that after a while I could get him back on his meds, or at least I could be there so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else.

That's how I see my neighbors in this world. So why not play along, as long as no one gets hurt?

Anthony Joseph
01-21-14, 10:34 PM
no man or woman will claim a vested interest in your property (Name) by living voice in open court with full liability

"United States", "IMF", "SSA", "IRS", etc. cannot speak, believe or claim

in common law, a claim must be spoken (verifiable)

it behooves us to learn how to move, hold and keep our court(s) in common law

there is no "they"; only a man or woman attempting to administrate or take your property without right

in your court, that is a wrongdoer causing you harm and/or injury; and, no cloak/office/mask can protect him/her unless you allow it

Keith Alan
01-21-14, 10:47 PM
That's true. My name is whatever I say it is. There is another NAME, similar to my name, in which I've been offered a secured interest. There may be an opportunity to use it on terms I might find agreeable.

Freed Gerdes
01-21-14, 11:13 PM
The NAME is a fictional entity, a corporate person, existing only in the realm of the rational mind. You have a name, given to you by your parents. Once you are sui juris, you can pick any name you want for yourself, but your estate will still be held in the NAME that matches yours (but is spelled in all caps, indicating slave status/corporate entity). The trust is administered by the Secretary of the Treasury; he is the nominal trustee (FDR originally named 6 important cronies back in 1933, but they are long dead). The trust does not own the NAME; it has an account in the NAME, and expects you to be trustee de son tort for it. You as a natural person cannot own property, due to some survey rules the government put in place [I am not too clear on the legal aspects of why this is - perhaps someone can chime in here?]. And title to your property held in your NAME is liened to the IMF as collateral for the government debt. But as the beneficiary, you can end the trust any time you want; after all, you are the natural owner of your estate. You just have to get the liens removed, by your demand for lawful money, applied retroactively, to unwind the presumption made for you by the trustee. I do not consent...

Freed

Edit: you will notice that these days the Treasury assigns a SS# to the birth certificate, so the trusts have been merged, probably through the security agreement in favor of the IMF. If the Sec of Treas is not the trustee, he knows who is...
F

Anthony Joseph
01-22-14, 12:15 AM
the Name is a gift

you may use your gift, or not, depending upon if you believe it is of benefit; or, it will cause you harm or injury

man is unbound - unlimited in his capacity; he has the inherent right to choose to 'do' and 'act' however he wishes, without recourse, unless he commits harm, injury or breach against another man

that is all there is to common law

salsero
01-22-14, 02:51 PM
I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.

If I may comment. The Name is Property, a person, estate, individual and so on. A Name is NOT a man or a baby. The public policy statutes/courts/state have the legal authority to administrate the Name. It is the State's property. The Name is NOT your property. The mere fact when you claim that Name as yours, you, the man have consented to fall under the jurisdiction thereof, accepting surety-ship for that Property.

Births are not registered. The event is registered. If the birth of a baby was ever registered, this would be repugnant to law and suggest involuntary servitude. Please remember, we can volunteer servitude and we do this all the time when we, the men, make claims to that Property Name or Estate.

One further comment - and this is what everyone has to really think about. Consent is presumed by your actions. Then is it confirmed by your claims. You, the man must remember who ALL those laws pertain to. Man is ONLY REQUIRED TO OBEY AND FOLLOW HIS CREATOR'S MANDATES, not man's. This includes love one another and be of service to mankind [loosely speaking]. When man starts with "my constitutional rights" or using their statutes, he consents to play in their sandbox.

And it is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience.

For more info on this thinking - you can go to www.notacitizen.com

salsero
01-22-14, 03:03 PM
The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

Freed

A few things stick out - a natural person is still a person, meaning property. All property is vested in the state. As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

I do not agree that you, the man own that property commonly referred to as a Name. Do you have evidence to support such a claim? I agree you are an accommodation party - or let's call a spade a spade, simply said, a presumed surety, then by your claims, consent to that fiduciary position. I agree, you have USE, control, possession of that Name but you are not the owner or beneficiary, creditor or for that matter debtor. These titles all fall under the jurisdiction thereof.

I do not agree you get to "tell the trustee" anything, as that would be intermeddling. You, the man get to inform the trustee or executor or whatever that government fiduciary's title is to ADMINSTRATE ACCORDING TO THEIR LAW, THEIR OATH AND THEIR JOB DESCRITPION to take care of state property accordingly under the rules of usufruct. Control and possession and use is not the same thing as ownership. I never occurred any debt, the entity's Name that I use incurs debt. See? Man has no debt, persons have debt. See? The trust has nothing to do with me - really. The trust or estate [per IRS] has to do with their property that they MUST administrate according to law. The entity I use is a resident and citizen of the US. That entity was created and accepted by one of the subsidiaries of the US and the US purchased an interest in that entity for the US government's benefit.

There is more but that is enough for the moment Tony

walter
01-22-14, 05:21 PM
Civil Code of Québec


DIVISION II
USE OF NAME

55. Every person has a right to the respect of his name.

He may use one or more of the given names stated in his act of birth.

1991, c. 64, a. 55.

56. A person who uses a name other than his or her own is liable for any resulting confusion or damage.

The holder of a name as well as his or her married or civil union spouse or close relatives may object to such use and demand redress for the damage caused.

1991, c. 64, a. 56; 2002, c. 6, s. 2.

Anthony Joseph
01-22-14, 06:59 PM
no man, woman or 'government' has a right to disparage or deny the right of people (man) to be secure in their property [cf. 4th amendment "... persons, houses, papers and effects...]

can you have a 'person' without a name?

no one has a right to interfere with your property [cf. person, name]

property is NOT 'Ownership' or 'Title'; it is that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others at this time; and, until i say other wise

someone must come forward and verify a higher claim to said property than yours

come forward now; i will accept all claims to said property, verifiable under oath or affirmation in open court; and, the record will reflect what is true and who makes the highest claim

salsero
01-22-14, 09:02 PM
Civil Code of Québec


DIVISION II
USE OF NAME

55. Every person has a right to the respect of his name.

He may use one or more of the given names stated in his act of birth.

1991, c. 64, a. 55.

56. A person who uses a name other than his or her own is liable for any resulting confusion or damage.

The holder of a name as well as his or her married or civil union spouse or close relatives may object to such use and demand redress for the damage caused.

1991, c. 64, a. 56; 2002, c. 6, s. 2.

I can not address CN. However, please take note of what your actually wrote and what it means. Every PERSON has a right to the respect of HIS NAME. A person is a fiction and if HE claims that name, HE is provided a benefit to have it respected subject to the laws, statutes, etc of CN.

A PERSON who uses a NAME other then HIS is liable for any resulting confusion or damage. GREAT!. You were given a name by your parents, ie John. This is YOUR name. JOHN DOE is a ction created by the state.

salsero
01-22-14, 09:17 PM
no man, woman or 'government' has a right to disparage or deny the right of people (man) to be secure in their property [cf. 4th amendment "... persons, houses, papers and effects...]

can you have a 'person' without a name?

no one has a right to interfere with your property [cf. person, name]

property is NOT 'Ownership' or 'Title'; it is that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others at this time; and, until i say other wise

someone must come forward and verify a higher claim to said property than yours

come forward now; i will accept all claims to said property, verifiable under oath or affirmation in open court; and, the record will reflect what is true and who makes the highest claim

No, you can not have a person without a Name except by general reference. The Name is the "thing" that gets securitized and thus is a person. If parents do not name their baby, the hospital will do it for them. BABY SMITH. All property must have a title so that the state can recognize it.

I disagree, the state not only has the right, it is its property.

We kind of agree but our wording is different. I agree a man must come forward and state he has a higher claim but the issue is not about that property being yours, it is an issue that everything on the planet belongs to the Creator and we are just mere users of said property, with right of use, control, enjoyment and possession but not ownership.

Man through his consent is subject to the state jurisdiction. Without man's consent and agreement, there is no jurisdiction.

There mere fact is the kourt will not move forward until you, man provides the kourt a name should give you a first clue.

I, a man am here for that matter does not give the kourt jurisdiction. I, a man who you can call John provides an open door for the court to ask the plaintiff if he would like to amend the complaint aka John.

I am here for that matter and as a friend of the kourt, I believe that I can help the kourt settle the matter with passably this usufruct compliant certified certificate.

If you can provide evidence that you own that Name you are using, I would most welcome that information. Anything done in that property or Name automatically vests within the state, as the state is the beneficial owner of said Name. We are naked users. But we must remember as owner, who obtains the benefits, is too subject to the liabilities.

Anything is possible or not where remedy is concerned. If you have been successful with Karl's method more power to you.

Anthony Joseph
01-22-14, 09:20 PM
a Name is a gift and a tool - property

simply because you write it down on paper as 'John Henry Smith', does not automatically divest you of said property; nor does it invest in another

if a valid contract is entered into using the Name, said contract is the law; contract wisely

if a claim is made against your person/name, your property (person/name) incurs injury unless said claim is true and verifiable

in common law, the realm of man, a claim must be made in living voice

your person is not you, it is your property; and, if someone trespasses upon your property, that someone is liable

Keith Alan
01-22-14, 09:35 PM
Well, here's a thought: I think if you respond to a name, then you're accepting that designation. If you're using a name, and you give it to someone, and they accept it, then there is agreement about the name.

Think about it. "Can I please have your name? "

"Yes, you can call me Keith."

"Thanks, Keith."

Agreement. Consent. Law.

Anthony Joseph
01-22-14, 10:08 PM
"Can I please have your name?"

"my name is my property, however, at this time you may call me ______"

simply answering when called is not a divestment of property

salsero
01-22-14, 11:17 PM
"Can I please have your name?"

"my name is my property, however, at this time you may call me ______"

simply answering when called is not a divestment of property

Final comment and then I wish you the best.

Can I please have your name? my response would be - what makes you think I own such a thing? Please identify yourself: I am from the Pre-existent Father, a Son in the Pre-existent One. or I am a self-aware flesh and blood living soul - do you rebut this? A piece of paper can NEVER identify a man. A piece of paper is an IMAGE of the real property. Does one prefer to live in a house or have a piece of paper re-presenting the house?

What evidence can you provide to this group that YOUR name is YOUR property?

THe evidence I have that proves that Name is not mine but I am a MERE USER of said property begins with the BC. The BC certificate I requested had a letter sent that stated BC FOR JOHN SMITH. No where on that BC is MY signature. It has a state seal signed by an official trustee for the state. It is a certified COPY where the state retains the original document - held in trust where the state receives benefit. I, a man can not have that original document. PERIOD. If I were the owner of MY PROPERTY NAME, then the state must turn that document over to me.

There is other evidence that the name has been created for the benefit for the state and that MAN wrongly makes claims against that property or estate. But the above gets the ball rolling for those this info resonates.

If we were living pre-1930s, I would agree with you. However, we are not. I do not believe the common law is 100% dead, but lets just say after the Erie RR case -1938, public policy is the ruling system. Again, I would never say 100% bringing up common law in a jurisdiction would NOT work, I am saying the odds are against it. As far as those that support common law, in my opinion, the reason why you may get a free pass and the case would be dismissed is due to THEY do not want their trade secrets exposed. It is easier to let one slide then risk many.

If common law is working for you in everything - Mazel Tov. I wish you the very best.

And I agree with you - simply answering when called IS NOT a divestment of property. The state has NOT given up any rights to its property, it is a simple matter of who is consenting to be surety to the claim being made.

Tony

David Merrill
01-22-14, 11:40 PM
I believe that our family bible is good evidence of names. My name is David Merrill as it is written.

Anthony Joseph
01-23-14, 12:49 AM
i don't have to prove what i claim to be my property is my property

someone must come forward with a claim to what i claim is my property

until then... my claim is supreme

when the STATE OF XXXXX or the United States decides to speak, please let me know

Anthony Joseph
01-23-14, 12:52 AM
I believe that our family bible is good evidence of names. My name is David Merrill as it is written.

i believe you; and, the name of your person is...?

David Merrill
01-23-14, 02:00 AM
i believe you; and, the name of your person is...?

I have no person. If having a person ever serves my best interest then it is likely I would choose the one I invented when I was twelve by applying for and receiving a Social Security Number. Until having a Social Security Number serves my best interest, I have no Social Security Number.

I have no last name.
I have no birth certificate.
I have no person.


until then... my claim is supreme

Exactly. If you find me using a person, the chances are that I have one.

Anthony Joseph
01-23-14, 12:20 PM
I have no person. If having a person ever serves my best interest then it is likely I would choose the one I invented when I was twelve by applying for and receiving a Social Security Number. Until having a Social Security Number serves my best interest, I have no Social Security Number.

I have no last name.
I have no birth certificate.
I have no person.



Exactly. If you find me using a person, the chances are that I have one.

my point exactly...

you have these tools (person, SSN, BC, Last Name, etc.) at your disposal if you choose to use them

no one else has a right to use these tools, created for your specific use, as you would, when and if you choose to use them

these 'things' are your property

no one else has a right to administer or take your property without your consent

salsero
01-23-14, 03:49 PM
my point exactly...

you have these tools (person, SSN, BC, Last Name, etc.) at your disposal if you choose to use them

no one else has a right to use these tools, created for your specific use, as you would, when and if you choose to use them

these 'things' are your property

no one else has a right to administer or take your property without your consent

I said the last comment I made would be the last - but I can't help myself lol

Use is not the same as ownership. I have every right to use, control, possess but not own. Only the Creator has that right. What evidence do you have to prove that "things" - the DL, SSN, house, car, person, BC, last name etc is YOUR property? Those "things" are held in the "public trust" - it is true you have exclusive use of but those things are not yours.

I agree no one has the right to administer or take the property you are using without your consent. By providing the Name in any jurisdiction, your provide that consent.

And we can thank FDR for the removal of substance in order to PAY for things rather than use private internal script/ debt securities called FRNs.

Paisan, so far you have not answered the question I have asked: What evidence can you provide that proves you own a name or any "thing".

A response that "someone must come forward with a claim to what i claim is my property - until then... my claim is supreme - when the STATE OF XXXXX or the United States decides to speak, please let me know" is not responding to what I asked.

Let me give an example: If you are in a mortgage foreclosure situation, the name will be charged in the action. Do we agree up to here? If this is the case, then how would your claim that house is my property - let a man come forward with a claim to what is my property? It is the same thing with a car or even a bank account - we can look to Cyprus for that reasoning. If I am the owner of the bank account, then the State can NOT go into that account, including the IRS and take anything out of it. When you own something, it is your property to the exclusion of someone else and no one can take it. You can have exclusive use of something without owning it OR even be held liable for it - YAY!!!

These are just some observations. Tony

Anthony Joseph
01-23-14, 04:18 PM
i did answer the question

my property is my property because, i say so; i am able and willing to voice it - paper means nothing

if someone else wishes to voice a claim, let them come forward and do the same

if a man or woman does so, fine

if we cannot settle the matter privately, it is brought before a jury in the public and there we have a chance to win our claim based upon who has the best proof and evidence; and, the customs and beliefs of the people who are seated as jurors [judge]

a non-living entity has no vocal chords and cannot voice a claim; when you voice your claim and there is silence from the "other side" you win

or

you can play in the paper world and be subject to words written on paper

Michael Joseph
01-23-14, 04:27 PM
a rock star is nothing absent fans. In this system Law is but an illusion of right. In this system Rights are established by Force. One might look at nature to proclaim that law to be true. But are we not called to rise above the laws of nature and place nature UNDER our dominion?

This is why I lack all trust in the world systems. I seek a heavenly citizenship - and as such I proclaim myself to be a pilgrim just passing thru.

In the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I remain your faithful servant unto the Kingdom of El Elyon. [The Most High God]

Anthony Joseph
01-23-14, 04:43 PM
seek your brother out in private to settle any claim (only the living can make claim)

if he does not listen, bring witnesses and try again

if he still does not listen, bring it to the church (where at least two or three are gathered in His Name) [compare to jury]

a man cannot harm "United States"
a man cannot harm "STATE OF XXXX"
a man cannot harm "IRS"

no voice, no claim, no case

does this sound like "trust in world systems"?

Michael Joseph
01-23-14, 05:03 PM
I agree that only a man can make a claim. I further maintain that a man who has not made any claims is by his inaction implying that he desires to be ruled. Therefore like I have always maintained - DECLARE THYSELF.

Is this not a reasonable action - for man cannot read minds. So which is it? the only question left is what form of rule do you claim?

Quoting from Bob Dylan:

"Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far that not much is really sacred

Our preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the President of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked

An' all the rules of the road have been lodged
It's only people's games that you got to dodge
And it's alright, Ma, I can make it

.
.
.

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Do what they do just to be
Nothing more than something they invest in

While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize and say, "God bless him"

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole that he's in

.
.
.
.


Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares propaganda, all is phony"


=================

Do you recall YEARS back when I shared what I did to convene a jury to hear my case? Seems nobody understood - and I was dismayed - however it seems you get it!

=================

Thus saith Yehovah Elohim, in those days those that call upon my GREAT NAME shall be saved.

For Sampson has his eyes poked out and he has been made to grind the meal - but he shall return unto his former Husbandman and then, he shall be clothed with Power but not of his own - he again shall receive the seven Locks upon his head - Ref Isaiah 11:2 and Psalms 8.

2Ch 7:12 And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, "I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to Myself for an house of sacrifice.

2Ch 7:13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My People;

2Ch 7:14 If My People, upon whom My name is called, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2Ch 7:15 Now Mine eyes shall be open, and Mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place.

2Ch 7:16 For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that My name may be there for ever: and Mine eyes and Mine heart shall be there perpetually.

2Ch 7:17 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before Me, according as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe My statues and my judgments;

2Ch 7:18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have confirmed by covenant with David thy father, saying, "There shall not be cut off from thee a man to be ruler in Israel.'

=================


Yehoshuah, I know, Paul, I know, but who are you? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41KMByxE6lo)

Please take your vowel: A, E, I, O, U, Y, R W, H

shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
01-23-14, 05:54 PM
i do recall, yet i did not fully get it... then

it took a blunt, straight-talking, thick-"New York"-accented man [called Karl Lentz] to present it in the simplest of terms

move, hold and keep your court; and, make your claim

Michael Joseph
01-23-14, 06:10 PM
One man plants, another man waters and Yehovah gives the increase. This way no man can stand in his pride and say "Worship Me".

However, let me make this one distinction: You have no court if you have not perfected a claim. And how will you rule absent Law. And whose Law shall you make a USE of?

A claim is vital to establishing USE RIGHTS. Therefore, a court cannot exist without a prior claim. For tell me how should you hear a matter that you have zero jurisdiction to hear? Ponder the latter and then you will see the former.

I maintain, that no man should follow another. Make your own way - which is why I REFUSE to provide an algorithm for others to follow. Some men have slandered me for my position; however they do so to their own judgment - self fulfilling judgment "res judicata". For they place their trust in another man - which is a big NO NO.

=======================

I maintain Yehovah's Word should be followed and as such, I find direction here:

Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

Zec 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; For His own glory hath He sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple [pupil] of Mine eye.

Zec 2:9 For, behold, I will shake Mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their own slaves: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.

Zec 2:10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.

Zec 2:11 And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be My People: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.


Commentary: Do you believe verse 8?

Zec 4:7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.

Zec 4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

Commentary: v.10 reference the Seven Spirits of Elohim ==> Isaiah 11:2; Proverbs 8.


Hag 2:5 According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.

Commentary: v.4

Zerubbabel = Seed of confusion - which came out of confusion to make his stand with Yehovah
Joshua = Yehoshuah ==> check me out = Yehovah the Savior
Josedech = Yehotzadok = Yehovah the Righteous
LORD of hosts = Yehovah Sabbawah = Yehovah the Commander of the Heavenly armies

now lets read verse 4 again:

Hag 2:4 Yet now be strong, O one who came out of confusion, saith Yehovah; and be strong, O Yehovah the Savior, son of Yehovah the Righteous, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith Yehovah, and work: for I am with you, saith Yehovah the Commander in Chief:

Commentary: reference the Great book of Hebrews: Order of Melchizadok - our High Priest is Yehoshuah is Yehovah the Savior. By the way did you notice the Command to WORK? Works can not justify salvation, but if one refuses to work then that one will have one meager estate. This is true now and to come.

See now CAPACITY, which is to say : Persons with particular duties and obligations - One God - many offices.


shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
01-23-14, 07:01 PM
it is learning through critical thinking rather than the ROTE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning) method

i agree with you regarding "algorithms" or "templates"

make a claim - establish the law - convene your court

speak it in living voice, for there is no proper claim otherwise

Michael Joseph
01-25-14, 04:46 AM
it is learning through critical thinking rather than the ROTE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning) method

i agree with you regarding "algorithms" or "templates"

make a claim - establish the law - convene your court

speak it in living voice, for there is no proper claim otherwise



Genesis chapter 1 verse three "and God said"

shikamaru
01-25-14, 02:11 PM
I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.

Check out Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan concerning the concept of a person .....

My opinion: the name is simply a designator for a container. The container is the legal concept of person.
Last names did not become all the rage with governments until more organized systems of accounting develop to satisfy goverment's need for taxation and military enlistment.

The name is a designator of an account to handle debits and credits whether such pertains to legal charges or commerce.
An account is a chose in action or the right of the creditor to sue for debts owed.

Let us also not forget the association known as the body politic. The birth certificate serves as evidence of induction of a being into a political body. Citizenship is a status (of servitude) as well as an office within a (public) corporation.

Chex
01-26-14, 04:33 PM
My opinion: the name is simply a designator for a container. The container is the legal concept of person.
Last names did not become all the rage with governments until more organized systems of accounting develop to satisfy goverment's need for taxation and military enlistment. The name is a designator of an account to handle debits and credits whether such pertains to legal charges or commerce. Let us also not forget the association known as the body politic. The birth certificate serves as evidence of induction of a being into a political body. Citizenship is a status (of servitude) as well as an office within a (public) corporation.

La Carreta restaurants in Merrillville. http://www.yelp.com/biz/la-carreta-merrillville

The raids were part of a larger investigation that targeted Mexican restaurants in cities across Indiana, including El Rodeo eateries in Indianapolis, Lafayette, West Lafayette and Richmond.

Law enforcement officials were tight-lipped about what they are investigating, but they have made no arrests and filed no criminal charges as of yet.

The Marion County Sheriff's Office assisted with the raid of an El Rodeo restaurant Monday in Indianapolis, which a police report said stemmed from a grand jury investigation.

Officers took pictures of nine employees and seized cash, business documents and the cash registers, which they turned over to the grand jury, according to the case report.

Arnulfo Gonzalez, the registered owner of both restaurants, did not return messages for comment Tuesday and Wednesday.
http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/state-excise-police-raid-abruptly-closes-la-carreta-restaurants/article_b4b91ce3-f4bf-56a4-8ea5-c5897d4c0403.html

Anthony Joseph
01-26-14, 04:57 PM
statutory/administrative "Grand Jury" = controlled by BAR members ["judge", "D.A.", etc.]

common law grand jury = independent "4th branch" of government; not controlled by BAR members or other branches of government


Jury Trial = controlled by BAR member "judge"

trial by jury = judges; magistrate (usual black robed one) independent of the tribunal (A-claimant, B-wrongdoer, C-jury) and merely bears witness to the outcome; and, keeps order, making sure the rules of court established by claimant (not the black robed one) are followed

Freed Gerdes
01-28-14, 03:30 AM
Salsero, can you please expound upon the concept that the state owns my body? I can see that the state records the NAME (and then enters it into the Trust, liening it with debt for the state's benefit). Now the state makes the claim that my NAME must comply with endless codes, rules, and regulations, which are merely corporate rules (municipal law), enforceable only through Roman law (based on the debt contract which the state created for me by usurping my NAME, and then hoping I would confirm their presumption). My NAME is a corporate person, thus under the rules of corporations, but I want to use it for my benefit, not for the state's benefit, so I would like to get free of the Trust. The state cannot own the people, first because it is a corporation, and people are natural persons, and second because of the 13th Amendment. So debt slavery can only be voluntary. I am interested in un-volunteering, which I must do only due to presumptions of the trustee. Now if I am the beneficiary, which the unwritten contract for social security says I am, then I can certainly void the presumptions and tell the trustee to dissolve the trust. What say you?

We kind of agree but our wording is different. I agree a man must come forward and state he has a higher claim but the issue is not about that property being yours, it is an issue that everything on the planet belongs to the Creator and we are just mere users of said property, with right of use, control, enjoyment and possession but not ownership.

I have no objection to being owned by the Creator, but I have a lot of objection to being owned by the state. I say my NAME is mine to use, free of the state's interest. Where does the state get the right to own my property? Who has a higher right to the complete control and use of my NAME, and where did they get that right? All power of the government derives from the consent of the governed...

Freed

Chex
01-28-14, 02:37 PM
One man plants, another man waters and Yehovah gives the increase. This way no man can stand in his pride and say "Worship Me". I maintain Yehovah's Word should be followed and as such, I find direction here: MJ

I find direction here:

I heard about this mother.
One Sunday morning she went into her sons room, she said son it’s time to go to church.
He said No Mom I ‘m not going to church today
She asked why not?
He said I’ll give two reasons. One I don’t like the people and two the people don’t like me.
She replied, alright, I’ll give you two better reasons why you should go.
She said number 1 you're 49 years old and number 2 you’re the pastor.

This is my Bible, it says what it says I am, I have what it says I have, It says I can do what it says I can do.

Jan 12 Know Who You Are. http://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/ThisWeeksMessage.aspx

salsero
01-29-14, 12:41 AM
Salsero, can you please expound upon the concept that the state owns my body? I can see that the state records the NAME (and then enters it into the Trust, liening it with debt for the state's benefit). Now the state makes the claim that my NAME must comply with endless codes, rules, and regulations, which are merely corporate rules (municipal law), enforceable only through Roman law (based on the debt contract which the state created for me by usurping my NAME, and then hoping I would confirm their presumption). My NAME is a corporate person, thus under the rules of corporations, but I want to use it for my benefit, not for the state's benefit, so I would like to get free of the Trust. The state cannot own the people, first because it is a corporation, and people are natural persons, and second because of the 13th Amendment. So debt slavery can only be voluntary. I am interested in un-volunteering, which I must do only due to presumptions of the trustee. Now if I am the beneficiary, which the unwritten contract for social security says I am, then I can certainly void the presumptions and tell the trustee to dissolve the trust. What say you?

We kind of agree but our wording is different. I agree a man must come forward and state he has a higher claim but the issue is not about that property being yours, it is an issue that everything on the planet belongs to the Creator and we are just mere users of said property, with right of use, control, enjoyment and possession but not ownership.

I have no objection to being owned by the Creator, but I have a lot of objection to being owned by the state. I say my NAME is mine to use, free of the state's interest. Where does the state get the right to own my property? Who has a higher right to the complete control and use of my NAME, and where did they get that right? All power of the government derives from the consent of the governed...

Freed

I would not be able to expand on the concept that the state owns anyone's body. So Freed maybe you can answer this for me: What evidence do you have to prove that Name is yours? I have shared with the group the evidence I have to prove that Name is not my property; HOWEVER, I am authorized user of that property. How does the State usurp YOUR Name? If your parents named you John Michael, that is YOUR given name. The family Name is Smith. Smith is made up the family unit, with mom, dad, Mary, Jack, Jill and John. Smith is not exclusively YOUR NAME. It is a family name. I agree the Name John Smith is a non-incorporated person, subject ONLY to the jurisdiction thereof when one consents or claims to own or have some interest in that property or Name. I use the Name for the purpose of conducting commerce for the state's benefit for its property called a Name. In directly, I, the man receive the benefit; however, it is state's property that I USE, that receives the discharge and acquittal, not me the man, because I have nothing to do with it. Man is free of the Trust. It ain't his unless he wants to make a claim against it and then he consents to be surety for the estate. I agree the State can not and DOES NOT own people. I would suggest you look up the definition of natural persons. The 13th A permits for voluntary servitude not involuntary. I AM JOHN SMITH is a voluntary consent to act as surety or executor of the estate. Yes debt slavery can ONLY BE VOLUNTARY. You are not the beneficiary, the state is the beneficiary and thus under the rules of usufruct, the one who benefits must be subject to the liabilities. Please provide evidence you are the beneficiary? If you accept eh benefits, you accept the liabilities. That is what I say. THat is the contract. I do not think we TELL the trustee or executor anything but we do inform the executor. We give notices. We rebut the presumptions. Absolutely. You have no authority to void anything. It ain't yours to begin with.
Excellent - you are a child of the Most High. The state does not own anyone unless they consent. Consent makes the law. WHen you say your Name, the state basically says thank you, Mr. Surety. The state get the right to own its property because it holds the original title to that property or name you believe is yours. You are sent a certified copy. The state has a higher right and loves when you think you have the higher right. Basically you are nothing but chattel. The state got the right through 1. holding original title 2. by being paid for beneficial use BY the United States through the SSA and 3. You can not get hold of that COLB 4. ALl you get is something called a CERTIFIED BC basically for your USE.
All power of the government is derived from those who are a party to that society. A free man is NOT a part of that society UNLESS he consent and thus is subject to the benefits along with the liabilities that society offer. God created man free, not encumbered.
I like to be challenged this helps me get my head around all this - it ain't easy but if you continue to seek, earnestly, you will find.

Anthony Joseph
01-29-14, 01:18 AM
what man or woman can verify a claim of: vested interest in; or, the right to administer, another man's property (the Name)?

i don't have to prove the Name is my property; it's my property because i say it is (i speak in living voice); and, my right of use (means property) of the Name is exclusive of all others

someone else must verify the claim (in living voice) that the Name isn't my property; a futile task which would be laughed out of court, if you know how to hold a court of record

please provide any evidence that a man or woman could convince a jury, under oath or affirmation in open court, that your Name is not your property

'UNITED STATES', 'STATE OF XXXXX', 'IRS' etc. do not have vocal chords; only man can make a claim

property does NOT mean ownership or title; it means 'exclusive right of use'; our grant from the Creator in covenant is to subdue the earth and have dominion so long as we do not interfere with another man's grant to do the same - do unto others...

a fiction cannot make a claim to property (no voice); and, we cannot harm a fiction nor do we have any inherent obligation to a fiction - contract wisely

salsero
01-29-14, 03:09 AM
what man or woman can verify a claim of: vested interest in; or, the right to administer, another man's property (the Name)?

This is the last time I am going to respond. To continue to go back and forth on this is really silly. First of all: Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

I have asked multiple times to provide evidence that Name is your property and every one here goes around what I am specifically asking. I have even answered how that is not YOUR property.

i don't have to prove the Name is my property; it's my property because i say it is (i speak in living voice); and, my right of use (means property) of the Name is exclusive of all others

someone else must verify the claim (in living voice) that the Name isn't my property; a futile task which would be laughed out of court, if you know how to hold a court of record

OK you are going to hold your court of record, please tell me why is any judge going to allow this? Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64) "No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it." YOU, the living man is not a part of their society. Here is a direct quote from a SCOTUS decision PROVING you, the "citizen, man, person, resident, etc is not a party to bring a claim into their court, you are not a party to the constitution. What rights do you have in their court? The courts can only deal with persons who, with the consent of man, falls under the jurisdiction thereof. The state owns the name, the US has bought interest in that property and is the protected purchaser under UCC 8-303.

please provide any evidence that a man or woman could convince a jury, under oath or affirmation in open court, that your Name is not your property So the man is going to convince a jury of his peers? Who are this man's peers? Or a jury of US citizens that are required to follow the judges' instructions? This common law stuff is pase - thanks to 1. the bankruptcy and 2. the Erie RR decision of 1938. We are under public policy statutes. Now I have to be honest with you, do I see the POSSABILITY OF COMMON LAW WORKING IN COURT? Yes, but it has nothing to do with common law whatsoever, it has to do with the fact that the US is under a state of emergency which means that we are in war. The finial on the flags in the court room scream war, the attorneys, the executive orders, etc. The mere fact a common law plea may get some traction is the fact that the court does not want "citizens" to ask too many questions and the case MAY be dismissed as not to take a chance let the people know the truth.

I can very easily prove that Name, I USE IS NOT MY PROPERTY. I hand over the BC and ask a simple question of the jury [this would never be allowed - but I am just giving an example]: Does the jury see I have this certified BC in hand? Did I sign it? Did I put an official stamp from the State on it? Who put the stamp and signed this document? A fiduciary of the State. Therefore, if it were my property, I would sign it, I would put MY stamp on it. The paper, the stamp, the signature, etc are not MINE.

'UNITED STATES', 'STATE OF XXXXX', 'IRS' etc. do not have vocal chords; only man can make a claim I agree 100%.

property does NOT mean ownership or title; it means 'exclusive right of use'; our grant from the Creator in covenant is to subdue the earth and have dominion so long as we do not interfere with another man's grant to do the same - do unto others... Blacks 6th ed: Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one....The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. I did not put the entire definition - but lets pick out a few words here: Person, ownership, estate - are you a person? ownership vests in the state, estate property is from "a dead person" - the IRS manual 6209 goes into detail about what forms W-2, 1099, W-4 and 1098 tax class. It is evident, if one is receiving one of these forms, there must be a presumption of some estate. Now the question is whose estate and who is the beneficiary, executor, and grantor?

a fiction cannot make a claim to property (no voice); I agree 100%. and, we cannot harm a fiction nor do we have any inherent obligation to a fiction - contract wisely I agree 100% but contract, per THEIR law is not up front, it is deceptive and presumptive - you can volunteer into servitude.

Let us to agree to disagree on this one. And honestly, if what you are doing is working for you, I think that is great and wish you the very best.

Keith Alan
01-29-14, 04:12 AM
Infants do sign the instrument when they make their mark on it.

Edit -- The person named thereon is an unincorporated association, best I can figure. The infant is not the person, but he does have a secured interest in it. The certificate is issued as evidence of that security interest.

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 04:38 AM
Salsero:

In my humble opinion the NAME is not my property as I have looked at the Certificate and I find a State SEAL upon it. That is enough for me. As such, I see a trust, as beneficiary of another trust. Now each trust has its own actors and Administrations but the one at the bottom of the so called proverbial totem pole is subject to everything above it - even international treaties that the United States might enjoin itself unto.

In a sense we are talking about Usufruct. And a mere user can only make a use in privilege. And a privilege is not an established Right. Or let me say this that absent a Claim which establishes Property there can be no Property = which is to say Rights of Use. Estates are therefore INTERESTS in Property.

Therefore, the subjects buy, sell, trade and exchange Estates but they have NO ACCESS to Property. And therefore, Property CANNOT be alienated without the State because the subjects are NOT ALLOWED to play at that level. Meaning they, the subjects, have no Claim, therefore they lack Property and therefore they have ZERO RIGHTS and only Civil Rights which amount to mere privilege. And privileges can always be revoked.

Padelford clearly showed this to be fact - for we find that a State can tax its subjects to death - if necessary - so that the State can continue. Subjects ARE NOT SOVEREIGN. The Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. When I had my day in court - I actually was so stupid as to tell a DA who had a huge smile on her face that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. She assured me she had it. I pondered for a bit and then I realized that indeed THIS MATTER concerned the Property held by the State. Therefore the licensed lawyers have full authority to hear any matter in the NAME and I realized that I stood adversary. So I backed off that claim and then I found peace. ALL SMILES. I gave away the stone and walked away from that anchor.

Said another way, I have no trust in the horses of Egypt. But I do recognize the fact that the 56 who pledged HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME and the subjects have nothing to add - except loyalty to those who gave them a government. WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT DID YOU GIVE US - A republic if you can keep it. And they setup the Trust Agreement for themselves and their Heirs. This of course is Trust 101.

People can call these chattels tools or whatever they would like but in the end of the day, if one benefits in Estates formed by others, then that one is SUBJECT to the administration of those who hold the Property whereof those Estates are formed. In reality the subjects only deal with Estates that are interests in Property owned by others.

Notice the Estate is even Recorded in an ASSET REGISTRY within a County held in a State. Don't let me get started on UCC. If one indeed has his/her own Property, then there is a Claim, and there would exist a Registry held in their State/Kingdom and there would be a Court which would be foreign to other States. I don't need to go on. I believe I have made my point.


In True trust the King is the biggest SERVANT of ALL for the Property in reality belongs to the Creator and the King Administrates the Property for all who abide within the Kingdom. Man is told to take dominion yet, in true trust Yehoshuah is King of kings. So we see vassal kings UNDER the King of kings. Even our bodies and souls belong to Yehovah.

Oh one more thing. Both parties stand naked but the one with the Might is looking for Consent in ACTION. This is IMPLIED TRUST. And I can testify there is no better remedy than a man standing and speaking what comes from his own heart.

Jer 17:7 Blessed is the strong man that confideth in Yehovah, and whose confidence Yehovah is.

Jer 17:5 Thus saith Yehovah; "Cursed be the strong man that confideth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from Yehovah.

We are with CHOICE....with that I take my leave.

Shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
01-29-14, 01:37 PM
if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

- a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

- case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
true meaning and intent

- legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost

Chex
01-29-14, 02:03 PM
Padelford clearly showed this to be fact - for we find that a State can tax its subjects to death - if necessary - so that the State can continue. Subjects ARE NOT SOVEREIGN. The Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. When I had my day in court - I actually was so stupid as to tell a DA who had a huge smile on her face that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. She assured me she had it. I pondered for a bit and then I realized that indeed THIS MATTER concerned the Property held by the State. Therefore the licensed lawyers have full authority to hear any matter in the NAME and I realized that I stood adversary. So I backed off that claim and then I found peace. ALL SMILES. I gave away the stone and walked away from that anchor.

So we the people are subjects while the state is the Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. This government needs an enema.

I see why.

Michael Scotto, a reporter for New York cable http://news.msn.com/us/ny-rep-threatens-to-throw-reporter-over-balcony Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm (http://votesmart.org/candidate/127075/michael-grimm#.UukJpLvnbIU)physically threatened NY1 political reporter Michael Scotto at the conclusion of an interview in the Capitol Rotunda following Tuesday night's State of the Union address http://www.ny1.com/content/news/202674/rep--grimm-threatens-ny1-reporter-following-state-of-the-union

"So Congressman Michael Grimm (http://grimm.house.gov/)does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances," Scotto said before tossing back to the station. But as the camera continued to roll,

Grimm walked back up to Scotto and began speaking to him in a low voice. "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy."

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 03:04 PM
So we the people are subjects while the state is the Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. This government needs an enema.

I see why.

Michael Scotto, a reporter for New York cable http://news.msn.com/us/ny-rep-threatens-to-throw-reporter-over-balcony Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm (http://votesmart.org/candidate/127075/michael-grimm#.UukJpLvnbIU)physically threatened NY1 political reporter Michael Scotto at the conclusion of an interview in the Capitol Rotunda following Tuesday night's State of the Union address http://www.ny1.com/content/news/202674/rep--grimm-threatens-ny1-reporter-following-state-of-the-union

"So Congressman Michael Grimm (http://grimm.house.gov/)does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances," Scotto said before tossing back to the station. But as the camera continued to roll,

Grimm walked back up to Scotto and began speaking to him in a low voice. "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy."

The way I see it the "We the People OF the United States" are not the same "people of the states". I think the people are destroyed for LACK OF KNOWLEDGE and ignorance. Again, I reference a banking agreement - men and women go to banks and open accounts every day and yet I will wager only about 1/2 of 1% actually read the Agreement.

Shalom,
MJ

salsero
01-29-14, 03:14 PM
if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

- a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

- case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
true meaning and intent

- legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost

See - we somewhat agree but it appears you do not follow it through. I fully agree a man can not cause harm to anything in the 2 or 3rd dimensions and vice a versa. Man has no place in any court to begin with. Court is for fictions. Those case sites have nothing to do with man, I agree. What we do not agree is who is the owner of any property here on earth. If everything was created by the Creator for all of his children to use, not own, then we men are USERS, we have control, possession and dominion but not ownership. Ownership is a man made - as a matter of fact, for those that read the bible, this is exactly what Satan wants - men to believe they own and can make claims - it all boosts the EGO or edging God out.

Since you posed the question - would I verify in open court what you say is your property is NOT your property? I would not have to because you would not get that far, but let's say the judge [the same judge you are in front of consenting for him to settle controversies] asked me salsero - is this Name Anthony's property? I would say NO! that Name he is claiming is not his property. he can use it but since he wants to make false claims, he must pay the piper.

In ANY COURT, man must consent to have the judge settle the controversy being brought in. This is why you are asked to swear to tell the truth, then STATE YOUR NAME. It is all a trick. If you think you are going to go in the state's court and run it and tell the judge what to do [I would never say never but the likelihood is very much against you but I would not say impossible - EVER] and run that court - good luck. As I stated, the reason why I BELIEVE that Karl and Glenn get away with what they get away with is due to "the system not wanting to be exposed. With Glenn Fearn, I see everything he does as UCC masked in common law. It does not make it wrong - if he is getting remedy - wonderful. whatever as long as one is getting his remedy.

salsero
01-29-14, 03:14 PM
if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

- a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

- case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
true meaning and intent

- legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost

See - we somewhat agree but it appears you do not follow it through. I fully agree a man can not cause harm to anything in the 2 or 3rd dimensions and vice a versa. Man has no place in any court to begin with. Court is for fictions. Those case sites have nothing to do with man, I agree. What we do not agree is who is the owner of any property here on earth. If everything was created by the Creator for all of his children to use, not own, then we men are USERS, we have control, possession and dominion but not ownership. Ownership is a man made - as a matter of fact, for those that read the bible, this is exactly what Satan wants - men to believe they own and can make claims - it all boosts the EGO or edging God out.

Since you posed the question - would I verify in open court what you say is your property is NOT your property? I would not have to because you would not get that far, but let's say the judge [the same judge you are in front of consenting for him to settle controversies] asked me salsero - is this Name Anthony's property? I would say NO! that Name he is claiming is not his property. he can use it but since he wants to make false claims, he must pay the piper.

In ANY COURT, man must consent to have the judge settle the controversy being brought in. This is why you are asked to swear to tell the truth, then STATE YOUR NAME. It is all a trick. If you think you are going to go in the state's court and run it and tell the judge what to do [I would never say never but the likelihood is very much against you but I would not say impossible - EVER] and run that court - good luck. As I stated, the reason why I BELIEVE that Karl and Glenn get away with what they get away with is due to "the system not wanting to be exposed. With Glenn Fearn, I see everything he does as UCC masked in common law. It does not make it wrong - if he is getting remedy - wonderful. whatever as long as one is getting his remedy.

salsero
01-29-14, 03:31 PM
Salsero:

In my humble opinion the NAME is not my property as I have looked at the Certificate and I find a State SEAL upon it. That is enough for me. As such, I see a trust, as beneficiary of another trust. Now each trust has its own actors and Administrations but the one at the bottom of the so called proverbial totem pole is subject to everything above it - even international treaties that the United States might enjoin itself unto.

In a sense we are talking about Usufruct. And a mere user can only make a use in privilege. And a privilege is not an established Right. Or let me say this that absent a Claim which establishes Property there can be no Property = which is to say Rights of Use. Estates are therefore INTERESTS in Property.

Therefore, the subjects buy, sell, trade and exchange Estates but they have NO ACCESS to Property. And therefore, Property CANNOT be alienated without the State because the subjects are NOT ALLOWED to play at that level. Meaning they, the subjects, have no Claim, therefore they lack Property and therefore they have ZERO RIGHTS and only Civil Rights which amount to mere privilege. And privileges can always be revoked.

Padelford clearly showed this to be fact - for we find that a State can tax its subjects to death - if necessary - so that the State can continue. Subjects ARE NOT SOVEREIGN. The Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. When I had my day in court - I actually was so stupid as to tell a DA who had a huge smile on her face that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. She assured me she had it. I pondered for a bit and then I realized that indeed THIS MATTER concerned the Property held by the State. Therefore the licensed lawyers have full authority to hear any matter in the NAME and I realized that I stood adversary. So I backed off that claim and then I found peace. ALL SMILES. I gave away the stone and walked away from that anchor.

Said another way, I have no trust in the horses of Egypt. But I do recognize the fact that the 56 who pledged HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME and the subjects have nothing to add - except loyalty to those who gave them a government. WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT DID YOU GIVE US - A republic if you can keep it. And they setup the Trust Agreement for themselves and their Heirs. This of course is Trust 101.

People can call these chattels tools or whatever they would like but in the end of the day, if one benefits in Estates formed by others, then that one is SUBJECT to the administration of those who hold the Property whereof those Estates are formed. In reality the subjects only deal with Estates that are interests in Property owned by others.

Notice the Estate is even Recorded in an ASSET REGISTRY within a County held in a State. Don't let me get started on UCC. If one indeed has his/her own Property, then there is a Claim, and there would exist a Registry held in their State/Kingdom and there would be a Court which would be foreign to other States. I don't need to go on. I believe I have made my point.


In True trust the King is the biggest SERVANT of ALL for the Property in reality belongs to the Creator and the King Administrates the Property for all who abide within the Kingdom. Man is told to take dominion yet, in true trust Yehoshuah is King of kings. So we see vassal kings UNDER the King of kings. Even our bodies and souls belong to Yehovah.

Oh one more thing. Both parties stand naked but the one with the Might is looking for Consent in ACTION. This is IMPLIED TRUST. And I can testify there is no better remedy than a man standing and speaking what comes from his own heart.

Jer 17:7 Blessed is the strong man that confideth in Yehovah, and whose confidence Yehovah is.

Jer 17:5 Thus saith Yehovah; "Cursed be the strong man that confideth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from Yehovah.

We are with CHOICE....with that I take my leave.

Shalom,
MJ

There is not evidence that the infant or person is a trust. However, there is evidence that the Name, person, etc is an estate. The estate is owned by the state and the US has beneficial interest in that property. This is all provable. Where I was confused at first like many people -- its all about separating the fiction from the real. This ain't easy. Man has nothing whatsoever to do with the fiction. NOTHING. It is a very hard concept to get passed because the unreal parallels the real. This Satan has full authority to trick and deceive, we the people. Paper is only an image of the real. It is not the real. The title to the car, the infant, house, licenses, etc are all paper. Do you want to travel in the car? Do you want to live in the house? Do you want to be the man? Then paper has nothing to do with the real.

The BC is a usufruct compliant certified certificate for the purposes of indemnification of the State's property Name, WHEN USED PROPERLY. It is that simple. If it is YOUR name, then you are liable. If it is the State's Name, then the state is liable. Again folks, I have no issue with Common Law - the problem is long ago and far away - after the Erie decision, common law, equity all got mixed up in admiralty and we are under public policy statutes. THINK - how does the state get away with this and still not violate the 13th A?

Karl's process seems to work in England and Canada - great. We are here in the USA, home of Hillary for 2016, Barry-kare, Nancy P and Harry R. Does anyone really believe there is hope - we can believe in - for amerika?

I am not really here to convince folks to buy this concept or not. One should do what works for himself and then that is the correct path for you.

salsero
01-29-14, 03:57 PM
Infants or persons sign the instruments as that infant - are making false claims and are held as surety. Man or persons that sign By: or For: John Smith separates the one signing as being that entity. I agree the infant is an unincorporated association or organization. It is still property. An infant is a person, individual, taxpayer, executor, fiduciary, creditor, debtor, etc. These are all fictional titles that describe a fiction. the State can only deal with fictions, not men. The state has no jurisdiction over men, without his consent.

Man does NOT have any interest in that infant's estate. We must learn to separate the fiction from the real. The only "interest" if you want to call it that, is that BC is a usufruct compliant certified certificate TO BE USED FOR INDEMNIFICATION PURPOSES FOR THAT PROPERTY OR NAME OWNED BY THE STATE. By MERE coincidence, MAN too is indemnified because of his proper use of said certificate.

Anthony Joseph
01-29-14, 04:08 PM
when did i ever claim ownership?

what evidence would you bring in open court to verify that what i claim is in error - can a piece of paper verify itself?

when did i say i would go in the "state's" court and be ruled over by a "judge"?

when i bring my court to a public courthouse, it will be the rules of my court (which i create) that the magistrate will follow and hold the parties to as a witness independent of the tribunal

the unwritten common law is the highest law on this land - contract wisely

you do know that you are participating on a site which is named 'saving to suitors' club, right?

not only do i believe i have an inherent right to a common law remedy, so do the people who wrote the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 which still stands today...

[cf. "...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.]

exercise your inherent right; and, be competent

David Merrill
01-29-14, 04:16 PM
I prefer to think of an estate as marked by some kind of monument. - Like piles of stone or the Law of the Flag on the Libel of Review:


Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of God and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to God. Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:27.

Years ago one intrepid suitor elaborated... [Paleo-Hebrew letters for Yehovah and Yehoshuah etc. did not transfer to the quote.]


Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of Yahuah - , the one true G-d Anglicized Jehovah in the Holy Scriptures, and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to Yahowah- and the Messianic advent of Yahoshuah- . Be it hereby known that the competent common law is prior to 1938 and 1842 – the period between Swift v. Tyson and Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. Protected by the saving to suitors clause of 1789 the state law applied to this diversity issue is modeled by the Holy Scriptures and found in the Fundamental Orders of 1639. With respect to Yahowah’s grace demonstrated by the Messianic advent of Yahoshuah- :

Exodus 13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand Yahowah - brought us forth out of Egypt.

Genesis 1:27 So Elohiym created man in his [own] image, in the image of Elohiym created he him; male and female created he them.

“…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches…”

The 4th day of the 4th month, called June, 1639, all the free planters assembled together in a general meetinge, to consult about settling civil government according to GOD, and about the nomination of persons that may be found by consent of all fittest in all respects for the foundation work of a Church which was intended to be gathered in Quinipieck. After sollemne invocation of the name of GOD in prayer, for the presence and help of his spirit and grace in these weighty businesses, they were reminded of the business whereabout they met…

Quaere 1. Whether the Scriptures doe holde fourth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duteyes which they are to perform to GOD and men as well in the government of famyles and commonwealths as in matters of the Church?
This was assented to by all, no man dissenting, as well expressed by holding up of hands. Afterwards it was read over to them, that they might see in what wordes their vote was expressed: They againe expressed their consent thereto, by holding up their hands, no man dissenting.


Here quoted from the capital laws:
1) idolatry (Deut 13.6–17.2 – Exodus 22.20)
2) witchcraft (Exodus 22.18 – Leviticus 20.27 – Deut. 18.10,11)
3) blasphemy (Leviticus 24.15,16)
4) murder by violence (Exodus 21.12,13,14 – Numbers 35.30,31)
5) murder by guile (i.e. poisoning) (Exodus 21.14)
6) bestiality (Leviticus 20.15,16)
7) homosexuality (Leviticus 20.13)
8) adultery (Leviticus 20.10 and 18.20 – Deut. 22.23,24)
9) rape (Deut. 22.25)
10) kidnap (Exodus 21.16)
11) perjury (Deut. 19.16,18,19)
12) treason against the commonwealth
13) striking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21.17- Leviticus 20.9 – Exodus 21.15)
14) a parent shall turn in a criminal child (Deut. 21.20,21)
15) general discretionary power is retained by the general court to prosecute any other harmful behavior against individuals, family and community, church or commonwealth.

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 04:29 PM
David,

In my opinion, this is exactly right. Man is without this entire construction. Here is an excellent poem I believe....Kipling...

"The Liner, she's a lady" - Kipling




THE LINER she’s a lady, an’ she never looks nor ’eeds—
The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, an’ ’e gives ’er all she needs;
But, oh, the little cargo-boats, that sail the wet seas roun’,
They’re just the same as you an’ me a-plyin’ up an’ down!

Plyin’ up an’ down, Jenny, ’angin’ round the Yard,
All the way by Fratton tram down to Portsmouth ’Ard;
Anythin’ for business, an’ we’re growin’ old—
Plyin’ up an’ down, Jenny, waitin’ in the cold!

The Liner she’s a lady by the paint upon ’er face,
An’ if she meets an accident they count it sore disgrace:
The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, and ’e’s always ’andy by,
But, oh, the little cargo-boats! they’ve got to load or die.

The Liner she’s a lady, and ’er route is cut an’ dried;
The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, an’ ’e always keeps beside;
But, oh, the little cargo-boats that ’aven’t any man,
They’ve got to do their business first, and make the most they can!

The Liner she’s a lady, and if a war should come,
The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, and ’e’d bid ’er stay at home;
But, oh, the little cargo-boats that fill with every tide!
’E’d ’ave to up an’ fight for them, for they are England’s pride.

The Liner she’s a lady, but if she wasn’t made,
There still would be the cargo-boats for ’ome an’ foreign trade.
The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, but if we wasn’t ’ere,
’E wouldn’t have to fight at all for ’ome an’ friends so dear.

’Ome an’ friends so dear, Jenny, ’angin’ round the Yard,
All the way by Fratton tram down to Portsmouth ’Ard;
Anythin’ for business, an’ we’re growin’ old—
’Ome an’ friends so dear, Jenny, waitin’ in the cold!

====

Its those little cargo boats....setup for someone to make a Use.


Shalom,
MJ

Chex
01-29-14, 04:40 PM
Years ago one intrepid suitor elaborated...


"I have been utilizing the ‘saving to suitors’ clause properly in the US district courts, invoking true Article III judiciary for years now. About 100 suitors, most of whom have gained control of the suits that once festered into nightmares, mostly from misconceptions about how to handle process (mail). Agents of a foreign principal are required to file in the district courts of the United States prior to exercising any claim against a man or woman on this land. Of course with Federal Reserve Notes as currency that means a bill collector has to take you to court? No. The same process is expedited through your (well, it’s not really yours) mailbox. By teaching people how to handle mail for the suits that it is, these people terminate nuisance law suits against their estates, nipping them in the bud."

Dec 2003 http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306

Now I remember where I first read it, then had to know more about it, http://admiralty.uslegal.com/jurisdiction-under-saving-to-suitors-clause-2/.

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 04:47 PM
Genesis 1:27 So Elohiym created man in his [own] image, in the image of Elohiym created he him; male and female created he them.]

Parse out the Hebrew and you will discover an interesting problem. Elohim created THE MAN [eth ha aw-dawm] in his image; [SEMICOLON] male and female he made mankind [aw-dawm]

The scripture tells us that only ONE was made in the Image of God and that is Yehoshuah. Mankind is transformed into that image slowly when mankind becomes repentant and his mind is renewed in Christ. The Man of course is Jesus Christ or Yehoshuah which translated means Yehovah the Savior. This is why the Son could say "If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father."

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I Am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, if not through Me.

Joh 14:7 If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also: and from now ye know Him, and have seen Him."

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I Am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak, I speak not from Myself, but the Father That dwelleth in Me speaketh them, and His works that I do, I do not from Myself, but the Father That dwelleth in Me doeth them.

Joh 14:11 Believe Me that I Am in the Father, and the Father in Me: or else believe Me on account of the works themselves.


Of course the COMMON LAW comes from Scripture. Any student will verify that fact.

Let me see if I can do the work for those who lack the manuscripts. See attached. Now it is time to go play in the snow.

Shalom,
MJ

P.S. If you understand the Mystery of the Ages then you will see you look today like you looked then. But we see the Angels are always shown to be young and youthful.

P.S.S. Open says Me.

Chex
01-29-14, 05:16 PM
Keep them coming MJ. To read about the simple changes that took place in England is to understand very clearly how very much the role of money has been perverted in modern times. Lewis channels Adam Smith, David Ricardo and other Classical thinkers in reminding readers that money is not wealth, rather it’s the measuring stick that we use to express the actual wealth we’re exchanging. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/02/a-monetary-policy-masterpiece-of-a-book-that-everyone-should-read/

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 06:00 PM
Keep them coming MJ. To read about the simple changes that took place in England is to understand very clearly how very much the role of money has been perverted in modern times. Lewis channels Adam Smith, David Ricardo and other Classical thinkers in reminding readers that money is not wealth, rather it’s the measuring stick that we use to express the actual wealth we’re exchanging. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/02/a-monetary-policy-masterpiece-of-a-book-that-everyone-should-read/

In my opinion, money with images upon it, is a direct offense to Yehovah Elohim. It is a breaking of the Covenant. The measure was substance in terms of weight. We see in the word not to have unfair BALANCES:

Deu 25:13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
Deu 25:14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
Deu 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened on the soil which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Deu 25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

and

Pro 11:1 False balances is abomination to the LORD: But a just weight is His delight.


They were weighing substance from the Earth. And this is right for it acknowledges the Sovereign nature of Yehovah.

Today money has all sorts of Images upon it. And we are commanded in the "wedding vows" or Trust Agreement - do not make graven images. You say but we don't worship money, right? Well that is just about to make me laugh out loud. Worthless pieces of papers with images of demi-gods upon it and the people all place their trust in paper. This is ultimately a false balance. But we recognize the operation of law from whence those papers came and being not of the world but in the world, we make a use out of necessity.

This is why John the Baptist ate honey and locusts - a meager existence - so that he would learn to hate the evil and love the good. I was teaching my son yesterday about paper and images and I asked him if he would accept a blank piece of paper for money. he said no. I asked why not - it is paper just like this note. He had no answer. I will wait on him for his answer and not command him that it IS money. I often learn quite a bit from my children.

They do not carry years of programming and they have a way of cutting thru the crap and seeing the simple truth. Money exists ONLY IN TRUST. There must exist TRUST for any relationship to exist. So if i hand you an IOU do you trust me that I will make good? Or do you require a Rich Man - Fed Government - to underwrite our commerce? What is that rich man is now a pauper?

See that the Fed Government needs money to handle its affairs. It trades government bonds with a private bank whereby the private bank issues notes into circulation. Those notes can expand as the people continue to make their use. But in making their use, they increase the IOU. See that those notes REPRESENT an IOU. And the surety for those notes are those government bonds. Those notes even issue with an interest rate of return.

The entire system is constructed for slavery. But it is easy to beat the serpent at his own game. Just stay out of debt. Live simple and quiet lives.

Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 09:28 PM
Back on Topic. The question arises in who named the Thing. Mom and Dad named me - but the State gave me a Legal Name.

Gen 5:1 This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created the man, in the likeness of God made He him;

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

notice in v.1 the term "made He him" but in v2 we see "they were created". Seems like a ridiculous observation until you check the manuscripts:

made (H6213)

aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.


created (H1254 )

bara?'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).


Gen 5:1 This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created the man, in the likeness of God appointed He him;

Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

They were called "mankind". But we see that the 1st Adam [son of God] named his wife. Interesting, yes? When did he name her? AFTER THE BREACH OF TRUST. They disobeyed the first giving of the Law. They were now Outlaws. Naked in regard to their God.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all who should live after her.


Eve = Hebrew. Chavvah = Life, Life-spring. Showing that he believed God. ==> She would bring forth the Man Child - 2nd Adam - Jesus Christ. She carries the holy set apart seed [DNA].


Ezra 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.





Where did the Man receive a name? I am still looking for that name? But we see their [The Man and The Woman's] offspring [generations or heirs] were ALL named. A name therefore is a PERSON for it cannot and is not the man or woman but only a legal fiction that helps to identify the man or woman.

But IDENTITY is not the same as BEING.

Therefore all inherit in Adam/Eve in Persona which is but a mere fabrication. But those who inherit in Christ - receive Being which is real. For those who come to the Father, thru the Son may call themselves Sons of God and these share in the throne of Yehoshuah.

Heb 2:10 For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Heb 2:11 For both He That sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of God: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Heb 2:17 Wherefore according to all things it behoved Him to be made like to His brethren, in order that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

G3666 - made

homoioo?
hom-oy-o'-o
From G3664; to assimilate, that is, compare; passively to become similar: - be (make) like, (in the) liken (-ess), resemble.


Shalom,
MJ

Freed Gerdes
01-29-14, 09:49 PM
Thanks for your clear delination, Salsero. I admit my error: I have no claim on THE NAME. It is a legal fiction created by the state, for their benefit. What had me buffaloed was their 'claim' on the name, which carries with it the strong presumption that the user of the name is a debt serf, an employee of the socialist government corporation, and thus subject to jurisdiction under Roman (contract, lex mercatoria, UCC) law. Obtaining that jurisdiction is the entire purpose of the state's claim on the name. The state created it (first), thus they own it, and I can only use it; I have no right to tell the trustee what to do with his property. More importantly, I am not the beneficiary of the trust, and I have no obligation to use THE NAME. But now there is a problem; the 2nd dimension legal fictional jurisdiction that overlays the real world. I the natural man (people, not person) cannot contract with corporations; I must act within the office of a corporate person. So how to get electrical service, phone, bank account, etc? The whole purpose of the state claiming THE NAME is to establish their right to tax the property held by THE NAME. Just using THE NAME carries the presumption that 'you' (the people who acts as accommodation agent for legal person THE NAME) are a card-carrying employee of the trust, and that all you acquire in THE NAME belongs to the government.

Suppose that I create another NAME for my use, not owned by the government. I can easily file for a dba with the state, and that corporate person will be recognized, and the legal system will recognize that I own it (I recognize that I did not create the legal system, so let's say that I own the exclusive interest to use this new corporate person, at least free of any presumption that it suffers from some prior claim by the government). It will also fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC legal system, but without all the baggage of the presumption that I am a US citizen, ie, debt slave. This should greatly simplify proving the claim that 'I am not a US citizen, subject to your jurisdiction.' I (as agent for the NEW NAME), am still subject to the UCC, but now only for actual contracts, thus shedding all the presumptions associated with using the NAME that the state has assigned to me (think of it as going off the grid). I perceive that the use of a NAME provides the contracting parties with the basic presumption that certain rules (the UCC) are in effect, and that your NAME has agreed to accept service of process there. But at least creating your own NAME would take the government's interest out of the contract. Then you get the DMV to issue an identity card in your own NAME, and you drive on that. Now there is no presumption that you are in contract with the state or federal rules, codes, and regulations. Only common law applies.

My understanding of the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 is that the US government pledged all its assets to the bankers as security collateral for the debt. But the US corporate government did not own all the property in America. By using the debt obligations created by the endorsement of private bills of exchange (FRN's), the corporation perfected its claim on more and more of America, but it does not have a claim on privately held property. Some have said here on this blog that the people are deprived of money, thus cannot 'buy' anything. The stated benefit for the debt slaves is described by the corporation as being indemnified from having to actually pay for anything, ie, join us in this bankruptcy fraud (but we get to tax you for the privilege). But there is lawful money. Today it begins to look like a black market, but by using lawful money you can buy property and discharge all debts on it, including previous claims to it held by the corporate government. But if you put that property into YOUR NAME, you just re-create the government's claim on it, and they will still want to tax it... and you will have to take positive steps to rebut their presumptions. So maybe put it in the NAME you use that acknowledges God's trust, ie, your given name.

btw, Doug Casey calls FRN's "I owe you nothing"s. He calls Euro notes "Who owes you nothing"s... only gold is honest money, honest weight.

ps to Chex: gold is not currently money, due to the usurpation of fiat everywhere, but gold is wealth. It represents stored labor and resources in the real world.

Freed

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 09:57 PM
Freed:

That is called DECLARATION OF TRUST and TRUST AGREEMENT. And yes the IRS fully recognizes that you will no longer be under 1040 rules. In fact you will fall under 1041 - Complex Trust. Learn it and you don't even need Lawful Money. you can reduce the tax burden to as low as five percent. Nevertheless, Lawful Money is the ticket in conjunction with Trust.

DECLARE THYSELF.

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 11:29 PM
study what went down just prior to Hitler taking power and you will most likely see some very similar patterns forming in America. Very similar indeed.

Anthony Joseph
01-29-14, 11:54 PM
people...

who can make a claim but one with living voice?

do you claim property or ownership/title?

the former is expressed in living voice, the latter must be expressed by way of paper

i care not of ownership or titles; my claim of property stands as true and verified until someone will step forward and disparage and/or deny my living voice claim

end of story

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 11:54 PM
And now back on target. IDENTITY is impossible to prove. Therefore TRUST must be expressed or implied. As it were I can tell you trust by watching what fruit your produce.

The premise is quite simple really:

Rom_6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

This is IMPLIED TRUST. Since Identity cannot be proved. But I will not beat that horse anymore. Some folks THINK they can prove it - but they only fool themselves. With their images - which prove nothing at all.


Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

Heb 13:13 Let us go forth therefore to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek the coming one.

Heb 13:15 By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips confessing to His name.

Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
01-29-14, 11:59 PM
people...

who can make a claim but one with living voice?

do you claim property or ownership/title?

the former is expressed in living voice, the latter must be expressed by way of paper

i care not of ownership or titles; my claim of property stands as true and verified until someone will step forward and disparage and/or deny my living voice claim

end of story

title and ownership are derivatives of Property. A law dictionary proves that easily. Title is a MEANS showing just possession. Ownership is in dominion which is who has the Right to Property.

I don't know your claim - what is it? Please elucidate it upon a candid world. Man cannot read minds.

THEREFORE,

DECLARATION OF TRUST [INDEPENDENCE] AND TRUST AGREEMENT [CONSTITUTION].

DECLARE THYSELF.


Shalom,
MJ

P.S. I have never head a dead man talk so I am unsure what you mean about a living voice. I jest of course but it is nevertheless humorous to me.

Anthony Joseph
01-30-14, 12:09 AM
what i claim is my property (that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others) is true, simply because i speak it

if someone wishes to disparage or deny what i; a man, claim... come forward now and be heard

"living voice", i agree, is a redundant phrase; except that, in the 2nd dimension realm, fictions have a "voice" on paper

in common law, "voice" means only one thing; a man who speaks [cf. viva voce]

Michael Joseph
01-30-14, 12:18 AM
what i claim is my property (that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others) is true, simply because i speak it

if someone wishes to disparage or deny what i; a man, claim... come forward now and be heard

"living voice", i agree, is a redundant phrase; except that, in the 2nd dimension realm, fictions have a "voice" on paper

in common law, "voice" means only one thing; a man who speaks [cf. viva voce]

okay I see your point - a court "speaks" thru its records....as it were. However in the end, men/women produce the record. Words do not magically appear absent an intelligent mind.

This is why I vehemently oppose evolution. However, consider INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and COPYRIGHT. Are these not written expressions with certain property rights associated therein and thereof? Is not the creator allowed to profit from those rights? For a workman is worthy of his hire.

Common Law comes from Scripture. All trusts must first be spoken into existence. And God said....and God spake....etc. However a kingdom of priests all agree that there exists a King. And it ain't them! They all abide in one law under the law giver. And the law giver is sovereign!

Shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
01-30-14, 12:21 AM
great

where have i infringed upon "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and COPYRIGHT" through my offerings?

salsero
01-30-14, 02:58 AM
when did i ever claim ownership?

what evidence would you bring in open court to verify that what i claim is in error - can a piece of paper verify itself?

when did i say i would go in the "state's" court and be ruled over by a "judge"?

when i bring my court to a public courthouse, it will be the rules of my court (which i create) that the magistrate will follow and hold the parties to as a witness independent of the tribunal

the unwritten common law is the highest law on this land - contract wisely

you do know that you are participating on a site which is named 'saving to suitors' club, right?

not only do i believe i have an inherent right to a common law remedy, so do the people who wrote the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 which still stands today...

[cf. "...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.]

exercise your inherent right; and, be competent

Honestly, I wanted to learn more about the FRB then anything else - this is why I joined. I appreciate David and his very hard work. I am at a cross roads man v person. the 12 USC 411 has to do with a person, not man. But I am not at that point of being ONLY man. The person must give up everything - a release of claim and interest in the person. I am not there today.

You think I want to argue, I really do not want to. I have asked questions and have yet to receive answers. How do you go into your court? Have you been successful in going to your court in the public courthouse? You create the court and the magistrate will follow and hold the parties to as witness per your say so? The highest law on the land is GOD"S LAW. This is the only law that matters and this Law pertains to man.

What makes you think you have any rights to begin with in regard to Man's laws. We live in a demoCRAZY - where majority rules. Go figure a majority of idiots have a say about others.

So let me ask a point blank question: Have you actually gone into court and made it yours? Have you had the magistrate actually do what you told him to do? Please tell us what exact type of case you have dealt with regarding Common Law and have won?

I see I missed a question you had: IF I WERE IN COURT, ANY COURT, YOURS OR THEIRS, and I was asked to question you about your proof of claim - anything you may claim for that matter, this is what I would do: When you are asked to swear to tell the truth and then asked your name, I would interrupt and state: Magistrate I have evidence to prove that Anthony made a false claim to property that he does not own. THe evidence I have is the BC. It is a certified copy with state seal and state authorized signer signed this document - Your honor what are you going to do to this belligerent, an enemy of the state who dares make false claims to property he does not own? Your honor, you realize the country is bankrupt and has no backing of the INTERNAL currency, therefore in the 1930s all titles were seized and thus all property is vested in the state where citizens, residents, men are mere users per the senate record.

Again for the final time - I would never say never that common law will not work - the odds are simply against it. I stated previously that Glenn Fearn uses the common law case law everywhere in his documents. The man is very smart, I do have respect for him. But he fully admits he IS a belligerent. I see his work as I DARE YOU TO CHALLENGE ME, YOU WILL OWE ME $1,000,000 IN SILVER. To me this is nothing more than UCC.

I challenge anyone here to take a listen to Marcus. These videos are long and I have to say at times boring but boring because he is trying to drill it in our heads. We are Servant Kings and if you are Christian - he quotes the Bible through out constantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysESwj1w10

salsero
01-30-14, 03:27 AM
Thanks for your clear delination, Salsero. I admit my error: I have no claim on THE NAME. It is a legal fiction created by the state, for their benefit. What had me buffaloed was their 'claim' on the name, which carries with it the strong presumption that the user of the name is a debt serf, an employee of the socialist government corporation, and thus subject to jurisdiction under Roman (contract, lex mercatoria, UCC) law. Obtaining that jurisdiction is the entire purpose of the state's claim on the name. The state created it (first), thus they own it, and I can only use it; I have no right to tell the trustee what to do with his property. More importantly, I am not the beneficiary of the trust, and I have no obligation to use THE NAME. But now there is a problem; the 2nd dimension legal fictional jurisdiction that overlays the real world. I the natural man (people, not person) cannot contract with corporations; I must act within the office of a corporate person. So how to get electrical service, phone, bank account, etc? The whole purpose of the state claiming THE NAME is to establish their right to tax the property held by THE NAME. Just using THE NAME carries the presumption that 'you' (the people who acts as accommodation agent for legal person THE NAME) are a card-carrying employee of the trust, and that all you acquire in THE NAME belongs to the government.

Suppose that I create another NAME for my use, not owned by the government. I can easily file for a dba with the state, and that corporate person will be recognized, and the legal system will recognize that I own it (I recognize that I did not create the legal system, so let's say that I own the exclusive interest to use this new corporate person, at least free of any presumption that it suffers from some prior claim by the government). It will also fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC legal system, but without all the baggage of the presumption that I am a US citizen, ie, debt slave. This should greatly simplify proving the claim that 'I am not a US citizen, subject to your jurisdiction.' I (as agent for the NEW NAME), am still subject to the UCC, but now only for actual contracts, thus shedding all the presumptions associated with using the NAME that the state has assigned to me (think of it as going off the grid). I perceive that the use of a NAME provides the contracting parties with the basic presumption that certain rules (the UCC) are in effect, and that your NAME has agreed to accept service of process there. But at least creating your own NAME would take the government's interest out of the contract. Then you get the DMV to issue an identity card in your own NAME, and you drive on that. Now there is no presumption that you are in contract with the state or federal rules, codes, and regulations. Only common law applies.

My understanding of the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 is that the US government pledged all its assets to the bankers as security collateral for the debt. But the US corporate government did not own all the property in America. By using the debt obligations created by the endorsement of private bills of exchange (FRN's), the corporation perfected its claim on more and more of America, but it does not have a claim on privately held property. Some have said here on this blog that the people are deprived of money, thus cannot 'buy' anything. The stated benefit for the debt slaves is described by the corporation as being indemnified from having to actually pay for anything, ie, join us in this bankruptcy fraud (but we get to tax you for the privilege). But there is lawful money. Today it begins to look like a black market, but by using lawful money you can buy property and discharge all debts on it, including previous claims to it held by the corporate government. But if you put that property into YOUR NAME, you just re-create the government's claim on it, and they will still want to tax it... and you will have to take positive steps to rebut their presumptions. So maybe put it in the NAME you use that acknowledges God's trust, ie, your given name.

btw, Doug Casey calls FRN's "I owe you nothing"s. He calls Euro notes "Who owes you nothing"s... only gold is honest money, honest weight.

ps to Chex: gold is not currently money, due to the usurpation of fiat everywhere, but gold is wealth. It represents stored labor and resources in the real world.

Freed

All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name. No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid. Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this. The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully. This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

Anthony Joseph
01-30-14, 12:31 PM
i do not hold or subscribe to the defeatist viewpoint that "we live in a demoCRAZY - where majority rules"

i am preparing a claim to move in my court presently

you; salsero, have no first hand knowledge of what you claim regarding the Name (my property) and the BC (a piece of paper with no vocal chords)

your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?

only man can make a claim of property in a common law land; everything else you speak of is conjecture and the facilitation of defeatism through fear

God's Law is common law, that's the point; the unwritten law of right and wrong:

- harm to a man
- injury to a man's property
- breach of a valid and lawful contract

everything else is in the land of "legalese" where i do not wish to "reside"

salsero
01-30-14, 05:22 PM
i do not hold or subscribe to the defeatist viewpoint that "we live in a demoCRAZY - where majority rules"

i am preparing a claim to move in my court presently

you; salsero, have no first hand knowledge of what you claim regarding the Name (my property) and the BC (a piece of paper with no vocal chords)

your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?

only man can make a claim of property in a common law land; everything else you speak of is conjecture and the facilitation of defeatism through fear

God's Law is common law, that's the point; the unwritten law of right and wrong:

- harm to a man
- injury to a man's property
- breach of a valid and lawful contract

everything else is in the land of "legalese" where i do not wish to "reside"

I will conditionally accept your statements upon prove that:

1. We do not live in a democracy or as I live to state it - demoCRAZY where the majority rules, bad or good have nothing to do with it.
2. With your statement, salsero you have no first hand knowledge regarding ... do you have first hand knowledge that I do not have first hand knowledge?
3. From your own statement, I am preparing a claim to move forward - that you have first hand knowledge.
4. my "claim", if I made such a thing is without merit.
5. you verify your claim.
6. [once you hold your own court] the judge will even allow you to speak after the fact you state "your name" and for the record, when you speak on the record, who hold those records?
7. that at any time I would intermeddle and speak or even act as trustee for the state. Intermeddling has a big price called surety-ship. I can only speak for me and not the entity I use.
8. please tell us where is common law land is located
9. that any man can NOT make a claim anywhere. Hillary will be the president in 2016 is a claim. I just made it. People make claims of what they believe all the time. I must live in a democrazy.
10. Fear - please tell how you possibly interpreted fear. [if anything it is liberating to finally come in to God's world and not into man's paper fiction]
11. God's law is common law. Where on earth did you get this from? God's Law is Supreme - how on earth can you bring a claim in in court here in the USA, saying it is your court, then ask a judge, who is a man to make a judgment on another man or person. ONLY GOD IS OR CAN BE THE JUDGE, as I have found NO WHERE GOD PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO ANY MAN TO JUDGE ANOTHER MAN. If anything, there is a scripture that states judge not lest you be judged.
12. man contracts - please state how.
13. that you do not reside in the land of legalese

Paisan I do not wish to argue with you, really. You like the bible, this is very good. I wish you would take some time to listen to Marcus and his video series. He really brings up some excellent biblical points that will leave you to MAKE A DECISION - who do you serve? Man or God. There is no half way. CHOOSE. It will get this MY PROPERTY thing in a different context for you. I can not write a book here.

Because I know you are very sincere with this thinking, I honor that but I do not agree. As I have said, WE ARE FORCED to do commerce out of necessity and we do this through an entity we USE.

Again here is the link for Marcus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSRN7s3dxQ&list=PLiX3396e5WbbkITpykiaZds9EAGY1ZxJB&index=1 and also if you are so inclined check out notacitizen.com

Again, if none of this resonates with you, that is fine with me, as we are all on our own journey. When you move your court, please let us know how that worked out for you.

Anthony Joseph
01-30-14, 08:42 PM
some of your questions ask to prove a negative; sorry, i don't do that

some of your questions come from a belief that we are at the mercy of the "powers that be"; sorry, i don't believe that

some of your statements come from a belief that man is NOT the highest standing on earth; sorry, i don't believe that

some of your statements presume that something called 'state' has rights and can make a claim of property in the third dimension; sorry, i don't believe that

Freed Gerdes
01-30-14, 10:09 PM
All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name.

The state does claim the NAME; they claim ownership of the assets held in the NAME, which they pledge to the IMF as collateral. But more obviously, the state is a corporation, so the NAME created by them is a corporation (actually a limited liability corporation, or LLC). I get it that the state does not own me, the man, but they have interposed themselves between me and my right to contract, claiming legal title and leaving me only equitable title to any asset I buy. But there is a Constitutional nation in the geography of the US, and the Fed govt is just a legal overlay on that. And the only connection between the two is the presumption of voluntary servitude, ie, being a 'US citizen' rather than an American Citizen. Prior to the bankruptcy trust being created, ordinary Citizens owned assets in their given names. Is that not possible now? Apparently it is not possible if your NAME has been claimed by the fed govt, without your consent...

No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid.

[COLOR="#000000"][COLOR="#FF0000"] The state says that I can have the 'benefit' of using the NAME to contract with other legal entities, which as you say is almost required in this modern age, but I only act as agent for the LLC when I do use it. I am me, and the NAME is just an imaginary shell which I can put on to operate in the 2nd dimension, the imaginary plane of Roman law/contracts. If the judge asks my name, I will give him my given name, and state that I am people, not person.

Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this.

Wait! I claim that I do have an option, that I am not forced to use the NAME owned by the state, I am allowed to accept the benefit of not paying for it when I use the NAME. I am only forced to use the NAME if I intend to pay in their private, false currency. If I pay in lawful money, I can buy an asset which the state cannot claim ownership to (see 12 USC 95 a (2)), and I can title it in my own name. The title is only evidence of ownership; as AJ says, I the living man makes the claim of ownership. And he acquires this claim through applying his labor to modify some part of God's creation to make it more suitable to his purposes. Money is a representation of exchangeable labor; FRN's are a representation of promised future labor.

The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully.

The new name would be an LLC recognized by the State, not the Fed govt. North Carolina has a Constitutional government outside the US Federal government. So the new name is a State citizen, not a US citizen. And obviously it would have to be somewhat different from the NAME claimed by the fed govt, which I could then quit using.

This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

Yes, I understand that the living man has no standing in a Roman court; the judge is not a judge at all, he is an administrator, authorized only to resolve contract disputes between corporate entities, one of whom is making a claim of a contract violation. My view there is that the state is making a claim against its own property, and trying to con me into accepting liability for this violation. But I am not a corporation, and my actions can only be limited by common law; as a sometimes beneficiary of the NAME, I will give my permission for the judge, as acting trustee for the trust, and in his capacity as a fiduciary agent for the People, to resolve the corporation's internal bookkeeping conflict in whatever way seems easiest to him, and I will grant him my sovereign immunity so that he will not face personal liability for doing so. Now the problem with this position is that the judge will want to be swayed by the preponderance of implied contracts associated with the NAME, which, as you note, it is almost impossible to avoid, as they now pervade every aspect of our lives (the Federal government is a partner in your marriage, remember those kinky three-way vows?). There is a presumption that you the natural man have benefited from the socialist corporate government policies, so you have undertaken liabilities associated with this invisible contract. Must rebut this entire mass of presumptions.

Freed

Michael Joseph
01-30-14, 10:14 PM
DECLARE THYSELF.

OR go to the courts and get your judgment that you seek. See how that is in fact a submission? Has it dawned on anyone here not to go at all? Yes warrants will issue and you will be FORCED to go but then you have established your lack of trust - THE NEXUS IS TRUST.

SHOW ME - is the name of the game. If I have no trust in you then you are wasting my time. So lets get on with the hanging or do you really mean that you desire peace? Yet if it can be shown that you have express and implied trust - then shut your mouth - else you are in contempt of the Administration [Court]. A trustee will comply with the terms of the Use. Or said another way - If I make a promise then I should keep my promise. That is Equity 101.

So which is it Joseph? If you keep your mouth shut you will be carried off into Egypt as a slave. But he could have said I am of the House of Israel. Now don't get me wrong Joseph PERCEIVED the actions of his brothers were part of a bigger plan - however learn the lesson. You words and your writings mean NOTHING without the Deeds to back them up.

This is why I find this so humorous - the arguments presented are framed from one who is REACTING to a condition.

Go and have a seat I will get to you in a minute. Will you forsake your claim? Lets see? A GREAT Apostasy is happening whereupon men and women are doing just that as they forsake their first love and pick up Theosophy and Spiritualism.

I believe it was James : A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways. And Faith[trust] ABSENT DEEDS is dead! This is called an EXECUTORY TRUST. Proving anything is impossible - you cannot prove a single thing to me. And if you would stop to THINK you would realize that proof is an absurd proposal. There is only TRUST and OBEY and SUBMISSION to a common law form.

All I have to do is read or listen to your words and I can tell which law form you submit unto. Argue with me please - and imply that i have the dominion or jurisdiction - whichever you prefer.

"The only way to win is not to play the game". "I have no trust in you" is a 98 mph fast ball. Now the umpires are sitting back and watching for your TRUST expressed in DEEDS. WHERE ARE YOUR DEEDS - O James?

Yet as men and women of God we are required to live quiet and peaceful lives IF IT BE POSSIBLE. Sometimes it is not possible. But even then our Faith wins the day as the Light shines from within.

Now then let me proceed. Simply put I DO NOT GO TO THE SAME CHURCH. It is as simple as that.

You might gainsay my last statment in discourse; however I ask you:

1. did not Germany establish a state church under Hitler? A: Yes.
2. did not England setup a state church with Monarch as its head? A: Yes
3. did not United States setup a state church with the state as its head? A: Yes. Ref 501c3

Who has beguiled you into thinking that State and Church are separate? The State is the Church! I do not attend to the alters of Baal.


I declare that I am a son of Elohim by the GREAT MERCIES and GRACE of my Savior, my Redeemer and my King and my Friend, Yehovah our Savior. I seek to be led by the Holy Spirit of Yehovah but not in my own will but in the will and desire of my Father. Or said another way, I submit as a preparing bride for my Husbandman. My whorish mind is departing from her delilah ways and she is humbling herself to submit to the Spirit of Yehovah. OF YEHOVAH my JUDGE.

I have no truck with the world except that I will just be me as an example. I cannot judge another for I am not the judge. Therefore I will love you in keeping Torah and the Prophets to the best of my ability. And I hope to show you the heart of God which is his Instructions [Torah].

The church of the firstborn is free. For I do not seek a city of this world.

Heb 13:10 We have an altar, of which they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Comments: "They" are the Levitical Priesthood. "We" is speaking to the new Priesthood of the order of Melchizedok.

Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the Holly of Holies by the high priest concerning sin, are burned outside the camp.

Comments: "outside the camp" : Be not of this world


Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

Heb 13:13 Let us go forth therefore to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek the coming one.

Heb 13:15 By Yehoshuah therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to El Elyon continually, that is, the fruit of our lips confessing to Yehoshuah's name.

SIMPLY PUT I ATTEND AT A DIFFERENT ALTER. I too abide in the law of necessity. For you cannot make a law that interferes with obligations in an existing Contract. I have a Marriage Contract with God. And I am told that a man who will not take care of his family is worse than a heathen. Therefore I have a charge to take care of my family. Therefore I will forage as I need to ensure my family has provision - trusting in my God for providence and provision - Yehovah Yireh.


Absent accommodation, without recourse, without prejudice, absent benefit received, but with full liability for my actions, but absent liability assumed and absent suretyship and absent joinder in or for any Person or office of a Person, and in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I issue the foregoing claiming the Commonwealth of Yisra'el under my King, Yehovah my Savior.

Anthony Joseph
01-30-14, 10:43 PM
declare thyself... precisely

if warrants issue from a non-living entity against a man, the one prosecuting the relating [false] claim is committing barratry if said man requires the claimant appear and verify said claim

i would never "go to the courts"; instead, i would move my court at the [I]courthouse where a man can stand and speak his claim before living witnesses if he so wishes

if you cause a man harm, make it right
if you injure a man's property, make it right
if you breach a valid a lawful contract with another man, make it right

the game is an illusion where no 2nd dimension entity can ever be harmed by man
man is the source of energy, labor and credit(s) issued

'corporations', 'states', etc. were created to help man and not to cause harm or injury

man cannot harm a fiction

do unto others... ; and, contract wisely

Michael Joseph
01-31-14, 12:16 AM
declare thyself... precisely

if warrants issue from a non-living entity against a man, the one prosecuting the relating [false] claim is committing barratry if said man requires the claimant appear and verify said claim

i would never "go to the courts"; instead, i would move my court at the [I]courthouse where a man can stand and speak his claim before living witnesses if he so wishes

if you cause a man harm, make it right
if you injure a man's property, make it right
if you breach a valid a lawful contract with another man, make it right

the game is an illusion where no 2nd dimension entity can ever be harmed by man
man is the source of energy, labor and credit(s) issued

'corporations', 'states', etc. were created to help man and not to cause harm or injury

man cannot harm a fiction

do unto others... ; and, contract wisely


I suppose I do not understand your use of 2d, 3d nomenclature. The way I see it. I am a man dealing with other men and women. We are all created beings with CHOICE. so we will either go our own way against our creator or we will align with the instructions the creator has given. If a group of men get together to pool their equity within a corporate body - they are still a group of men. I do not comprehend 2d.

I do however see x,y,z,t, and perhaps another 7 unseen dimensions [seven spirits of Elohim - El Shaddai or Wisdom - she is called]

Now then I am either in the way or making my own way - in my Choices. The creator of all desires reverence - which is to say - I should think about you - because if I harm your equitable interests I have harmed you - and since you too are a creation of Yehovah, I have harmed Yehovah as well.

I do not speak in theory. I have walked this path and then some. My trust has been proven to be rock solid and I believe that:


Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him That loved us.

Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of Yehovah, which is in Yehoshuah our King.

Again, I attend to a different alter. I have nothing to prove - For the Glory is for Yehovah my Savior - to work THRU my vessel. I am willing by Choice but I know not the outcomes. Therefore I trust that I am redeemed - yet, I do not know how I will be used for the sake of the kingdom. I await intuition from my Father. Which is to say leading and direction from the Holy Spirit of Yehovah.

Absent accommodation, without recourse, without prejudice, absent benefit received, but with full liability for my actions, but absent liability assumed and absent suretyship and absent joinder in or for any Person or office of a Person, and in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I issue the foregoing claiming the Commonwealth of Yisra'el under my King, Yehovah my Savior.

Anthony Joseph
01-31-14, 01:00 AM
i was writing regarding another who suggested something called 'state' (2d) can make a superior claim to property than man (3d)

salsero
01-31-14, 02:00 AM
All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name.

The state does claim the NAME; they claim ownership of the assets held in the NAME, which they pledge to the IMF as collateral. But more obviously, the state is a corporation, so the NAME created by them is a corporation (actually a limited liability corporation, or LLC). I get it that the state does not own me, the man, but they have interposed themselves between me and my right to contract, claiming legal title and leaving me only equitable title to any asset I buy. But there is a Constitutional nation in the geography of the US, and the Fed govt is just a legal overlay on that. And the only connection between the two is the presumption of voluntary servitude, ie, being a 'US citizen' rather than an American Citizen. Prior to the bankruptcy trust being created, ordinary Citizens owned assets in their given names. Is that not possible now? Apparently it is not possible if your NAME has been claimed by the fed govt, without your consent...

No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid.

[COLOR="#000000"][COLOR="#FF0000"] The state says that I can have the 'benefit' of using the NAME to contract with other legal entities, which as you say is almost required in this modern age, but I only act as agent for the LLC when I do use it. I am me, and the NAME is just an imaginary shell which I can put on to operate in the 2nd dimension, the imaginary plane of Roman law/contracts. If the judge asks my name, I will give him my given name, and state that I am people, not person.

Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this.

Wait! I claim that I do have an option, that I am not forced to use the NAME owned by the state, I am allowed to accept the benefit of not paying for it when I use the NAME. I am only forced to use the NAME if I intend to pay in their private, false currency. If I pay in lawful money, I can buy an asset which the state cannot claim ownership to (see 12 USC 95 a (2)), and I can title it in my own name. The title is only evidence of ownership; as AJ says, I the living man makes the claim of ownership. And he acquires this claim through applying his labor to modify some part of God's creation to make it more suitable to his purposes. Money is a representation of exchangeable labor; FRN's are a representation of promised future labor.

The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully.

The new name would be an LLC recognized by the State, not the Fed govt. North Carolina has a Constitutional government outside the US Federal government. So the new name is a State citizen, not a US citizen. And obviously it would have to be somewhat different from the NAME claimed by the fed govt, which I could then quit using.

This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

Yes, I understand that the living man has no standing in a Roman court; the judge is not a judge at all, he is an administrator, authorized only to resolve contract disputes between corporate entities, one of whom is making a claim of a contract violation. My view there is that the state is making a claim against its own property, and trying to con me into accepting liability for this violation. But I am not a corporation, and my actions can only be limited by common law; as a sometimes beneficiary of the NAME, I will give my permission for the judge, as acting trustee for the trust, and in his capacity as a fiduciary agent for the People, to resolve the corporation's internal bookkeeping conflict in whatever way seems easiest to him, and I will grant him my sovereign immunity so that he will not face personal liability for doing so. Now the problem with this position is that the judge will want to be swayed by the preponderance of implied contracts associated with the NAME, which, as you note, it is almost impossible to avoid, as they now pervade every aspect of our lives (the Federal government is a partner in your marriage, remember those kinky three-way vows?). There is a presumption that you the natural man have benefited from the socialist corporate government policies, so you have undertaken liabilities associated with this invisible contract. Must rebut this entire mass of presumptions.

Freed

Very close Freed. The state loves for you to contract because it benefits through the name you use. I used to think man had equitable title. We don't even have that. The state has legal title and the US has equitable title because the US purchased a "beneficial Interest" in that Property Name through the Social Security Act 1935, title 5, part 1 [502]]: ALLOTMENTS TO STATES: SEC. 502.. Man has been left naked user of said property where everything he does automatically vests to the state. We must consent to voluntary servitude because the 13th A prohibits involuntary servitude. Being a US citizen or resident of the US is automatic CONSENT to the jurisdiction thereof. It is not possible for any man or person to own property since the 1930s when all titles or COLB were seized and are held in abeyance in the "public trust".

YES, you must rebut the presumption by asking questions, not making a claims. Remember when you make a claim, it must be substantiated. I AM NOT JOHN SMITH is a claim. A better way to respond when asked what is your name? What makes you think I own such a thing? OR by what authority are you using a Name to identify a living man? An agent is a person. Man is not an agent unless he consents. By Law, Man is an animal - it says so in their law: U.S. Code › Title 7 › Chapter 6 › Subchapter II › § 136 (d) Animal The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish. (s) Person The term “person” means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, or any organized group of persons whether incorporated or not.

Yes you do have a choice to use the name or not. There have been many positive stories stated on this site about lawful money but I also believe I have seen some issues where the IRS flagged the lawful money. PLEASE CORRECT ME ON THIS MATTER, IF I AM WRONG. Persons do 12 USC 411. You can not title anything in your own name unless it is your first/middle name given by your parents. Re-read the 12 USC 95a again, carefully, one must RELEASE any possible reversionary interest to that property for the state to take full responsibility of its property. I can only offer you Freed to think it through carefully - try not to mix fiction with man. It is very difficult because the fiction images the real and we presume. A new name under a LLC is still a fiction. NC is a subsidiary of the US. A state citizen is a citizen. A citizen is a person. A person is a surety, call it state of federal.

An administrator judge is in place to settle controversies between fictions. A fiction who has been bad by not adhering to the public policy statutes is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The state makes a claim against man who either accepts surety-ship or not. So either the court will take the FRN from the person OR if not claim is made, the court will be forced to take settle the matter internally. Freed, really take the time to review and be clear what it is you want. You actions are limited by the claims you make or do not make. You can not be a beneficiary of something that you have no say in.

I would never say never, but I would not necessary want to go there and start with UCC stuff. But again do whatever resonates with you.

Michael Joseph
01-31-14, 02:24 AM
Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Salsero, etc. are ALL fictions!

These are names and names are not living beings. A name is absent a soul. This goes to the heart of IDENTITY - and then you must satisfy the answer of IDENTITY within what law boundary. Meaning who has the surety. This is typically the treasury.

I don't care what your name is - it is a fiction.

Can you hear me speaks the sentient being? Now I wonder where in the common law that came from....well lets find out.

Exo 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the People that was in the camp trembled.

Exo 19:17 And Moses brought forth the People out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.

Exo 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

Exo 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

=====

they could not see - but they heard! Now you can pull out all sorts of images of what your mommy named you or what daddy attested to - I don't care! This is all a fiction. A name has no blood. A name has no voice. A name has no soul. A name has no spirit. A name is SIMPLY PUT A FICTION.

Can a name establish the character of a man. No. Can a man predestine a man to a certain destiny. No. A name is a label used for convenience within a society. That society has a certain law form - be it natural law or moral law or statute law, etc. That law form has conventions for handling names.

Therefore dear reader a name is a Person.


Shalom,
MJ

salsero
01-31-14, 02:45 AM
I did not write the following; however, I think it speaks to the issue at hand. The man who wrote this has accomplished remedy because he does what he says and is consistent.

================================================== ================================================== ============================
Thomas Jefferson



"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, .....



'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' . . .."



"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead;



This here would seem to explain why the word "usufruct" is so powerful when spoken in the courts where it has an effect equal to that of a priest throwing holy water on a demon or that equal to garlic or a cross being put before a vampire.



The word "usufruct" itself pertains solely to the LIVING and NOT to the DEAD! And the courts can only see and recognize the DEAD, such as artificial entities like "persons."



I have had a few people say that what I have done by recording the release of claim and interest to the name and having unconditionally surrendered all claims and interest to the United States as usufructary, that they believe I have actually given up my right to my estate.



Well there are two flaws in their belief.



One, they seem to believe that the State can somehow magically hold your living estate in trust. The State is merely a fiction and no fiction can hold nor control anything that is real pertaining to anything that is life and living. It can only hold what is also just fiction. What I am saying here is that any interests being held by the Name Estate is all just artificial property that was created on paper that has no real attachment to anything that is real. That paper merely gives an illusion as if attaches to real property. The only attachment between fiction and reality is merely one's own belief that comes from their mind, but is not reality. So in this respect I gave up nothing that exist within the living world. I merely surrendered all claims and interest in what only exist within the DEAD world that pertains solely to anything that is artificial, and not real!



Two, let us just ASSUME here that the State which is a fiction actually could hold anything real that pertains to the living where the State could hold that in a trust, such as the artificial entity Name Estate? Even "IF" this could be the case I still did not give up anything real pertaining to the real world that was given to me by the Creator as might right of dominion over it. The key word these few people appear to miss here is "usufructary."



The surrender to everything was made to the United States as USUFRUCTARY, which means even "IF" that artificial entity could hold my real living estate in trust, this surrender only establishes the United States as being the entity holding everything in trust where that entity is the usufructary that is liable for settling all claims and dues on behalf of that Name Estate where it is merely acknowledged that everything is held in trust by the United States and that entity is the usufructary responsible for settling everything out of that estate.



It would be equal to the same thing as what the signatories on the Declaration of Independence did where they all pledged everything into that trust. By unconditionally surrendering all to the United States as USUFRUCTARY you have pledged everything into that trust to be held in that Name Estate where by everything being pledged into that entity all claims must be settled out of that estate by a trustee of that estate which can only be a "public/State Official" serving the State as an elected or appointed official or an authorized employee of any agency of that government entity.



So either way the result remains the same where everything whether real or artificial is all pledged into that trust where nothing is claimed by me as being mine where I cannot be held liable for that Name I use.













Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution, The Stewardship Doctrine:

II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their Contemporaries

B. Generational Sovereignty and the Land – The Earth as Tenancy-in-Common - Thomas Jefferson's Usufruct


The most succinct, systematic treatment of intergenerational principles left to us by the founders is that which was provided by Thomas Jefferson in his famous September 6,1789 letter to James Madison. f116 The letter was Jefferson's final installment in a two year correspondence with Madison on the proposed Bill of Rights. f117 Given the importance of this letter as background material for the bill of rights, f118 and its independent value as a brilliant statement of intergenerational equity principles, it serves as the natural starting point for a discussion of the founders' views on specific intergenerational issues.

Jefferson begins his letter by asserting that:

"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' . . .." f119

Since Jefferson explicitly bases his entire philosophy regarding generational relations upon this "self-evident" principle, f120 it behooves us to examine closely the precise language employed to express the principle. Of most importance is the single word: usufruct.

The legal concept of usufruct can be traced back at least as far as ancient Roman law f121 and has changed little over the centuries. In Jefferson's time, as now, "usufruct" referred to "the right to make all the use and profit of a thing that can be made without injuring the substance of the thing itself." f122 It was a term used to describe the rights and responsibilities of tenants, trustees, or other parties temporarily entrusted with the use of an asset -- usually land. f123

Under the common law, the doctrine of usufruct is closely conjoined with the doctrine prohibiting waste, defined by Blackstone as "a spoil or destruction in houses, gardens, trees, or other corporeal hereditaments, to the disheison of him that hath the remainder or reversion." f124 Taken together, these two doctrines provide that a tenant (or other caretaker / interest holder) is entitled to the beneficial use of the land and its fruits, but is prohibited from prejudicing future interest bearers by using the land in a way that destroys or impairs its essential character or long term productivity. f125

Jefferson's philosophy that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living at least partially reiterates the biblical/Lockean paradigm of the earth as intergenerational commons, the fruits and benefits of which should be accessible to every member of every generation. f126 He takes the position that no landholder has a natural right to control the land or dispose of it after his or her death. The land is entailed to the larger society; it reverts to the larger society upon the holder's death. Society may choose to pass the land on to beneficiaries or assignees chosen by the original landholder, but there is nothing in natural law which requires this. "By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or moveable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it." f127

Society, as trustee of the earth, reasonably expects the natural estate to be returned undiminished at the end of each landholder's tenure. Jefferson maintains that each individual, and each generation collectively, has the obligation to pass on his, her, or its natural estate undiminished and unencumbered to later generations:

"... [N]o man can by natural right, oblige lands he occupied... to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead rather than the living, which would be the reverse of our principal. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." f128

For Jefferson, "eating up the usufruct" means extinguishing the next generation's ability to share equitably in the benefits of a natural resource. No individual or society has authority to cause such extinction, whatever personal or collective rights they may allege. f129


it continues

salsero
01-31-14, 02:46 AM
from: The Stewardship Doctrine:
Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution

Footnotes:

113 See Schlickeisen, Rodger. "Protecting Biodiversity for Future Generations: An Argument for a Constitutional Amendment," 8 Tulane Environmental Law Journal (1994) 181, 201 ("It was. . . impossible for the drafters of the Constitution to anticipate that within a mere two centuries an exploding population with incredible nature-devouring technology would fundamentally threaten the future welfare of the nation.") Accord, Jim Gardner, "Discrimination Against Future Generations: The Possibility of Constitutional Limitation," 9 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 29 (1978) 46. But see Worster, Nature's Economy 47-50 (discussing John Bruckner's A Philosophical Survey of the Animal Creation (1768) (in which he warns that transformation of the American Wilderness was breaking the "web of life" and "the whole plan of Providence"); Rev Nicholas Collin, "An Essay on Those Inquiries in Natural Philosophy, which are at present Most Beneficial," 3 Transaction of the American Philosophical Society 24 (1793) (requesting the American Philosophical Society to support the protection of little-known birds, apparently on the verge of extinction, until naturalists could discover "what part is assigned to them in the oeconomy of nature.") Jefferson was elected into the Society on Benjamin Franklin's motion in 1786. Benjamin Franklin to Jefferson (October 8, 1786) Boyd at X: 437.



114 Burke, Bobbs-Merrill p. 108 (". . . [O]ne of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated is, lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters, that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the inheritance by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of society, hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of a habitation . . ..").





115 Jonathan Shipley, A Speech Intended to Have Been Spoken by the Bishop of St Asaph . . . (1774), in Paul H. Smith, comp., English Defenders of American Freedoms, 1774-1778: Six Pamphlets Attacking British Policy (Washington, D.C., 1972), 40. Re Shipley's relations with Franklin, see Carl Van Dopren, Benjamin Franklin (New York, 1938) 413-17, 481-82, 717.




116 Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789, Boyd XV, 392-98. The letter has been extensively studied by Jefferson scholars; I make no attempt to fully recapitulate that scholarship in this article. Some of the better known treatments include: Koch at 62-96 (Ch. 4 - "The Earth Belongs to the Living"); Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York, 1968) 77-86; Mayer, David N. THE CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville, 1994) 302-308 "The Earth Belongs to the Living"; Peterson, Merrill, "Thomas Jefferson's 'Sovereignty of the Living Generation,' Virginia Quarterly Review 52 (1976) 437-44 and "Thomas Jefferson, The Founders, and Constitutional Change," in J. Jackson Barlow et al., eds., The American Founding: Essays on the Formation of the Constitution (Westport, Conn., 1988), 275-93; Garry Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (Garden City, N.Y., 1978) 132-48; Stanley N. Katz, "Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America," Journal of Law and Economics 14 (1976) 467-88, "Republicanism and the Law of Inheritance in the American Revolutionary Era," Michigan Law Review 76 (1977) 1-29; and Charles A. Miller, Jefferson and Nature: An Interpretation (Baltimore, 1988), chap. 5, esp. 161-64.



117 See also TJ to Madison, 20 Dec. 1787, 31 July, 18 Nov. 1788, 15 Mar., 28 Aug. 1789, in Boyd at 12:439-43; 13:442-43; 14:188-89, 159-61; 15:367-68. Jefferson's interest in intergenerational equity at this time was inspired in part by a conversation which took place between himself, Thomas Paine and the Marquis de LaFayette in February, 1788 - a conversation prompted by James Wilson's arguments in the Pennsylvania ratification convention disputing the need for a bill of rights. Sloan? Koch? P. 82-83.


118 Jefferson's letter was written just a few weeks before Congress passed the Bill of Rights -- approximately two years before the Bill of Rights was fully ratified by the states. See Ellis p. 123-25 (describing Jefferson's influential role as bill of rights proponent).


119 Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. 63 (emphasis in original).



120 The reference to intergenerational rights as "self-evident" recalls the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .." Jefferson would continue for the remainder of his life to characterize intergenerational obligations in this way. See Jefferson to Thomas Earle, September 24, 1823 ("That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; . . . that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another . . . . these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer").



121 See, e.g. W. Hamilton Bryson, "The Use of Roman Law in Virginia Courts," 28 American Journal of Legal History (1984): 135-46; Sloan , p. 82 ("Like a trusted family counselor, Jefferson drew up a deed of settlement ensuring future generations the right to benefit from the common property, and the means he employed . . . was familiar doctrine to eighteenth-century Anglo-American lawyers.")



122 Sir Robert Chambers, A Course of Lectures on the English Law, Delivered at the University of Oxford, 1767-1773, ed. Thomas M. Curley, 2 vols. [Madison, Wis., 1986], 2:85.


it continues

salsero
01-31-14, 02:47 AM
123 By using the terminology of tenancies to describe the relations between generations, Jefferson endorses a metaphor at least as old as the Old Testament. See Part I-A-2, above. In later writings, Jefferson explicates and embellishes this landlord-tenant analogy. See, e.g. TJ to John W. Eppes, Monticello, June 24, 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson vol. XIII, 269-270 ("Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. . . . . [T]he case may be likened to the ordinary one of a tenant for life, who may hypothecate the land for his debts, during the continuance of his usufruct; but at his death, the reversioner (who is also for life only) receives it exonerated from all burthen.").



124 2 Blackstone, COMMENTARIES at 281.



125 The legal doctrine of usufruct/waste bears strong resemblance to Locke's prohibition against spoilage or destruction of "the fruits of nature." See Locke, Second Treatise, 31 and 46 and Part , above. It seems likely that Locke based his prohibitions, at least in part, upon these accepted legal doctrines.



126 See Part I-A-2 (on the biblical doctrine); Part I-A-5-Locke-2 (on Locke's views).



127 TJ to McPherson (13 Aug. 1813) LofA, 1291; See Koch, Jefferson and Madison, 64 (paraphrasing Jefferson's views on natural law and the land: "The portion of the earth occupied by any man ceases to be his with his death, and reverts to society.") Compare Blackstone, Commentaries, 2:3 10, 11, 12 (once a proprietor dies, "he ceases to have any dominion: else, if he had a right to dispose of his acquisitions one moment beyond his life, he would also have a right to direct their disposal for a million of ages after him; which would be highly absurd and inconvenient. . . . [Inheritance then is] clearly a political, establishment; since the permanent right of property, vested in the ancestor himself, was no natural, but merely a civil, right"); Lord Kames [Henry Hume], Essays upon Several Subjects Concerning British Antiquities . . . , 3d ed. (Edinburgh, 1763), 130 n. *, 144 ("in early times property was not much distinguished from what is now called usufruct").



128 TJ to Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. , at (emphasis added). See also TJ to Thomas Earle, September 24, 1823, L and B 15:470-71 (declaring, "That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; . . . that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, . . . . . [T]hese are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer . . ."). Herbert Sloan, while apparently disapproving Jefferson's convictions, characterizes them accurately: "The earth may belong to the living, but the living enjoy only its usufruct, only its current product. That qualification is critical, for it forbids the living generation to commit waste, and thus each generation becomes a mere tenant for life, empowered only to enjoy the fruits of the estate, not to dispose of it in its entirety. . . . [E]ach generation will serve as a custodian charged with the duty of passing on intact what it receives from its predecessors. The impression such a project creates is decidedly conservative. . . His answer is to . . . husband existing resources." Sloan, Principles and Interest, 60. In his assertion that the rights of the collective society cannot exceed those of constituent individuals, Jefferson may have been influenced by Locke, Second Treatise, 135.



129 The practical problem which Jefferson addresses in this passage is actually that of long-term national debt. However, the starting point for his analysis is the idea (axiomatic to Jefferson) that the creation of natural resource inequities is illegitimate and unsupportable.



130 Jefferson was not very different from his contemporaries in this respect. The founders, who for the most part did not live their lives sheltered in cities or suburbs; tended to be more attuned than their modern counterparts to the land and its health. One commentator notes that "Like most of the 95 percent of Americans who, according to the census of 1790, lived in "rural territory," Jefferson depended directly on the land for his livelihood. . .." Miller, Charles A. Jefferson and Nature: An Interpretation (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: 1988) 13.



131 TJ to Eppes, 269-270



132 As evidence of Jefferson's special concern for long-term soil productivity, see his Commonplace book pp. 166-67 (criticizing tobacco plantations because "Little food of any kind is raised by them; so that the men and animals on these farms are badly fed and the earth is rapidly impoverished" and contrasting them with wheat farms -- praised by Jefferson for "cloathing the earth with herbage, and preserving its fertility"); and Jefferson to Lafayette, April 11, 1787, THE PORTABLE THOMAS JEFFERSON 421-23 (recommending composting practices -- and long-term agricultural leases which would reward such practices - for the improvement of the soil quality and agricultural productivity of France).

133

134



135 TJ to Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. , at (emphasis supplied). Compare Algernon Sidney, DISCOURSES CONCERNING GOVERNMENT (London, 1698) ch III, sec 29, pp. 391-392 ("The king was never master of the soil . . . [N]o man can give what he has not. Whoever therefore will pretend, that the king has bestowed this propriety, must prove, that he had it in himself"); Clark Wolff, "Contemporary Property Rights, Lockean Provisos, . . ." 810-814 (" If the right to destroy or degrade such resources could not legitimately have been acquired or transferred, then it cannot now be legitimately claimed.")




136 See Browers, Michaelle L., "Jefferson's Land Ethic: Environmental Ideas in Notes on the State of Virginia," 21 Environmental Ethics 43 (1999) 43 (stressing "Jefferson's conception of the intimate relationship between the natural and political constitution of America and his vindication of both"); id. at 54 ("Jefferson's ethic regarding how one should behave toward property/land also embodies an ethic regarding how one should act toward nature. To spoil or waste any part of God's creation is a sin. Our covenant with nature is both an obligation to use our natural resources well and to protect it in the sense of not destroying it in a wantonly or wasteful manner. We must improve the land because our virtue as a people depends to a large extent upon the relationship between citizens and the land."); id. at 57 ("Jefferson [offers] an environmental vision that combines conservationism and a notion of responsible stewardship . . ..")



137 See Part I, infra; Sloan, Principles and Interest . . ., 75 ("Jefferson's 6 September 1789 letter said nothing about the nature of inheritance that had not been said before. The notion that the earth belonged to the living was thus anything but novel in the late eighteenth century. In fact, its roots can be traced to the Christian Middle Ages.")(citing Janet Coleman, "Property and Poverty," J.H. Burns, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c. 350-c.1450 (Cambridge, 1988), 617-25, 643-46.)



138 See Blackstone, Commentaries, 2:3 ("The earth therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, exclusive of other beings, from the immediate gift of the creator.") See also Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 396 ("It is wrong to say that God made Rich and Poor; he made only Male and Female; and he gave them the earth for their inheritance"); Herbert Sloan, Principles and Interest, 75 (mentioning that the earth-as-commons theme played a significant role in the political theory of Locke, Sidney, Thomas Spence, William Ogilvie, William Paley, and Paine.)



139 James Madison to Jefferson, February 4, 1790, Boyd XVI, 131-34; Koch 16:147-49; Smith, I: 650, 652-53 ("Our hemisphere must be still more enlightened before many of the sublime truths which are seen thro' the medium of Philosophy, become visible to the naked eye of the ordinary Politician.")


140 Id. at 650. See also Madison to Jefferson, Feb 14, 1790, Smith, I: 653-54 (referencing "so great an idea as that explained in your letter of September.")



141 Sloan, PRINCIPLES AND INTEREST at 5.



142 Lev. 26:14, 32, 35.

143 Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 399 (emphasis in original).

end

Michael Joseph
01-31-14, 03:16 AM
I will admit that the term USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation - and I have observed this first hand. I think it is clear that many folks can have a claim upon the same Thing. Meaning all claim of or in the Earth but none can trespass the other so these are mere overlays. Think Biology 101 - it starts with a skeleton then a liver, etc. Overlays exist upon a X,Y cartesian cordinate system [the earth] but the claim is on the Z axis. Each claim has a different Z coordinate so they are parallel and do not trespass. They Co-exist in theory anyways.

Shalom,
MJ

yarash
01-31-14, 05:31 AM
Hi everyone, i'm new here, trying to figure my way around. Such a great forum with so much information, i am overwhelmed by all this great knowledge. I have a couple of questions in regards to the NAME issue, perhaps a little off topic.

First I have been redeemed, bought with a price paid for in blood and my debt is wiped clean. I am no longer my own but belong to Yahveh. I am a new creation and i have been given a new name. "Therefore, if anyone is in Messiah, he is a new creation: old things (NAME, DL, BC etc.) are passed away; behold ALL things are become new, 2Cor. 5:17, and Yahveh declares "I have called you by my name…you are mine. Is.43:1" I'm working on forsaking the old to walk in the newness of life.

I would like to buy a new car with lawful money (cash) and trade an old car that is registered with the State. I have no State identity in the form of a DL (expired) and the dealership would have to report the sale to IRS requiring a "NAME and perhaps a number and a residence". How would one go about buying the car as private property (belonging to Yahweh--where He sends me I will go) without any attachment to the State--the certificate of title has their created NAME on it and i would not want it to be somehow tied to my new identity in the Messiah. Can it be done? How?

I have so many questions, as i'm sure most do who come to this forum, but for now I'll be grateful for any answers or input on this particular issue since it involves "identity/name".

Chex
01-31-14, 12:27 PM
I will admit that the term USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation
No doubt USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation.


So once you comprehend this and know that the Title/Name is not YOURS, and you know it is in fact held by the State/United States, and you refuse to CLAIM that Title/Name or any interest therein, you now leave the prosecutor or attorney holding the bag for all the liability for their having brought that CLAIM of reversionary interest in that Title/Name which IS property of the State/United States!

Do you really want ATTORNEY AND CLIENT representation?


C.J.S. Volume 7, Section 4: ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. "His/Her first duty is to the courts and the public, NOT to the CLIENT, and whenever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.".

Now that's scary.

Read that here, http://www.notacitizen.com/pipermail/members/2013-May/004843.html

Remember the Credit River decision where an honest judge rules honestly on money matters now get this handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit River Township Hall? Now I am starting to see what a grad jury can accomplish.

Americans no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property. Now how can this be?

What's in a name? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall--owns-seabed.html

Now this is deep.

Power of the Grand Jury - In a stunning 6 to 3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, see United States -v- Williams. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/221#comment-221

Anthony Joseph
01-31-14, 01:29 PM
Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Salsero, etc. are ALL fictions!

These are names and names are not living beings. A name is absent a soul. This goes to the heart of IDENTITY - and then you must satisfy the answer of IDENTITY within what law boundary. Meaning who has the surety. This is typically the treasury.

I don't care what your name is - it is a fiction.

Can you hear me speaks the sentient being? Now I wonder where in the common law that came from....well lets find out.

Exo 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the People that was in the camp trembled.

Exo 19:17 And Moses brought forth the People out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.

Exo 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

Exo 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

=====

they could not see - but they heard! Now you can pull out all sorts of images of what your mommy named you or what daddy attested to - I don't care! This is all a fiction. A name has no blood. A name has no voice. A name has no soul. A name has no spirit. A name is SIMPLY PUT A FICTION.

Can a name establish the character of a man. No. Can a man predestine a man to a certain destiny. No. A name is a label used for convenience within a society. That society has a certain law form - be it natural law or moral law or statute law, etc. That law form has conventions for handling names.

Therefore dear reader a name is a Person.


Shalom,
MJ

i agree; this is precisely what i have been attempting to convey

without a voice (living) there is no claim, to property or otherwise

'Anthony Joseph' is a name; and yes, it is a person/fiction; and, it is property which i claim

the same goes for 'Anthony Joseph Surname'; what other man will step forward and verify a claim of vested interest in said name?

paper is meaningless and powerless on its own; a claimant (man) must speak his claim or there is no claim

i believe i have a right to be secure in my persons, papers, house(s) and effects (all i claim is my property) against unlawful trespass

not only do i believe this; the entity to which people bound themselves in public service supports my belief:

[cf. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation (that means in living voice with full liability), and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] (emphasis mine)

salsero
01-31-14, 02:02 PM
[QUOTE=Chex;12864]No doubt USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation.

Do you really want ATTORNEY AND CLIENT representation?



Now that's scary.

Read that here, http://www.notacitizen.com/pipermail/members/2013-May/004843.html

AN attorney can only represent a person. An attorney CAN NOT represent a man. I am not sure you understood this part. An attorney's first duty is to the court, then the public, then the person. AS AN OFFICER of the court it is the attorney's oath and liability to protect the property of the US. Under CJS vol 7, vol 4, the man is considered a ward and a ward is a person. A person is property. And that property is owned by the state which the attorney is oath bound to protect. Do you see?

The only thing you all are not comprehending - and I am trying to remove the brush from the path or our conditioning - because I too in the beginning I did not "get it" because it is against everything I was told or understood is the fact that if I CAN'T OWN THE NAME OR PROPERTY, ok what is the alternative? And this is where usufruct comes in.

It is a a troubling feeling to know everything I worked for, a house, car, bank account, etc I CAN NOT OWN BY OPERATION OF LAW. The US is under state of emergency, we have all evidence of the finial on top of the flag, endless executive orders, the debt, Homeland security, NUMEROUS ATTORNEYS, IRS, courts system, the FRB, etc. THe Barry-kare law has ZERO to do with health care. It is not different then the SSA, medicare and now barry-kare, it has to do with the state attempting to rein or bring back those FRN. In Maryland there is a tax on roof rain water, please what do you think this is all about?

Anyway guys, I know many of you are sincere with remedy, so I am going to CHALLENGE you all to at least take a look into what I am writing about. I had looked into the Tim Turner thing, moved on to UCC, Equity, Common Law, just about everything under the sun, this PEACEFUL INHABITANT process is the only thing that makes sense and works when you are consistent and BE a PI.

I am not saying that common law or UCC, public policy or anything else is not good to have knowledge - it is excellent to have knowledge of this FOR THEM TO ADMINSTRATE THEIR PROPERTY. THEY ARE OATH BOUND RECEIVING A PAYCHECK TO PERFORM, we are just men who do not interfere with matters that do not concern us. Do you see?

salsero
01-31-14, 02:11 PM
i agree; this is precisely what i have been attempting to convey

without a voice (living) there is no claim, to property or otherwise

'Anthony Joseph' is a name; and yes, it is a person/fiction; and, it is property which i claim

the same goes for 'Anthony Joseph Surname'; what other man will step forward and verify a claim of vested interest in said name?

paper is meaningless and powerless on its own; a claimant (man) must speak his claim or there is no claim

i believe i have a right to be secure in my persons, papers, house(s) and effects (all i claim is my property) against unlawful trespass

not only do i believe this; the entity to which people bound themselves in public service supports my belief:

[cf. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation (that means in living voice with full liability), and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] (emphasis mine)

Prove you are a party to the Constitution? I can prove you are not.
The right of the people [fiction] to be secure in their persons [fictions] , supported by oath or affirmation [a piece of paper] .... and the persons or things to be seized. Are you a person? This applies to persons. If you a person, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

You do have a right to be secure in your person, there is no belief about that, it is the law. It is a human right to be recognized as a person, with all the benefits and privileges, subject to the liabilities. If you agree Anthony Joseph is a person and you claim it, then we all anxiously await the outcome of when you hold your court.

You whole point is what man is going to step up and say I own that person, Anthony? What makes you assume they have to answer or do anything in their court of Just-us? Their oaths are to the state and the public trust not you, a man.

Anthony Joseph
01-31-14, 02:50 PM
Prove you are a party to the Constitution? I can prove you are not.
The right of the people [fiction] to be secure in their persons [fictions] , supported by oath or affirmation [a piece of paper] .... and the persons or things to be seized. Are you a person? This applies to persons. If you a person, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

You do have a right to be secure in your person, there is no belief about that, it is the law. It is a human right to be recognized as a person, with all the benefits and privileges, subject to the liabilities. If you agree Anthony Joseph is a person and you claim it, then we all anxiously await the outcome of when you hold your court.

You whole point is what man is going to step up and say I own that person, Anthony? What makes you assume they have to answer or do anything in their court of Just-us? Their oaths are to the state and the public trust not you, a man.

i never stated i am a party to the 'Constitution' ['cf.' means compare my belief to _____]; and, if you can prove a negative, you accomplish an impossibility

people (mankind) live and breath; 'The People' is a fiction; it would benefit you to study capitalization [Capitis Diminutio]

an oath or affirmation must be made in living voice [affidavit = a piece of paper] - huge difference

"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim can only be made by man
once again, do you deny the right of a man to pursue a claim and move his court; do you deny that it has been done?

only a man has rights; i believe the inherent rights i claim are my property; and, no one has a right to disparage or deny my rights or my property unless i cause harm to a man, injure his property or commit a breach of a valid and lawful contract - these 'wrongs' must be determined according to common law; man on man

Michael Joseph
01-31-14, 05:26 PM
i never stated i am a party to the 'Constitution' ['cf.' means compare my belief to _____]; and, if you can prove a negative, you accomplish an impossibility

people (mankind) live and breath; 'The People' is a fiction; it would benefit you to study capitalization [Capitis Diminutio]

an oath or affirmation must be made in living voice [affidavit = a piece of paper] - huge difference

"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim can only be made by man
once again, do you deny the right of a man to pursue a claim and move his court; do you deny that it has been done?

only a man has rights; i believe the inherent rights i claim are my property; and, no one has a right to disparage or deny my rights or my property unless i cause harm to a man, injure his property or commit a breach of a valid and lawful contract - these 'wrongs' must be determined according to common law; man on man

Whereas I believe my following comment will most likely inflame some I really don't care. The so called Common Law came out of the Old and New Testaments or the Word of Yehovah our Judge. Now then I am asked all the time concerning books that I might point a reader to and I can say with 100 percent accuracy that the single greatest book one can read to learn about trust and common law is the Bible. End of Story.

"I believe" are TWO very powerful words. They cannot be proved and therefore we will naturally come to this conclusion eventually : Do not trespass upon your neighbor : or Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I would never go into your place of business and start running the show - I have no standing. And I suppose the men and women who patronize your business would be quite confused and you might be upset as well.

Shalom,
MJ

Chex
01-31-14, 05:33 PM
Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Salsero, etc. are ALL fictions! These are names and names are not living beings. A name is absent a soul. This goes to the heart of IDENTITY - and then you must satisfy the answer of IDENTITY within what law boundary. Meaning who has the surety. This is typically the treasury. I don't care what your name is - it is a fiction. A name has no blood. A name has no voice. A name has no soul. A name has no spirit. A name is SIMPLY PUT A FICTION. Can a name establish the character of a man. No. Can a man predestine a man to a certain destiny. No. A name is a label used for convenience within a society. That society has a certain law form - be it natural law or moral law or statute law, etc. That law form has conventions for handling names. Therefore dear reader a name is a Person.

Lie and deny. Been reading a lot about that lately.

Do you think the state is going to openly in court under oath or affirmation and testify in front of a jury or a grand jury and acknowledge that the birth certificate (the NAME) was issued and now it’s the states property?

Forget about the judge and the rules he tells the jury that this is my courtroom and you abide by what I say goes theory.

This is all about living breathing people, (jury) or humans or whatever you want to call us.

These are the questions that represent the STATE or the FED GOVERNMENT should be answering.

Who is the owner of the property tangible or intangible that is in the NAME you say I am?

Is the state is a corporation, a limited liability corporation, or LLC?

Was the NAME created by the state for commercial purposes?

If the state does not claim the NAME who delivers ownership of the assets held in the NAME?

Does anyone or corporation pledge the ownership assets held in the NAME to the IMF as collateral?

Is there a difference being a 'US citizen' rather than an American Citizen?

Is usufruct is a right of enjoyment?

If Usufruct is a right of enjoyment and I am the enabling holder then who is receiving the derive profit?

If usufruct is a right of enjoyment or benefit from any property that is tangible or intangible titled to another person or which is held in common ownership then who has legal title?

If usufructuary is the right to use the property and enjoy its fruits and I am using it as servitutes personarum then who is charging me for the usage?
(A beneficial interest is "that right which a person has in a contract made with another" ... "A property interest that inures solely to the benefit of the owner.")

If I don’t pay the usufructuary property tax for the right to use the land who is going to take it away from me?

If I don’t pay a usufructuary tax for the right to use lawful money who is going to take it away from me?

In equity, a beneficial owner is one who benefits from a security or property because the use and title belongs to him/her, although the legal title may belong to another person. I don’t see the other person on this warranty deed, who is it, who is going to take it away from me? http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.13d-3

Beneficial owner as it appears under title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

The term "beneficial owner" shall mean any person who is deemed a beneficial owner pursuant to section 13(d) of the Act and the rules thereunder; provided, however, that the following institutions or persons shall not be deemed the beneficial owner of securities of such class held for the benefit of third parties or in customer or fiduciary accounts in the ordinary course of business (or in the case of an employee benefit plan specified in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section, of securities of such class allocated to plan participants where participants have voting power) as long as such shares are acquired by such institutions or persons without the purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer or engaging in any arrangement subject to Rule 13d-3(b) (§ 240.13d-3(b)):

(i) A broker or dealer registered under section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o);

(ii) A bank as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c); (would that be the FRB with the first lien using their private credit?)

(iii) An insurance company as defined in section 3(a)(19) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c);

(iv) An investment company registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8);

(v) Any person registered as an investment adviser under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) or under the laws of any state;

(vi) An employee benefit plan as defined in Section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ("ERISA") that is subject to the provisions of ERISA, or any such plan that is not subject to ERISA that is maintained primarily for the benefit of the employees of a state or local government or instrumentality, or an endowment fund;

(vii) A parent holding company or control person, provided the aggregate amount held directly by the parent or control person, and directly and indirectly by their subsidiaries or affiliates that are not persons specified in § 240.16a-1 (a)(1)(i) through (x), does not exceed one percent of the securities of the subject class;

(viii) A savings association as defined in Section 3(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813);

(ix) A church plan that is excluded from the definition of an investment company under section 3(c)(14) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3);

(x) A non-U.S. institution that is the functional equivalent of any of the institutions listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section, so long as the non-U.S. institution is subject to a regulatory scheme that is substantially comparable to the regulatory scheme applicable to the equivalent U.S. institution and the non-U.S. institution is eligible to file a Schedule 13G pursuant to § 240.13d-1(b)(1)(ii)(J); and

(xi) A group, provided that all the members are persons specified in § 240.16a-1 (a)(1)(i) through (x). (17 CFR 240.16a-1)

Michael Joseph
01-31-14, 05:44 PM
Hi everyone, i'm new here, trying to figure my way around. Such a great forum with so much information, i am overwhelmed by all this great knowledge. I have a couple of questions in regards to the NAME issue, perhaps a little off topic.

First I have been redeemed, bought with a price paid for in blood and my debt is wiped clean. I am no longer my own but belong to Yahveh. I am a new creation and i have been given a new name. "Therefore, if anyone is in Messiah, he is a new creation: old things (NAME, DL, BC etc.) are passed away; behold ALL things are become new, 2Cor. 5:17, and Yahveh declares "I have called you by my name…you are mine. Is.43:1" I'm working on forsaking the old to walk in the newness of life.

I would like to buy a new car with lawful money (cash) and trade an old car that is registered with the State. I have no State identity in the form of a DL (expired) and the dealership would have to report the sale to IRS requiring a "NAME and perhaps a number and a residence". How would one go about buying the car as private property (belonging to Yahweh--where He sends me I will go) without any attachment to the State--the certificate of title has their created NAME on it and i would not want it to be somehow tied to my new identity in the Messiah. Can it be done? How?

I have so many questions, as i'm sure most do who come to this forum, but for now I'll be grateful for any answers or input on this particular issue since it involves "identity/name".

it is a process. Remember that Israel did not come out of Egypt overnight. They too had to endure the first 3 or so plagues just like the Egyptians. This also is a proof that no fly away rapture is happening- but that is off topic. Slow and steady is the course. Let the Holy Spirit of Yehovah lead you to where you can be used. But I will give you this one analogy - If you want a bridge built do you hire an artist? You hire an engineer! As such, if you are to walk as a priest in the Kingdom then you MUST know and keep the Law. This is Hosea 4:6. And Ezekiel 44:23. Order of Melchi [king] Zedok [priest].

Like I said go easy - it will come to you. but first and foremost is seeking the kingdom of God - all the rest will be added. That is not to say I have all the answers - I don't - but it is a Path - a Way - a Walk - a Relationship.

Shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
01-31-14, 05:49 PM
Whereas I believe my following comment will most likely inflame some I really don't care. The so called Common Law came out of the Old and New Testaments or the Word of Yehovah our Judge. Now then I am asked all the time concerning books that I might point a reader to and I can say with 100 percent accuracy that the single greatest book one can read to learn about trust and common law is the Bible. End of Story.

"I believe" are TWO very powerful words. They cannot be proved and therefore we will naturally come to this conclusion eventually : Do not trespass upon your neighbor : or Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I would never go into your place of business and start running the show - I have no standing. And I suppose the men and women who patronize your business would be quite confused and you might be upset as well.

Shalom,
MJ

i wouldn't begin to know who your comments "will most likely inflame"; perhaps atheists and BAR members

remember; at a public courthouse, the public (living people) have a right to conduct their business (court) without interference

the public courthouse is the same as the public library; it is NOT a private building for BAR members only

wish proof, ask to see the building manager ['chief judge'] and ask the question

Michael Joseph
01-31-14, 06:25 PM
i wouldn't begin to know who your comments "will most likely inflame"; perhaps atheists and BAR members

remember; at a public courthouse, the public (living people) have a right to conduct their business (court) without interference

the public courthouse is the same as the public library; it is NOT a private building for BAR members only

wish proof, ask to see the building manager ['chief judge'] and ask the question


Yes, the rural routes all went thru the courthouse. And still do. On wake county their were nine judicial districts. read Exodus 18.

salsero
01-31-14, 07:59 PM
"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

Are you sure? people. (usu. cap.) (180i) The citizens of a state as represented by the prosecution in a criminal case <People v. Snyder>. According to blacks 9th Ed, people are citizens. Are you a citizen of the state?


i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

OK - we can call it gift, better to call it left naked - but call it what you want. OK you can BELEIVE law applies when one USES said person. I do not. USE is not the same as ownership. Consent is presumed by your actions. Then is it confirmed by your claims

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim can only be made by man

OK I guess it all depends on how one sees it. You feel property is exclusive use and not actual ownership. However, stating I have use as opposed to ownership are really two different things:

use (yoos), n, (bef. 12c) 1. The application or employment
of something; esp., a long-continued possession
and employment of a thing for the purpose for which
it is adapted, as distinguished from a possession and
employment that is merely temporary or occasional
<the neighbors complained to the city about the owner's
use of the building as a dance club>.


beneficial use. Property. The right to use property and
all that makes that property desirable or habitable,
such as light, air, and access, even if someone else
owns the legal title to the property.

owner. (bef. 12c) One who has the right to possess, use,
and convey something; a person in whom one or more
interests are vested .• An owner may have complete
property in the thing or may have parted with some
interests in it (as by granting an easement or making a
lease). See OWNERSHIP.

naked owner. Civil law. A person whose property
is burdened by a usufruct .• The naked owner has
the right to dispose of the property subject to the
usufruct, but not to derive its fruits. See USUFRUCT.
[Cases: Estates in Property (;:::> 1.]

Take note an owner is a person. Someone who uses is not necessarily a person.


once again, do you deny the right of a man to pursue a claim and move his court; do you deny that it has been done?


I do not deny anyone anything. How does a man not use a person and go into court? How does man "Move his court"? I told you I do not deny it has been done - but not the way you think. In my opinion, it has been done because the court does not want others to know its secrets. The court does not want to be exposed for its deception. It is better to dispose of one case rather than wise up the people that fraud is going on.

only a man has rights; i believe the inherent rights i claim are my property; and, no one has a right to disparage or deny my rights or my property unless i cause harm to a man, injure his property or commit a breach of a valid and lawful contract - these 'wrongs' must be determined according to common law; man on man[/QUOTE]

Man is heir to his Creator's thrown. Persons have man made rights, with liabilities. Under God's rights, there are no liabilities. I agree controversy must be settled between man and man, yet I do not see how common law has any force TODAY doing this, as when you walk into their court, you must state their Name, which is their property, thus falling under the jurisdiction thereof.

Anthony Joseph
01-31-14, 09:18 PM
you know how you can tell 'property' is not 'ownership'; the words are spelled differently

if you use legal dictionaries to get your definitions, you consent to be competent in said legal realm - "welcome, defendant"

'case law' are only opinions of 'judges', NOT law; 'case law' can be overturned at any time by another's opinion

you keep referring to 'the court' as if it is an entity on its own; court is what one brings, moves, holds and keeps at the courthouse

the one who prosecutes brings 'court'; you really need to etymologize the word 'court'

salsero
02-01-14, 03:55 AM
When you say "my property", most folks would take that to mean you own it. I do not need to use a legal dictionary, legal dictionaries are not for men, they are for fictions, this point I believe we agree. I agree case law is only opinions; however, those opinions are based upon the interpretation of the public policy statute, or if pre-1930s public law. Court is an entity operating in bankruptcy and has "rules" how it operates. I still have no clue how you plan on "bringing, moving, holding and keeping at, in, or out the courthouse?

The plaintiff is the one who sets jurisdiction and brings his claim to be settled. OK I can go with that. What I still do not understand is how or why, you a man, want to ask a judge to settle any matter. Where is YOUR force of law to bring a defendant into YOUR court? If I am correct, under common law, you would not need to pay any filing fees. Why is any court system today going to permit you to move forward? Where would you find a common law jury? The jury you demand could exist? A jury of one's peers? So this would EXCLUDE all residents and US citizens. Since only citizens can serve on a jury, at, in or out of a court, it seems the pickings may be slim to none.

Bottom line, please explain simply why any fictional court is going to allow you to BRING or move or whatever the court? How do you, a man proceed in any court without using the person that you think is your property? John can not bring a claim against Mary. John SMith can bring a claim against Mary Jones. Both names are property of the state and are held in trust for the public good.

I do not mean to be disrespectful, If I am in error, I hope to learn something.

The way I see it is the following: Man has nothing to do with anything of theirs. It appears real but it is not. We are commanded by the Creator to forgive and not judge. This is the Royal Law. When one makes a claim against his brother, he is really making a claim against God, as all are part of His creation.

Now if you were to ask me what about rapists and murderers - this brings up a whole other topic. If you are asking me about, ie, a man damages one of his brothers in some way, then the brother and the man must have a meeting of the minds and work it out.

salsero
02-01-14, 04:05 AM
As I was reading this post, I thought I would add it here. In my opinion, this guy has come to a level I hope to obtain someday. These are not my words.
================================================== ================================================== ==========

So do you actually want "remedy"?

Remedy is just another legal term defined in legal fiction where a fiction provides remedy to a fiction. Even if a man harmed another man, in the legal society it is not the actual man being charged or sued. It is just the legal name being charged or sued in which judgment is made against the legal name.


In law remedy means:

The manner in which a right is enforced or satisfied by a court when some harm or injury, recognized by society as a wrongful act, is inflicted upon an individual.

The law of remedies is concerned with the character and extent of relief to which an individual who has brought a legal action is entitled once the appropriate court procedure has been followed, and the individual has established that he or she has a substantive right that has been infringed by the defendant.

Categorized according to their purpose, the four basic types of judicial remedies are (1) damages; (2) restitution; (3) coercive remedies; and (4) declaratory remedies.

That all sounds good at first glance, but what exactly is it that is the "individual"? It's a legal fiction. The legal name, or can be a legal corporation or LLC, all of which are persons before the law. And if we are not suppose to be in those courts then why would we go to one to seek remedy?


Rather than saying you want your remedy, shouldn't you instead be seeking your SALVATION?


From the biblical sense salvation means:


— n

1. the act of preserving or the state of being preserved from harm

2. a person or thing that is the means of preserving from harm

3. Christianity deliverance by redemption from the power of sin and from the penalties ensuing from it

4. Christian Science the realization that Life, Truth, and Love are supreme and that they can destroy such illusions as sin, death, etc


[C13: from Old French sauvacion, from Late Latin salv?ti?, from Latin salv?tus saved, from salv?re to save 1 ]



Isn't this really what we are after? Preserving ourselves from being harm? To be delivered by redemption from the power of sin and the penalties ensuing from it? The realization that Life, Truth, and Love are supreme and that they can destroy such "illusions" as sin, death, etc.? Didn't Jesus prove to us there is no death and it is just an illusion to create fear and all Life is eternal?


If we are the problem where we are the ones who acted out of our ignorance where we are the sinners for having worshipped those graven images and made false claims to them by claiming those graven images as our property, then isn't it us who needs to repent so we can save ourselves from the sin we chose to partake in out of ignorance?



Besides, how can a fiction provide a man with a remedy when all a fiction has control over is just more fiction? If we repent by correcting our mistakes and surrender back all our claims we made to graven image property, then wouldn't the State taking care of its own fiction property then provide you with your salvation where you are no longer going to be harmed where you are then redeemed from the power of sin and from penalties ensuing from it by having destroyed all that illusion with the realization of Life, Truth, and Love?

What is better, some remedy in fiction from a fictional legal system or salvation?

Keith Alan
02-01-14, 06:05 AM
While the name is a fiction, it's a useful one. We aren't the ones who superimposed this "person" over our identities, but the reality is that this "thing," whatever it really is, is the vehicle being used to control people in society. And another reality is that some people need to be controlled.

I think most of the people who come to the realization that their being is separate from the fiction, also know that in today's society it's very difficult to function without it. So the struggle is in trying to figure out how to operate without the legal person.

Yet another reality is that we're all unique creations, and each of us reach understanding in our unique and individual ways. Each one gains knowledge, filters it through life experience and contemplation, and eventually it buds into wisdom.

I am continually amazed at the depth of thought that is constantly displayed here at this site. I find it remarkable that so many people - each coming from his own understanding - are still able to find commonality in the ideas routinely discussed.

Concepts like the name are ethereal, spiritual, and hard to express in words. So it's natural to try and relate the idea to experiences that we hope others will have had, and reach unity in understanding.

Fortunately we've been given a real life example to follow, and his actions are memorialized and made present in those of us who believe and accept his promise of redemption. He is the Captain of our salvation, and has already won the battle.

yarash
02-01-14, 02:55 PM
While the name is a fiction, it's a useful one. We aren't the ones who superimposed this "person" over our identities, but the reality is that this "thing," whatever it really is, is the vehicle being used to control people in society. And another reality is that some people need to be controlled.

I think most of the people who come to the realization that their being is separate from the fiction, also know that in today's society it's very difficult to function without it. So the struggle is in trying to figure out how to operate without the legal person.

Yet another reality is that we're all unique creations, and each of us reach understanding in our unique and individual ways. Each one gains knowledge, filters it through life experience and contemplation, and eventually it buds into wisdom.

I am continually amazed at the depth of thought that is constantly displayed here at this site. I find it remarkable that so many people - each coming from his own understanding - are still able to find commonality in the ideas routinely discussed.

Concepts like the name are ethereal, spiritual, and hard to express in words. So it's natural to try and relate the idea to experiences that we hope others will have had, and reach unity in understanding.

Fortunately we've been given a real life example to follow, and his actions are memorialized and made present in those of us who believe and accept his promise of redemption. He is the Captain of our salvation, and has already won the battle.

Hello Keith, I agree that some are given a higher level of understanding than others on how to separate the real from the fiction, not just in thought and expressed through a keyboard, but actually in deed. And if we are ever going to overcome this beastly system of slavery and rise above it, it would be great to have some real acts and deed to emulate.

There is a scripture verse that says "come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sin, so that you will not receive of her plagues". If we utilize their system we are taking part in it, no? I want no part of it although thanks to David and his findings on lawful money (just weights and measures) i have been redeeming LM. If we are going to use the benefit in any way then we owe a duty. But Scripture says "the whole duty of man is to love Yahveh and keep His commandments"

I prefer to go the route of MJ and his statement "DECLARE THYSELF" i am not sure exactly how--on paper?. Perhaps he will explain it himself or others who are doing the same.

If He is the Captain of our salvation, to quote you, and has already won the battle, why aren't we shouting it from the rooftop to TPTB that our King reigns and owns everything?

Just my 2cents
Thanks for anyone who read this.

salsero
02-01-14, 02:57 PM
I mostly agree with everything you stated. It is very good that WE be open to understand and learn from one another AND be open, along with challenge our beliefs. I started this journey quite accidently, it was watching the documentary - The Zeitgeist. It was through my intense wanting to learn more, I found a local group for the Zeitgeist Movement and form there we, as a group find info about Tim Turner. Though I found many things Tim had said profound, we, as a group were ready to move forward on "his remedy". Remember I knew absolutely nothing. However, it was I that kept researching Tim, at that time, and I warned the group, after I came to learn more about remedy, this was not for us. The group eventually disbanded. But I continued to study. I move forwarded to AFV, copyright of the Name, Notice of understanding, Purging from the matrix, redemption manual, creditors in commerce, Bill Thorton, common law, Equity, black card, abatement, UCC, etc. All this study was important; I am glad I took the time to learn "something" probably not too well - but just a taste. When I finally got to Peace Inhabitant process, if you want to call it that, I argued no less that Anthony, probably even more. I argued with a man, called John Tanis. I said to him what do you mean it is not MY bank account, my car, my house, I worked for it!!!! I worked a lifetime for my stuff. It has my name on it. John very patiently took the time to go back and forth with me. I realize now why he did so. 1. because HE had to reinforce himself in this idea 2. He wants to follow the scriptures by being of service to humanity, as is part of all our duty and 3. Its about spreading the word so that we can get back into "grace" here on earth [not that that is ever lost, that is just an illusion and we suffer for our fighting our "correct BEINGNESS"]. I fully admit this PI process is not an easy concept to grasp because of our earthly density - let's face it we, at one level or another, still have selfish motives. Its not about right or wrong, it just IS. I should also state it was not only John that helped me along this path, but also too, a guy named Boris, Marc Fishman and Batman, all with very profound knowledge.

When you really sit yourself down and give heavy duty thought to it, those in power are there for OUR good. OUCH! YES, as evil as they appear to be, and they are, their purpose is to help us WAKE UP. The more we resist, the worse they get. Me, Mine, My or I, is about separatism. "I" am part of the "we". Therefore when I state that car is MINE, it is saying, I own it. How does one prove he owns it? With a piece of paper? We are used to saying - it is my car - and that is the deception. The Creator owns all of the creation AND it is to be USED by all of His creation, freely given AND NOT CHARGED FOR. How does one charge his brother for anything? God gave ALL resources freely. When you really think about it, we do not even own our next breath, this is freely given by grace.

When one OWNS something, it is to the exclusion of anyone else. This means if I own the bank account and there is a debt levy on the person I use, the creditor CAN legally go into MY BANK ACCOUNT and take out those fictional funds. That same creditor can come and foreclose on the house and car. Some still will insist under COMMON LAW this can not be done. Well I guess we will have to hear about the out come of that theory. The Name is a public person or non-incorporated entity that is given to us for the public good. If you are a belligerent, and start with me, mine, my and I, then there are those who will help tame you.

When we use something, the owner is liable. It does not mean I can not have exclusive use of it, it is just that everything I contribute or do, the owner benefits [which I do joyously], subject to the liabilities.

Last time I bring this up. If you really dig the bible, give this guy a listen to, his name is Marcus. It is long and boring, but boring because he is trying to really drill this into man and his conditions here on earth.


We are servant kings and Marcus can explain this to you all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSRN7s3dxQ&list=PLiX3396e5WbbkITpykiaZds9EAGY1ZxJB&index=1

Anthony Joseph
02-01-14, 03:08 PM
the public courthouse is NOT "theirs", it is ours; only man can make a claim

the "fictional court" cannot allow or disallow anything

the man or woman who acts as 'court clerk' is your 'court clerk' if you require he/she perform for you

in a common law court, names are not necessary; i may stylize my claim however i wish; and, a witness can merely speak and point to a wrongdoer in open court without knowing, or using, a name to identify a wrongdoer

i never stated that i want something to do with anything of "theirs"; who do you believe is "they" and what is "theirs"?

of course i agree that a man must try to have a meeting of the minds and work things out with his brother first, however, if that process fails in the private, a man has a right to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public; that is the nature of common law and that law still exists on this land, if one knows how to invoke and hold it by one's own right

this is why i keep repeating that we (that includes me) need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land

Chex
02-01-14, 03:29 PM
the public courthouse is NOT "theirs", it is ours; only man can make a claim the "fictional court" cannot allow or disallow anything
the man or woman who acts as 'court clerk' is your 'court clerk' if you require he/she perform for you

in a common law court, names are not necessary; i may stylize my claim however i wish; and, a witness can merely speak and point to a wrongdoer in open court without knowing, or using, a name to identify a wrongdoer

i never stated that i want something to do with anything of "theirs"; who do you believe is "they" and what is "theirs"?

of course i agree that a man must try to have a meeting of the minds and work things out with his brother first, however, if that process fails in the private, a man has a right to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public; that is the nature of common law and that law still exists on this land, if one knows how to invoke and hold it by one's own right

this is why i keep repeating that we (that includes me) need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land

Ok AJ I get the public courthouse is NOT "theirs" its a "fictional court."

How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?

Who then has the meeting of the minds? Who is his brother your talking to with the meeting of the minds? How do you get the meeting in private first and with Who?

In the private A doesn't agree with B with the meeting of the minds in private so then to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public in common law that law still exists on this land to invoke the right, How does that get started?

I agree that we need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land?

Lets get to it.

I am ready for this.

Keith Alan
02-01-14, 04:29 PM
**How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?**

Fix the money.

Anthony Joseph
02-01-14, 06:43 PM
Ok AJ I get the public courthouse is NOT "theirs" its a "fictional court."

How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?

Who then has the meeting of the minds? Who is his brother your talking to with the meeting of the minds? How do you get the meeting in private first and with Who?

In the private A doesn't agree with B with the meeting of the minds in private so then to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public in common law that law still exists on this land to invoke the right, How does that get started?

I agree that we need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land?

Lets get to it.

I am ready for this.

the public courthouse is just a building; an edifice where people have access to court (court (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=court) is a verb also)

a man is always in or at common law if he remains standing as man; that ability comes with knowledge and practice - do not use ANY legalese or you show competence in a legalese court; and then, you are subject to the rules of said court

if someone sends you a present[ment], find out who is sending it and why through letter writing - do not delay
if it is written using legalese terms, you do not understand as a man; "i believe this may read as thus and so, however i am not certain and i cannot decipher your language, please communicate in common parlance." [a man is not required to know or understand the foreign language of legalese]

if this private communication cannot be settled, one party may choose to take it public by way of a law suit in court
a man has a right to face and question his accuser [cf. the Plaintiff must appear - Trinsey v Pagliaro] (notice this citation is NOT the basis for the claim of man's right, it is just an exhibit for comparison purposes)

if the "Plaintiff" is named as STATE OF XXXXX, IRS, UNITED STATES, etc., then, even according to "their" own rules and precedents, the Plaintiff must appear and the attorney is not permitted to speak to the facts without first hand knowledge; we do not rely upon "their" rules or precedents, we stand upon the common law right to face our accusers in open court

if no man will speak with voice against another man who requires to face, and answer to, his accusers claims, THERE IS NO PROPER CLAIM BEFORE THE COURT - no controversy exists [cf. no subject matter jurisdiction]

if the matter is man on man, the one moving the claim (prosecutor) establishes the rules of court and both parties present their cases before a jury that will judge the merits and render a final decision - the black-robed-one is independent of the tribunal (claimant, wrongdoer, jury) and only bears witness to the happenings

it is the claimant's court and the judgments and orders issue through said court, with magistrate as witness and court clerk as recorder for public benefit

there is no book or template for this, that is why true common law is unwritten; a man must learn to stand as such (a man) and conduct his affairs accordingly and in honor

doug555
02-01-14, 09:55 PM
the public courthouse is just a building; an edifice where people have access to court (court (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=court) is a verb also)

a man is always in or at common law if he remains standing as man; that ability comes with knowledge and practice - do not use ANY legalese or you show competence in a legalese court; and then, you are subject to the rules of said court

if someone sends you a present[ment], find out who is sending it and why through letter writing - do not delay
if it is written using legalese terms, you do not understand as a man; "i believe this may read as thus and so, however i am not certain and i cannot decipher your language, please communicate in common parlance." [a man is not required to know or understand the foreign language of legalese]

if this private communication cannot be settled, one party may choose to take it public by way of a law suit in court
a man has a right to face and question his accuser [cf. the Plaintiff must appear - Trinsey v Pagliaro] (notice this citation is NOT the basis for the claim of man's right, it is just an exhibit for comparison purposes)

if the "Plaintiff" is named as STATE OF XXXXX, IRS, UNITED STATES, etc., then, even according to "their" own rules and precedents, the Plaintiff must appear and the attorney is not permitted to speak to the facts without first hand knowledge; we do not rely upon "their" rules or precedents, we stand upon the common law right to face our accusers in open court

if no man will speak with voice against another man who requires to face, and answer to, his accusers claims, THERE IS NO PROPER CLAIM BEFORE THE COURT - no controversy exists [cf. no subject matter jurisdiction]

if the matter is man on man, the one moving the claim (prosecutor) establishes the rules of court and both parties present their cases before a jury that will judge the merits and render a final decision - the black-robed-one is independent of the tribunal (claimant, wrongdoer, jury) and only bears witness to the happenings

it is the claimant's court and the judgments and orders issue through said court, with magistrate as witness and court clerk as recorder for public benefit

there is no book or template for this, that is why true common law is unwritten; a man must learn to stand as such (a man) and conduct his affairs accordingly and in honor

The above is an excellent explanation! Thanks AJ!

Below is my attempt to get this approach before the CLGJ audience:

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/common-law#comment-230 (http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/common-law#comment-230)

shikamaru
02-02-14, 02:02 PM
When one OWNS something, it is to the exclusion of anyone else.

Not necessarily.

In law, there is distinction between absolute ownership (Roman Civil Law::dominion) and qualified ownership (Roman Civil Law::servitude).
To be honest, there wasn't even absolute ownership in English Common Law save the radical title of the King.
As far as states go, all ownership is subject to the state (as far as they are concerned).



This means if I own the bank account and there is a debt levy on the person I use, the creditor CAN legally go into MY BANK ACCOUNT and take out those fictional funds. That same creditor can come and foreclose on the house and car. Some still will insist under COMMON LAW this can not be done.

1) No one owns an ACCOUNT. The account is the property of the issuer, in this case, the bank. An account is a chose in action (right to sue for recovery of a debt owed). Interestingly enough, taxes are a chose in action of the king (or government). Not only that, the legal title of the notes transfer from the depositor to the bank. The bank becomes the legal owner of the notes deposited into the account.

A levy and a withdraw are different beasts. A levy has to do with taxation (or conscription into a martial force). A withdrawal has to do with a deduction of funds from the account to the requester.
Foreclosure is another beast all together. Foreclosure is the final action a creditor will take to recover property pledged as collateral for a debt based on a CONTRACT the debtor indorsed.

Under Common Law, creditors had more power than they do now, believe it or not. Quite a few protections have been put into the law since medieval English times in protection of the debtor.

You don't even what to know how insolvents were treated under Common Law :D.



The Name is a public person or non-incorporated entity that is given to us for the public good.

Originally in Common Law, only men of note had first and last names. Those names were recorded by the private families. This was for purposes of inheritance of passing on titles and property.



When we use something, the owner is liable. It does not mean I can not have exclusive use of it, it is just that everything I contribute or do, the owner benefits [which I do joyously], subject to the liabilities.


The liabilities of ownership also comes from customs of Common Law. Owner of property or holder of title was subject to the King's dues. This was primarily providing military aide as well as funds to ease the King's wants ....

salsero
02-02-14, 04:32 PM
Not necessarily.

In law, there is distinction between absolute ownership (Roman Civil Law::dominion) and qualified ownership (Roman Civil Law::servitude).
To be honest, there wasn't even absolute ownership in English Common Law save the radical title of the King.
As far as states go, all ownership is subject to the state (as far as they are concerned).



1) No one owns an ACCOUNT. The account is the property of the issuer, in this case, the bank. An account is a chose in action (right to sue for recovery of a debt owed). Interestingly enough, taxes are a chose in action of the king (or government). Not only that, the legal title of the notes transfer from the depositor to the bank. The bank becomes the legal owner of the notes deposited into the account.

A levy and a withdraw are different beasts. A levy has to do with taxation (or conscription into a martial force). A withdrawal has to do with a deduction of funds from the account to the requester.
Foreclosure is another beast all together. Foreclosure is the final action a creditor will take to recover property pledged as collateral for a debt based on a CONTRACT the debtor indorsed.

Under Common Law, creditors had more power than they do now, believe it or not. Quite a few protections have been put into the law since medieval English times in protection of the debtor.

You don't even what to know how insolvents were treated under Common Law :D.



Originally in Common Law, only men of note had first and last names. Those names were recorded by the private families. This was for purposes of inheritance of passing on titles and property.



The liabilities of ownership also comes from customs of Common Law. Owner of property or holder of title was subject to the King's dues. This was primarily providing military aide as well as funds to ease the King's wants ....

Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Persons, banks, corporations, cars, houses, property, boats, children, bank accounts, etc are ALL legally titled WITH State OWNED PROPERTY CALLED A NAME, ESTATE, TRUST, INDIVIDUAL, ETC. It can not be MINE, MY, I, OR ME. Agree or disagree, it really is unimportant. It just is based on fact of fiction - yes that is the proper ridiculous, lack of common sense way of stating it. I never said I liked what I was writing.

When there is a judgment against the person and that person "has assets" whether a car, bank account or a house or whatever, that "stuff you OWN" is going to be taken. A levy is different than a withdrawal I agree, but I was writing in concept not legal brief. My point is if you own it, it can not be taken. Everything you cited is all well and good and it may very well be a "basis or history" on current law today; however, IT IS MY OPINON, that since all titles were seized in the 1930s and after the Erie RR decision [basically doing away with common law], all I can wish you all "pro-common law is alive and well today" is by all means go for it. As long as someone is obtaining remedy and cure, I luv it. Please provide the group with detail info on your successes. I am willing to admit MY ERROR.

I bothered to check out this link http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...aw#comment-230 - I had seen much of this stuff previously. Excellent info to be aware of. But I personally see NO REMEDY there. ALL I DO KNOW, if we all do not wake up soon from this "illusion called life", maybe when Hillary becomes president in 2016, as her balls are big enough to push that red button, then we can start the planet all over again - because all this warring is really a downer. And Hillary seems to be just the right leader of our collective consciousness reflecting back to We, the People exactly what we are.

God Bless

shikamaru
02-02-14, 05:03 PM
Persons, banks, corporations, cars, houses, property, boats, children, bank accounts, etc are ALL legally titled WITH State OWNED PROPERTY CALLED A NAME, ESTATE, TRUST, INDIVIDUAL, ETC.

I can agree with this, however, it is presumptive.
Evidence of titlement would still be in order along with some system of registration.



When there is a judgment against the person and that person "has assets" whether a car, bank account or a house or whatever, that "stuff you OWN" is going to be taken.

A judgement is an assessment.
What you have just described is a levy. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy):



A legal action, where property of a judgment debtor is taken for public sale to satisfy a monetary judgment




My point is if you own it, it can not be taken.

Says who? It seems in this world, if you have not the force to retain ownership whether by cudgel, title, or legal proceeding; you have none.



Everything you cited is all well and good and it may very well be a "basis or history" on current law today; however, IT IS MY OPINON, that since all titles were seized in the 1930s and after the Erie RR decision [basically doing away with common law], ....

Very good that you stated your opinion. All that I gave you in my previous post can be substantiated by treatises and other works.

Erie decision had to do with diversity jurisdiction and which cases should be heard in which court, not with doing away with "common law".

The federal government never had a "common law". The "common law" which they sought to develop had to do with commerce particularly a uniform standard of handling negotiable instruments throughout the several States.

Now if you would have based your opinion on the seizure of titles on the seizure of American's gold in the 1930s by way of eminent domain power of the U.S. government, I would be more inclined to side with you. Although in my opinion, this wouldn't have a leg to stand on. All states reserve the powers of eminent domain, seizure, condemnation, confiscation, as well as arrest of things and persons no matter the title or who possesses what.



... all I can wish you all "pro-common law is alive and well today" is by all means go for it. As long as someone is obtaining remedy and cure, I luv it. Please provide the group with detail info on your successes. I am willing to admit MY ERROR.

You are presuming I am "pro-common law".
Common Law ain't what others romanticize it to be :).
Common Law was King's Law. It was the King's attempt at monopolizing things for himself.
Subjects hated Common Law and its attorneys as well.



I bothered to check out this link http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...aw#comment-230 - I had seen much of this stuff previously. Excellent info to be aware of. But I personally see NO REMEDY there. ALL I DO KNOW, if we all do not wake up soon from this "illusion called life", maybe when Hillary becomes president in 2016, as her balls are big enough to push that red button, then we can start the planet all over again - because all this warring is really a downer. And Hillary seems to be just the right leader of our collective consciousness reflecting back to We, the People exactly what we are.

Attempting to bail out the Titanic after its struck the iceberg is foolish.
Perhaps a more prudent option would be to enjoy the decline (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/04/24/book-review-enjoy-the-decline/)?

Anthony Joseph
02-02-14, 05:17 PM
"The ultimate ownership of all property (exclusive right of use)..." [even this sentence fragment distinguishes between the two words]

how does one claim "ownership" of "exclusive right of use"?

through titles? titles are of the paper realm and require verification "in voice" if a man so wishes

will "STATE" now appear and verify his/her claim of "ownership of property"?

how long will you wait?

salsero
02-02-14, 07:04 PM
Last time - Please when you have all YOUR bills or however, you all look at them PAID or discharged or whatever, are a free man on the land - meaning no DL, car registration, passport, bank account [what would you need this for since you have the state taking care of everything], and are the supreme sovereign over the courts, state and whatever you say in our VOICE, please share it with me. I am not being sarcastic. I am being up front. I have no issue about asking forgiveness for my error. Whatever EFFECTIVE remedy or how you call it, do not be shy, share it.

I have offered evidence that Name is not legally yours; however, you are free to use it, as it was sent to you for your use. If used correctly, under the rules of usufruct, the owner of that property, by their laws, MUST provide discharge and acquittal for THEIR property that I USE. It does not matter, if the entity or Name has a CC bill, tax bill, or charged with a crime. I am in the middle of perfecting this and I have no issue stating this; however, I honestly believe those men I have mentioned before have found EFFECTIVE remedy using this "theory" but ALSO from a biblical standpoint or spiritual standpoint, it resonates FOR ME. It is simple and at the same time complex because of our conditioning.

Anthony Joseph
02-02-14, 07:38 PM
Last time - Please when you have all YOUR bills or however, you all look at them PAID or discharged or whatever, are a free man on the land - meaning no DL, car registration, passport, bank account [what would you need this for since you have the state taking care of everything], and are the supreme sovereign over the courts, state and whatever you say in our VOICE, please share it with me. I am not being sarcastic. I am being up front. I have no issue about asking forgiveness for my error. Whatever EFFECTIVE remedy or how you call it, do not be shy, share it.

I have offered evidence that Name is not legally yours; however, you are free to use it, as it was sent to you for your use. If used correctly, under the rules of usufruct, the owner of that property, by their laws, MUST provide discharge and acquittal for THEIR property that I USE. It does not matter, if the entity or Name has a CC bill, tax bill, or charged with a crime. I am in the middle of perfecting this and I have no issue stating this; however, I honestly believe those men I have mentioned before have found EFFECTIVE remedy using this "theory" but ALSO from a biblical standpoint or spiritual standpoint, it resonates FOR ME. It is simple and at the same time complex because of our conditioning.

when did I ever claim anything you presume above?

i am not afraid of carrying or using a "DL, car registration, passport, bank account" when i decide it is of benefit

when did i ever claim that the Name is "legally" mine; and, when have you offered any verifiable proof and evidence of "Name is not legally yours"?

are you a card carrying BAR member who is permitted, and fully educated, to speak or write regarding what is "legal" or "legally" anything?

i am not sure what it is you are in the "middle of perfecting"; however, please share with us when you do though

shikamaru
02-02-14, 07:58 PM
Last time - Please when you have all YOUR bills or however, you all look at them PAID or discharged or whatever, are a free man on the land ....

The title 'freeman' is not all its cracked up to be.
Freeman is only a higher status of servant ... to the body politic.



... - meaning no DL, car registration, passport, bank account [what would you need this for since you have the state taking care of everything], and are the supreme sovereign over the courts, state and whatever you say in our VOICE, please share it with me. I am not being sarcastic. I am being up front. I have no issue about asking forgiveness for my error. Whatever EFFECTIVE remedy or how you call it, do not be shy, share it.

I have offered evidence that Name is not legally yours; however, you are free to use it, as it was sent to you for your use. If used correctly, under the rules of usufruct, the owner of that property, by their laws, MUST provide discharge and acquittal for THEIR property that I USE. It does not matter, if the entity or Name has a CC bill, tax bill, or charged with a crime. I am in the middle of perfecting this and I have no issue stating this; however, I honestly believe those men I have mentioned before have found EFFECTIVE remedy using this "theory" but ALSO from a biblical standpoint or spiritual standpoint, it resonates FOR ME. It is simple and at the same time complex because of our conditioning.

I'm offering data that is not common ... no pun intended.
Having such knowledge radically changes one's perspective on such subjects being that there is much disinformation out there.

I can sense from some of what you stated that you are invested in some of that disinformation. No offense.

Michael Joseph
02-03-14, 04:48 AM
The title 'freeman' is not all its cracked up to be.
Freeman is only a higher status of servant ... to the body politic.



I'm offering data that is not common ... no pun intended.
Having such knowledge radically changes one's perspective on such subjects being that there is much disinformation out there.

I can sense from some of what you stated that you are invested in some of that disinformation. No offense.

Excellent post. Just like the term Liberty is a grant and can be undone by the grantor.

shikamaru
02-03-14, 07:48 PM
Excellent post. Just like the term Liberty is a grant and can be undone by the grantor.

I guess our group can be a rough bunch at times :D.

Thank-you in turn for that tidbit on the term 'liberty'.

Anthony Joseph
02-03-14, 08:40 PM
and what of the word liberty (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberty)?

in my opinion, the term 'Liberty' may be a grant; yet, the word 'liberty' can be used by a man absent encumbrance

my liberty is my right, which is my property

do you believe any man can make a verifiable claim to prove [I]my claim is untrue?

Michael Joseph
02-03-14, 10:05 PM
In my opinion the United States is being run as a plutocracy - a fascist plutocracy at that. I have noticed the Fasces all around. Oh I know there are some who would opine concerning the business plan - but a constitution can be overcome in COMMERCE. And in this boy's opinion - those who think the U.S. is still operating as a Republic or even a Democracy are just fooling themselves.

I wrote in another forum regarding Serfs - Villeins - that is exactly right. Most believe their head is gold and they cannot be sold. Yet they sell themselves voluntarily into slavery - debt bondsmen for life.

Consider a government who is in debt - who is the head and who is the tail? Is not the lender the head? Now then does that nullify the trust structures that understand the United States - NOT IN ANY WAY - however, who would the government now have primary allegiance too? A: The Lender!

Do try to remember that. For in my estimation I see ten ruling families who thru their agency of CENTRALIZED BANKING rule the world - you might say these are the power behind the thrones. THE REAL POWER.

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea and I saw a wild beast coming up [ascending] out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads names of blasphemy.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest represent ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive delegated power as kings one and the same hour with the beast.

Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and they give [of their own free will] their power and strength to the beast.

These horns are the power that run the world - the power that decides who will be king - the world is run as a FASCIST PLUTOCRACY. And the tool used to centralize power and money is the Central Banking System. America had the Aldrich Plan - Germany had the Dulles plan....these are just copies of each other. She sings the same song.

The debtor is slave to the lender!

My claim is in the TRUE GOSPEL which is NOT about Christ but about the Kingdom of God. Christ did not teach about Himself - He taught concerning the Kingdom of God. And Paul recognized that it was not yet time so he too submitted himself to death. How many will struggle with Romans 13? Don't you know Paul was NOT writing about submitting to Secular institutions! This is easily proven - He was writing concerning the Kingdom of God.

Can't you see Ceasar ruled Paul to be in Treason. For Ceasar declared that he was God. This whole argument goes to Qualification into a Kingdom. Now is the time of the trying of the Saints. Whom shall ye serve? Which is to say where is your trust placed? It is as simple as that!

Is God's Kingdom a Democracy? Answer: No. Is it a Republic? Answer: No.

God calls, God chooses, Yehoshuah is King in Love but God or the family of God is with the rule, in Love. And Love is not about getting it is about GIVING. But notice man does not appoint leadership in the Kingdom of God. God chooses! Therefore we see the Kingdom in abeyance until the rightful claimant returns to take His seat as the King of kings. This is what Paul recognized - the time was not then - for the time of the fullness of the gentiles was afar off. So just like Christ submitted himself to death - so did Paul. And so will the saints. IF THEY WANT TO SIT AS A VASSAL KING IN THE THRONE OF JESUS CHRIST.

Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints:... they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith which Jesus gives.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord does not delay concerning His promise, as some men account slackness; but is longsuffering toward you, not willing [desiring] that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


For Nebuchadnezzars statue is a symbol of the satanic ruled kingdoms of this earth! BECAUSE Adam disqualified himself by obeying Satan. Therefore, the king of this World is Satan - Satan has the legal right until he is removed by the One coming in Power. For Christ Qualified to lead the government of God as He did not bow to Satan but in the stead kept the Commandments or the LAW of God.

If God appoints one to rule over you in the Kingdom of God, then you are to submit to that authority in Love. You sacrifice is the giving of yourself to the service of others within the Kingdom. This is the TRUE GOSPEL and it has been suppressed for 1900+ years now. The saints who can see the Great Mystery know the calling of the chosen - and will endure in patience Serving their King.

Therefore we see USUFRUCT as the Kingdom is in Abeyance so then no one state or kingdom can claim dominion over the earth BECAUSE the Earth belongs to God and all that is within it! So the kingdoms claim the USUFRUCT! Isn't this obvious too all by now?


Yehoshuah is God's Annointed - Christos.

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations tumultuously assemble, And the peoples meditate on vain things ?

Psa 2:2 Why do the kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers have gathered by appointment, Against the LORD, and against His Annointed One? saying,

Psa 2:3 "Let us break Yehovah's and Messiah's bands asunder, And cast away Their cords from us."

Psa 2:4 He That sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: The Lord shall have them in derision.

Psa 2:5 Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, And vex them in His sore displeasure.

Psa 2:6 Yet have I founded My king upon My holy hill of Zion.

Psa 2:7 I will declare for a decree: The LORD hath said unto Me, "Thou art My Son; This day have I begotten thee.

Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the nations for Thine inheritance, And the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.

Psa 2:9 Thou shalt rule them with a scepter of unbending authority; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: Be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling.

Psa 2:12 Submit to the Son, lest Yehovah be angry, and ye perish, way and all, When His wrath is kindled but quickly. How happy are all they that flee for refuge to Him.


Shalom,
MJ


Exo 6:2 And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah:


Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of GOD ALMIGHTY, but by My name JEHOVAH was I not understood to them.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by My name Yehovah was I not understood to them.



Psa 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of El Elyon Shall abide under the shadow of El Shaddai.

Psa 91:2 I will say of Yehovah, "He is my refuge and my fortress: My Judge [Elohim]; in Him will I trust.

Anthony Joseph
02-03-14, 10:40 PM
who is it that God has been appointed to rule over you in the Kingdom of God, Michael Joseph?

it is my obligation to serve my creator, my family and my fellow man; does every man require a "ruler" to carry this out?

usufruct (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,usufruct) - the right to use that which is proper to one and exclusive of all others [property]

who makes claim to the property which you claim you have the right to use by way of "usufruct" - have you met him or her?

has something called "state", "State" or "STATE" ever spoken to you in regards to a rightful vested interest claim of the property which you use in "usufruct"?

Michael Joseph
02-04-14, 01:49 AM
who is it that God has been appointed to rule over you in the Kingdom of God, Michael Joseph?

it is my obligation to serve my creator, my family and my fellow man; does every man require a "ruler" to carry this out?

usufruct (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,usufruct) - the right to use that which is proper to one and exclusive of all others [property]





I submit to the rule of those who I assemble with in government [church]. Otherwise, Yehoshuah is appointed the rule over me and I willingly submit. Therefore I submit to my brethren, in Love as we serve each other in Christ.

In the perfect kingdom we are called to be a kingdom of priests - we are not to rule each other but we are to serve each other. therefore I fully recognize the government of God. Government is good.

Anthony Joseph
02-04-14, 01:52 AM
who have you assembled in government?

each of us has the inherent right of self-governance, if we can honorably keep it

Chex
02-04-14, 02:59 PM
**How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?** Fix the money.

We know congress already did that Keith.

Many Americans, not just the courts, help shape the meaning of the Constitution in the nation’s life. This series explains the actual or potential contributions of these other individuals, groups, or institutions.

Today’s Constitution-maker is President Obama. In his State of the Union message last week, the President declared a measure of independence from Congress, saying that he would not wait for the legislative process to take action that he believed was necessary. http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-outside-courts-president-obama-110205354--politics.html

That can be read, of course, to mean that when Congress passes a law, using its undoubted authority to make laws for the nation’s governance, the president is to adhere to the letter of what Congress has enacted, and not to deviate from it. Faithful thus can mean respectful, and maybe even obedient.

But even that reading probably misunderstands the design of a working government: Congress may pass a law that the president decides is unconstitutional; what then? Hasn’t he taken an oath to defend the Constitution?

Congress may pass a law that, because of the compromises that went into its passage, is not really clear and specific; what then?

Don’t government bureaucrats need some guidance sometimes?

And what is the president to do if he sees the need for government to act, but Congress has not enacted a law to show the way?

In reality And what is the people to do if we see the need for government to act, but Congress has not enacted a law to show the way?



“Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.” President Obama

We shall see.

David Merrill
02-04-14, 04:34 PM
Consider the absurdity that debt is money.

Michael Joseph
02-04-14, 06:10 PM
Consider the absurdity that debt is money.

RIGHT.

The citizenry end up using Monopoly money that issues from a bank. That issues from a bank. The Bank and the Representatives of government are the higher powers in this Trust Agreement. Where are the people found? Trusting in their government representatives to MEDIATE - just like Moses did - a Trust Agreement on their behalf.

But that Monopoly money is the result of a loan that the private bank GAVE or you might say GRANTED to a government so that said government might continue to do business. Said government placing its bonds as surety or you might say Security Interest - remember FDR quote?

So you can see the government has MORTGAGED itself and the Mortgage cannot be redeemed unless the loan is repaid. The citizenry therefore is using IOU's to transfer their debts one to another - but never extinguishing the debt. The only way to extinguish the debt is to redeem the bonds with interest. Oh there are some who will say a government is not real - HORSESHIT. Men place their trust in mediators or representatives to do certain jobs FOR them - a government is therefore a named Trust Agreement which is UNDERSTOOD in relationship. And it is those people who willingly accept whatever their leaders are able to negotiate for them and in or on their behalf. This of course is expressed and implied by voting. Get out there and rock the vote won't you?

The labor of the citizenry may in fact redeem the IOU's but it seems the government is a beast that is never satisfied. I am reminded of this:

Luk 11:46 And He said, "Woe unto you also, ye teachers of the Law! for ye heavy laden men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch gently not the burdens with one of your fingers.

In my opinions v.46 shows the difference between those being represented - the cattle that bear the load [yoked in ignorance] and those who drive the cattle.

Of course government is but a huge trust and one would do themselves a huge favor to learn the different offices of the trust. But consider what happens when a peoples representatives, in union, mortgage the future labors of the people just so the government can continue?

the government becomes the slave - and the lender becomes the beneficiary of that slave labor. What is left of the people? Well what do you think the government has to pledge to the lender? Why do you think Hilary Clinton spent so much time in China? Answer: She was looking for a lender who would continue to loan money to a government that cannot pay its debts.

It is all about trust folks. Oh you can use words such as agreement or contract, but in the end you had best learn the offices of the trust if you are to comprehend the nature of the beast.

A smart attorney is always going to ask "are those Federal Reserve Notes" in your wallet? Consider what said attorney seeks. Have your representatives sold you and your labor? Do you vote? Can't you see I am talking about express and implied trust.

I speak of TWO kingdoms. Babylon the Great [statue] and the Kingdom of God. The latter Kingdom manifest first within and is expressed in Deed. Faith absent deeds is dead. Debt = Death. Mortgage = A death pledge.

I take comfort here:

Isa 52:3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed not with silver.

Consider how ye sell yourselves. Do you participate in a system of representative government? Consider the Trust process in paragraph one hereinbefore. Read it again. Who is trustee and who is beneficiary and who is THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY of the notes in circulation? Instead of government being the rich man who helps to keep commerce flowing the Monopoly Bank is now the Head. Ever play Monopoly? Have you ever stopped to consider who is the surety for all that paper money in the Bank? Oh its just a game says the gainsayer. Where does the paper money go after the game is over? And do you ever own the property or can you ONLY improve the Property to collect RENTS?

Shalom
MJ

Anthony Joseph
02-05-14, 12:39 AM
if a man allows an attorney to ask him anything, he has already lost

the pieces of paper in my wallet have the imprint "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE" upon them; and, so what?

what attorney has any power over a man who makes claim to whatever property he declares in voice?

how many attorneys have first hand knowledge of the claims made by whom they represent? answer, practically zero

will attorney now verify for 'UNITED STATES', 'IRS', 'STATE OF XXXXX', 'US TREASURY', 'SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION', etc. on and for the record? answer, they are prohibited by law to do so

who will speak in voice with full liability on behalf of the party who you presume has vested interest in said 'FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES'? answer, no one

it is all an illusionary game - do not rely upon the long term value of paper, use as is necessary absent obligation; those credits are your property and someone must come forward and claim otherwise in living voice under oath or affirmation supported by findings of facts and conclusions of law - how long will you wait to see that happen?

Michael Joseph
02-05-14, 03:23 AM
if a man allows an attorney to ask him anything, he has already lost

the pieces of paper in my wallet have the imprint "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE" upon them; and, so what?

what attorney has any power over a man who makes claim to whatever property he declares in voice?

how many attorneys have first hand knowledge of the claims made by whom they represent? answer, practically zero

will attorney now verify for 'UNITED STATES', 'IRS', 'STATE OF XXXXX', 'US TREASURY', 'SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION', etc. on and for the record? answer, they are prohibited by law to do so

who will speak in voice with full liability on behalf of the party who you presume has vested interest in said 'FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES'? answer, no one

it is all an illusionary game - do not rely upon the long term value of paper, use as is necessary absent obligation; those credits are your property and someone must come forward and claim otherwise in living voice under oath or affirmation supported by findings of facts and conclusions of law - how long will you wait to see that happen?


I disagree in regard to the attorney presentment for I find Yehoshuah supping with Matthew-Levi the tax collector.

Regarding claim - this is so obvious to me that I just don't even consider it anymore - but you are right on point. Regarding FULL LIABILITY this is an excellent point.

A citizen or subject IS NOT in full liability - rather by the very nature of that office there is limited liability. The liability is placed in the appointed REPRESENTATIVES of the people in trust. This in a sense shows MEDIATION - sort of like what Moses did. The people are either ignorant or scared or lazy. So they hire mouthpieces to represent their interests on their behalf. Now when agreements are established who are the parties? - it certaintly ain't the people!

Now with that consider the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. A trust is a relationship and if the Trustees create an agreement to bind one to another then those who desire a mediator are now SUBJECT to the agreement that the mediator agreed to. Therefore I agree that the only way one can come to the table is with standing in full liability. And therefore a claim is required! No other way around it.

However, you asked me earlier who I submit to. I will tell you that I trust very few men - I can count them on one hand. But I know they have been "thru the firey trial" - tested and as such, I submit myself to my brothers in Christ. As per the commands of the Trust Agreement [Scripture]. I ask for leadership from the Holy Spirit and I therefore wait for instruction regarding my actions.

For the Kingdom of God WILL have a government of God and this age now is about who will qualify or disqualify from those who have been called. For the Kingdom is not bottom up in voting - it is top down in appointment [calling]. Therefore those who are led by the Spirit of God have the right to be called the Sons of God - which is to say they become members of the Family of Elohim.

Adam disqualified himself but those who are called or chosen now have the choice [this is the true meaning of John 3:16] for man cannot choose God - God chooses man. Therefore whomsoever WHO HAVE BEEN CALLED places his trust in Yehoshuah.... FOR we read no man can come to the Son unless the Father CALL him. And further..


Act 2:39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are of the Dispersion and then the Gentiles, even as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."


We even see in Jesus Christ - the term Christos which means The Appointed One - or the Elect One. We see He was a MADE man - appointed to purpose - a member of the Family ELOHIM.

If I do not desire a relationship with another I can terminate simply with "I have no trust in you". In fact if I ask an attorney anything regarding legal affairs, most likely that will be his response to me. Now language is getting a little loose here so I will say a lawyer or advocate is not the same office as attorney.


Shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
02-05-14, 12:26 PM
i would offer that the appropriate response(s) to any "attorney" question is, "who is making a claim; will he come forward now and verify?"

"i have no trust in you" is synonymous with "we have no agreement(s)"; that takes care of any breach claim if it is true

whoever decides to communicate with i; a man, must do so as man in common language if i so require

an office of any kind does not speak except in the realm of the 2nd dimension (paper); as a man, i hear only man in voice

presents must be made in a language common to man else i do not understand; and, without wet-ink signature, there is no present worthy of response except the return of the present to sender requiring the hereinbefore mentioned elements of proper communication

hold the man or woman liable for the claim(s) made; do not permit the attempt to hide behind "office", "cloak" or "mask"

if you communicate with or understand the presents from the 2nd diminsion; you diminish yourself to the same and become subject to the jurisdiction thereof

rise and remain above; hold your standing as man which is the highest there is on earth under God

Michael Joseph
02-05-14, 02:01 PM
i would offer that the appropriate response(s) to any "attorney" question is, "who is making a claim; will he come forward now and verify?"



RIGHT.

If you stop to consider by making this demand the complaining party is essentially abated. I wrote a DA years ago a simple three paragraph letter which essentially said - produce the contract, trust, agreement or covenant that engages me to your law form. I then went to liability - Let Yehovah judge between you and I this day. Then I went to "Res Judicata" - your action or inaction is a self executing judgment. I refuse to post the letter as I have learned not to do that sort of thing in conformance to and with:

Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

I, of course, kept my own record within the governing assembly that heard the matter - this goes also to double jeopardy.

Deu_14:21 .......Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Exo 23:19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Exo 34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Being found innocent in the law form of the assembly convened I issued the courtesy judgment upon the county court in notice. However, I kept my word to the magistrate of the county and showed up as scheduled. I have found the following to be true:

Luk 10:19 Behold, I have given unto you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the might of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Luk 10:20 But in this rejoice not, that the evil spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names have been written in the heavens."

Remember that plague of frogs coming out of the river upon Egypt. Well what did that symbol represent?

Rev 16:12 And the sixth poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, in order that the way of the kings that come from the east might be prepared.

Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits as it were frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Rev 16:14 For they are ... spirits of demons, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings ... of the whole world, ......

I Noah's day there was a flood of water. In our days we find a flood of lies being broadcast upon unsuspecting peoples.

However, just as in Egypt there was a place prepared in Goshen, those who abide HERE:

Psa 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of El Elyon [B]Shall abide under the shadow of El Shaddai.

Psa 91:2 I will say of Yehovah, "He is my refuge and my fortress: My Judge; in Him will I trust.



Honor thy Father [Yehovah] and thy Mother [El Shaddai or Wisdom] = natures of El Elyon which gave issue to the Son:


Pro 8:1 Doth not Wisdom cry? And understanding put forth her voice?

Pro 8:22 Yehovah acquired me in the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.

Pro 8:30 Then I became beside him, as one under His constant care: And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him;


Yehovah [Husband] and El Shaddai or Wisdom [Wife] :


Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Eph 5:23 For a husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the Head of the church: He Himself being Saviour of the body.

Eph 5:31 For this ... shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall be for one flesh.



But those who place their confidence, trust and strength [right arm] in man's inventions make themselves subject to the associated plagues:


Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, Even our enemies themselves being judges.

Deu 32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, And of the fields of Gomorrah: Their grapes are grapes of gall, Their clusters are bitter:

Deu 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, And the cruel venom of asps.

Deu 32:37 And He shall say, Where are their gods, Their rock in whom they trusted,

Deu 32:38 Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, And drank the wine of their drink offerings? Let them rise up and help you, Let them be be your protection.


A Psalm of David.

Psa 109:1 Hold not Thy peace, O God Whom I praise;

Psa 109:2 For the mouth of a lawless one and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: They have spoken against me with a lying tongue.

Psa 109:3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; And fought against me without a cause.

Psa 109:4 For my love they are my adversaries: But I am all prayer.

Psa 109:5 And they have put against me evil for good, And hatred for my love.

Psa 109:6 Set Thou a lawless one over him: And then let Satan stand at his right hand.

Psa 109:7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: And then let his prayer become sin.

Psa 109:8 Let his days be few; And let another take his office.

Psa 109:20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul.

Psa 109:21 But do thou for me, Yehovah Adonai, for thy name's sake: because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me.

Psa 109:22 For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me.

Psa 109:25 I became also a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads.

Psa 109:26 Help me, Yehovah my Elohim: O save me according to thy mercy:

Psa 109:27 That they may know that this is thy hand; that thou, LORD, hast done it.

Psa 109:28 Let them curse, but bless thou: when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice.

Psa 109:29 Let mine adversaries be clothed with shame, and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle.

Psa 109:30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; yea, I will praise him among the multitude.

Psa 109:31 For He shall stand at the right hand of the needy, To save the needy from those that condemn his soul.

Gen 2:7 And Yehovah Elohim formed [as a potter] the man [eth ha Adam] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath that is life; and the man became a living soul.





Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
02-05-14, 03:08 PM
Its alright Ma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqJJ9siYNn0)

Shalom,
MJ

Chex
02-05-14, 04:05 PM
Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

PHOENIX — The leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been ordered to appear before a magistrate in England on fraud charges filed by a disaffected ex-Mormon who disputes fundamental teachings of the religion, according to documentation obtained by The Arizona Republic. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/mormon-president-ordered-to-court/5216645/

Two summonses direct Thomas S. Monson of Utah, the Church president, to attend a March 14 hearing in the Westminster Magistrates Court of London to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions.

Michael Joseph
02-05-14, 09:29 PM
PHOENIX — The leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been ordered to appear before a magistrate in England on fraud charges filed by a disaffected ex-Mormon who disputes fundamental teachings of the religion, according to documentation obtained by The Arizona Republic. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/mormon-president-ordered-to-court/5216645/

Two summonses direct Thomas S. Monson of Utah, the Church president, to attend a March 14 hearing in the Westminster Magistrates Court of London to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions.

And so it begins - a setting of a precedent. I wonder if the LDS church is a 501c3? Also, pray tell, how on earth does Westminster have jurisdiction? What is the Nexus?

Chex
02-05-14, 09:46 PM
Also, pray tell, how on earth does Westminster have jurisdiction? What is the Nexus?

I don't know but here is more of it.

Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been ordered to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London next month to defend the church’s doctrines including beliefs about Adam and Eve and Native Americans.

A formal summons signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe warns Mr Monson, who is recognised by Mormons as God’s prophet on Earth, that a warrant for his arrest could be issued if he fails to make the journey from Salt Lake City, Utah, for a hearing on March 14.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10619538/Head-of-Mormon-church-Thomas-Monson-summoned-by-British-magistrates-court-over-Adam-and-Eve-teaching.html

Anthony Joseph
02-05-14, 10:04 PM
absent the fear of losing "tax exempt status"; why should Thomas S. Monson care about said "summons"?

a true church of God need not answer to, or defend against, the "orders" of 'District Judge' or 'Westminster Magistrates' Court'

Moxie
02-05-14, 11:24 PM
And so it begins - a setting of a precedent. I wonder if the LDS church is a 501c3? Also, pray tell, how on earth does Westminster have jurisdiction? What is the Nexus?

Sounds like it's 501c3 if there's doctrine/teaching restrictions. Maybe Westminster is the watchdog headquarters of LDS churches? A guess....

Chex
02-06-14, 01:10 AM
to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue

Tenets that word bugged me most of the day, I didn't know what that meant.

Tenets (http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEV0UCo_JSgkkARqdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0 bmZpbDRtBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMyMF8x?p =tenet)definition. An opinion, doctrine (http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEV1PRoPJSx2oA1_ZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0 bmZpbDRtBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMyMF8x?p =doctrine), or principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle)held as being true (http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrBJR_Z3_JShlcAU7h5GVxH;_ylc=X1MDMTE5 NzIxODE2OQRfcgMyBGJjawNkc3BycTlsOWVucmNzJTI2YiUzRD QlMjZkJTNETWxtZThLVnBZRUt3dWR3bnRBc2V1UjExSl9HNEtY YWk3VG1kTVEtLSUyNnMlM0Q3ZiUyNmklM0RwT3Iuc0R2cWtDd2 p1U0NycTc0NQRmcgMEZ3ByaWQDQ0JrMm55bFFSSWE4TXpWQUp5 bEdKQQRtdGVzdGlkA251bGwEbl9yc2x0AzIEbl9zdWdnAzEwBG 9yaWdpbgNkaWN0aW9uYXJ5LnNlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9z AzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDNQRxdWVyeQN0cnVlIA R0X3N0bXADMTM5MTY0ODkwNTk2NQR2dGVzdGlkA251bGw-?gprid=CBk2nylQRIa8MzVAJylGJA&pvid=rXSAkmKL7IreZ3pNUuvtnAeIMnkeGFLy39kACmLB&p=true+&fr2=sb-top&limlangpair=)by a person or especially by an organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization).

Now I understand.

Michael Joseph
02-06-14, 04:07 AM
Sounds like it's 501c3 if there's doctrine/teaching restrictions. Maybe Westminster is the watchdog headquarters of LDS churches? A guess....

Now consider that the State via some title ordains the existence of a 501c3 entity. Or at a minimum has the Administration in Approval of GRANTING of a certain status in regard to money - which is to say the State is Benefactor to the 501c3 entity. We see Title 26 501c3.


Now also consider that the government of the State needs money to continue in its business affairs. Consider the possibility that the governments of the world have been Mortgaged to the International Banker. Now connect the dots. Money is the Nexus. Control thru the central banking system. Remember the Scripture says the debtor is SLAVE to the Lender.

Notice the claim is that the LDS is basically selling information. So now the State is going to step in by order of its MASTER the Banking Interests to make sure the LDS begins to worship Satan. I jest but you get the point. While I jest I am not to far from the truth.

Shalom,
MJ

David Merrill
02-06-14, 02:05 PM
Consider the absurdity that debt is money.

One symptom or after-effect is this occupation of "market making" (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/tarullo20140206a.htm).



While the Federal Reserve's supervisory role will be less than that of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the SEC, we will continue to work with the other implementing agencies to develop an effective and consistent supervisory framework and to ensure that the Volcker Rule is implemented in a manner that upholds the aims of the statute, while not jeopardizing important activities such as market making and hedging.


P.S. Accept your election with your Maker first, the rest might fall easily into place.

Moxie
02-06-14, 03:42 PM
Remember the Scripture says the debtor is SLAVE to the Lender.

Notice the claim is that the LDS is basically selling information. So now the State is going to step in by order of its MASTER the Banking Interests to make sure the LDS begins to worship Satan. I jest but you get the point. While I jest I am not to far from the truth.
Shalom,
MJ

Oh that is the truth!

mikecz
02-06-14, 03:45 PM
Regarding Names and PERSONS, quick question. I know this won't go anywhere, really locally, but here goes. Purely theoretical here. I am a landlord, have a few properties and from time to time I have to evict a tenant, then sue for damages. Obviously, most of the time my company is suing corporate person, card carrying Social Security member, really the trust itself. Anyways, after I get the damages judgement, I collect money around 10% of the time. Lets just say, unfortunately, I'm owed a lot of money.

Can I sue the trust? The party I have damages against signed his person's name, in support or through the trust. I guess the goes more along the lines, if one uses his/her social security number to sign for anything, it's assumed to be in possession of the trust, really we own nothing when we sign this way. Well, where is the liability to the trust? Can the trust be liable for anything?

Chex
02-06-14, 04:02 PM
Accept your election with your Maker first, the rest might fall easily into place.

Can you expand on this Accept your election with your Maker first, the rest might fall easily into place topic a little further?


Under the Volcker Rule. The ultimate success of the final rule will depend on how well the implementing agencies supervise and enforce the rule. While the Federal Reserve's supervisory role will be less than that of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the SEC, we will continue to work with the other implementing agencies to develop an effective and consistent supervisory framework and to ensure that the Volcker Rule is implemented in a manner that upholds the aims of the statute, while not jeopardizing important activities such as market making and hedging. In pursuit of this goal, shortly after the adoption of the Volcker Rule, the Federal Reserve and the other implementing agencies agreed to create an interagency working group, which has already begun to meet. In mid-January, the five implementing agencies approved an interim final rule to permit banking entities to retain interests in certain collateralized debt obligations backed primarily by trust preferred securities that would otherwise be subject to the Volcker Rule's covered fund investment prohibitions.

Isn't a collateralized debt obligation a pool of future payment promises. Bank lends money to 1,000 car buyers and receives an average of $300 from each borrower every month, the title of each car would naturally have a lien, allowing the bank to seize the vehicle if the borrower fails to make monthly payments.

[The car title would also have a lien if purchase with FRN's. same as anything.]

Should the bank need urgent cash, it can contact a large investor with money, such as a mutual fund, and promise to pass on all payments from car buyer for the next year to this institution, in exchange for an immediate lump sum payment.

This arrangement is a collateralized debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation)obligation, because the promise of the bank to the mutual fund is backed up by the vehicles, which are the collateral in this case.

This is interesting.

The issuer of a CDO—usually a special purpose entity—is typically is a corporation established outside the United States to avoid being subject to U.S. federal income taxation on its global income. These corporations must restrict their activities to avoid U.S. tax; corporations that are deemed to engage in trade or business in the U.S. will be subject to federal taxation.

Foreign corporations that only invest in and hold portfolios of U.S. stock and debt securities are not. Investing, unlike trading or dealing, is not considered to be a trade or business, regardless of its volume or frequency.

Investopedia explains. (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cdo.asp)

walter
02-06-14, 06:38 PM
the person

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9idrc1EHI

Michael Joseph
02-06-14, 09:25 PM
the person

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9idrc1EHI

Now try to put on the hat of a King and take off the hat you have been conditioned to wear as a subject. Think about government and you as its head when you read the following:


Col 1:15 Who [Jesus] is the image [profile] of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation:

Col 1:16 Because by Him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:

Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.


This fact is an extremely important one to keep in mind, because as believers in Jesus Christ, we need to remember that for all his terrible power, Satan is still only a creature, operating entirely within the universe of time and space which God, thru the Son, has created, and is therefore entirely subject to God’s sovereign will and omnipotence. By way of contrast, however, our infinite Lord is in no way whatsoever limited by or dependent upon this finite environment of time and space so essential to our existence and to that of all His creatures.

Do you suppose a created being made by and thru Yehoshuah [Jesus] has any standing in the Heavenly Court to change the Law or structure of government of God? He lacks standing!

So why do men think they can do this within a closed law boundary called the United States? Or for that matter any other kingdom or state? Don't they see they are trespassing upon a claim made by other men?

As a king, I see an international scope and a domestic scope. Those who take shadow under my claim are domestic to my claim and subject to it. Yet other men who have established their claim also have those who take shadow under it. And many subjects are not happy with the administration AND YET they refuse to take the necessary steps and as such by their free will actions - or lack thereof - they show themselves willingly to submit as subject under the administration of another.

The domestics - commons - or subjects - are by consent lawfully under the administration of another. but how will each estate in Usufruct - do commerce with each other? They need a business plan - this is typically called a Constitution. Yet at the end of the day what is being traded is USE RIGHTS IN or OF A THING. And the Thing is the Earth. And man is a 1st derivative of the Earth - but later we see man BECAME A LIVING SOUL.

So then if a subject wishes to find peace with his Sovereign, THEN:

2Ch 7:14 If My people, upon whom My name is called, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

LAND is a legal term. It refers to the Uses of the Earth. Therefore Land goes to Possessions. Notice IF MY PEOPLE....

the subjects are the people and the government are the People. Myself I prefer to be a member of "We the People of Yehovah" the government of the Kingdom of God. However the government are Melchizedok Priests and we read:

Hos 4:6 My people are laid prostrate for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge [of Me], I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to Me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy sons.

Those who wish to Qualify for the government of the Kingdom of God will not forsake the King's Law. Yet we see so many running around blaspheming the King saying the Law is no more. I really feel a sense of sadness for these folks.


Shalom,
MJ

yarash
02-19-14, 02:40 AM
"As a king, I see an international scope and a domestic scope. Those who take shadow under my claim are domestic to my claim and subject to it. Yet other men who have established their claim also have those who take shadow under it. And many subjects are not happy with the administration AND YET they refuse to take the necessary steps and as such by their free will actions - or lack thereof - they show themselves willingly to submit as subject under the administration of another."

Shalom,
MJ

Helo MJ,

How does one establish their claim and how do others take shadow under it--without being involved in the world's system. Does one seek to be acknowledged by "them" as being of the order of Melchizedek through some sort of paperwork?

Thanks

David Merrill
02-19-14, 01:19 PM
Helo MJ,

How does one establish their claim and how do others take shadow under it--without being involved in the world's system. Does one seek to be acknowledged by "them" as being of the order of Melchizedek through some sort of paperwork?

Thanks

Hi Yarash;


Welcome to the forums!

I have accepted my election into the Order of Melchizedek. You must consider this carefully in terms of Scripture. This is a pure priesthood, as it is an election made by the higher (highest) Source - God. All you can do is accept the nomination (election).

Several events along the way have built confidence that I am fit to be in this honorary position among men. One of them was to write out the Laws of Moses (http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4011/lawsofmoses.pdf) and then translate them back to English. This changed me, it transformed my mind (http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4528/lawsofmosespentateuch.pdf) and I suggest that anybody would do this but understand that you may not have the inclination so consider it an example of things that are already happening to you for even considering the idea.

I would suggest that you understand that this is also a coronation as King. Kings in Israel also had the gift of Prophecy - or they actually had a prophet. John the Baptist was a prophet for King Archelaus HEROD. "King" HEROD living in the time of Jesus' ministry was actually a Tetrarch, Archelaus' brother Antipater. The other brother/Tetrarch was Philip but ruled up in Syria and played little part in the Bible Story. [John railed, probably for Archelaus (exiled King) against Antipater for bedding Philip's wife and it cost him his head. There is indication that Antipater prized the King's prophet John however and it grieved him to behead him.]


I am glad you are here and posting,

David Merrill.

Chex
02-19-14, 02:23 PM
Now try to put on the hat of a King and take off the hat you have been conditioned to wear as a subject. Think about government and you as its head when you read the following:

So why do men think they can do this within a closed law boundary called the United States? Or for that matter any other kingdom or state? Don't they see they are trespassing upon a claim made by other men?

God creates (http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrBEiKGvQRTp2kAYBZ5GVxH;_ylc=X1MDMTE5 NzIxODE2OQRfcgMyBGJjawM2azI0NWhsOWc4OXQ3JTI2YiUzRD QlMjZkJTNETWxtZThLVnBZRUt3dWR3bnRBc2V1UjExSl9HNEtY YWk3VG1kTVEtLSUyNnMlM0Q3cSUyNmklM0QzWGZqVXN4bGJ0WF p0VmN6YWFZcARmcgMEZ3ByaWQDbXBpUC5xSkNRQldaXzZTdUNO ZmtUQQRtdGVzdGlkA251bGwEbl9yc2x0AzQEbl9zdWdnAzAEb3 JpZ2luA2RpY3Rpb25hcnkuc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MD MARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAM3BHF1ZXJ5A2NyZWF0ZX MEdF9zdG1wAzEzOTI4MTk2MDQ0NTcEdnRlc3RpZANudWxs?gpr id=mpiP.qJCQBWZ_6SuCNfkTA&pvid=cmlGnWKL7IpqCIWNUwQnpw2ZrVREQVMEvYYAC33a&p=creates&fr2=sb-top&limlangpair=)men invent (http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVxxcvQRTzTQAKRlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0 MnRoNXFhBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1NNRTM0Nl8x?p =invent&.sep=), God's people inherit (http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrBJR_rvQRTgRwAXnR5GVxH;_ylc=X1MDMTE5 NzIxODE2OQRfcgMyBGJjawM2azI0NWhsOWc4OXQ3JTI2YiUzRD QlMjZkJTNETWxtZThLVnBZRUt3dWR3bnRBc2V1UjExSl9HNEtY YWk3VG1kTVEtLSUyNnMlM0Q3cSUyNmklM0QzWGZqVXN4bGJ0WF p0VmN6YWFZcARmcgMEZ3ByaWQDYkdaTnRuZk9UdWkuVlQ2WFN2 bWR4QQRtdGVzdGlkA251bGwEbl9yc2x0AzMEbl9zdWdnAzgEb3 JpZ2luA2RpY3Rpb25hcnkuc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MD MARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAM3BHF1ZXJ5A2luaGVyaX QEdF9zdG1wAzEzOTI4MTk2OTMwNzUEdnRlc3RpZANudWxs?gpr id=bGZNtnfOTui.VT6XSvmdxA&pvid=WIc6fWKL7IpqCIWNUwQnpxMjrVREQVMEvesAAsG.&p=inherit&fr2=sb-top&limlangpair=).

Michael Joseph
02-19-14, 03:15 PM
Helo MJ,

How does one establish their claim and how do others take shadow under it--without being involved in the world's system. Does one seek to be acknowledged by "them" as being of the order of Melchizedek through some sort of paperwork?

Thanks

Yarash a Claim is just that a man or woman in union with others in Church or in State Declare [claim] certain Uses in a Thing. Now it makes sense that the corporation of men or women in Church or in State would let others know their claim.

A claim is not about getting permission from someone else it is about going forth and taking full liability for the Uses that you are Claiming. Your titles such as Priest or otherwise are derived from your new Status. However, you must with Full Liability keep the Royal Law - Thou shall not Steal. If someone else has a similar claim they may let you know to back off - or they might remain silent and let you too enjoy the Usufruct.

One in the order of Melchizedek is a priest who walks in the Law of Yehovah Elohim in Love. Law benefits all those who take shadow under it; as do the Judgments. For instance Yehovah said at the mouth of two / three witnesses if one has murdered, then kill him that very same day! Now how does that benefit society? Well for instance said murderer would not be able to do it again. Well you say, but what about False Witnesses? If you stand in full liability before Yehovah and you are a false witness, then what you thought would happen to another will now happen to you. For God said Vengeance is mine. So we see a kingdom submitting itself to the One King - Universal King - King of kings.

There is no paperwork- there is no easy process where you fill in the blank - there is only a decision a life choice to pick a path and walk in it for the rest of your life! There are no easy answers - there is only truth and hard work.

Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
02-19-14, 03:48 PM
Hi Yarash;


Welcome to the forums!

I have accepted my election into the Order of Melchizedek. You must consider this carefully in terms of Scripture. This is a pure priesthood, as it is an election made by the higher (highest) Source - God. All you can do is accept the nomination (election).

Several events along the way have built confidence that I am fit to be in this honorary position among men. One of them was to write out the Laws of Moses (http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4011/lawsofmoses.pdf) and then translate them back to English. This changed me, it transformed my mind (http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4528/lawsofmosespentateuch.pdf) and I suggest that anybody would do this but understand that you may not have the inclination so consider it an example of things that are already happening to you for even considering the idea.


David Merrill.


One cannot be a king in Israel without first writing out his own copy of Torah. My favorite saying when speaking to someone new to the path is that the study you are about to take up will completely change you. And that is true.

At first it was so sweet, then very bitter and then with more understanding sweet again. I heard a philosopher once say "A little philosophy leads you away from God, a little more, brings you back to God".

As we begin to understand it is so sweet to know, then as we begin to know, it becomes bitter as all you see around you is bitterness and oppression, but then with more knowledge you realize that the Kingdom of God is within. This realization is not mental meaning you can read the words but you will never realize their potential until you experience. You must experience. The battle within is between the Mind and the members of your Flesh. This is tribulation - testing by fire. Purification or refining of the "silver and gold".

So part of the priesthood is to KNOW and DO God's Law. For our God is a consuming Fire and noone can come into His presence in Sin. So we confess our sin and ask forgiveness in Yehoshuah - Jesus. Therefore we see Yehoshuah as the High Priest of the Order of Melchizedok and those who submit and obey as members of that order - now able to approach the Mercy Seat with Jesus Christ as our Covering. So we would be in Coverture with our Husbandman [Head of the Commonwealth] as Yehoshuah! Now then His Majesty only looks upon Yehoshuah and not our being as we have submitted. Consider a court room.

Consider the Judge is God. The DA is Satan and Christ is our Advocate. Now does the Judge look upon the Defendant or does he look to the Defendants Advocate? Consider before you answer.


VERY IMPORTANT: How can you confess sin if you don't know what sin is? Let me say it like this. Do you think you qualify to be a judge in a county court? How could you without first being knowledgeable about the Law and its Judgments?

Well the priesthood of the Melchizedok order are knowledgeable about God's Law and God's Judgments! But even more than that they have the fruits of the Spirit - so that Equity may be done upon the People.

Government is good - for God REQUIRES discipline. For know ye not that it is the Order of Melchizedok that will judge even the Angels!

So then what does this Order Inherit and what is their duty? They Inherit God and their duty is work in the government of God.

Eze 44:23 And they shall teach My People the difference between the holy and common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

Eze 44:24 And in strife they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to My judgments: and they shall keep My laws and My statutes in all Mine appointed seasons; and they shall hallow My sabbaths.

Eze 44:28 And it shall be unto them for an inheritance: I am their inheritance: and ye shall give them no possession in Israel: I am their possession.

===============================

Setting pride and ego aside: Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of God? The answer is the one who serves others! The one who will "wash the feet" of his fellows. Therefore man has it upside down. The King should be the biggest servant of all. The fact that men revere a president is repugnant! He is their servant. Not their Lord. Man has it upside down. We see fear, lust, greed, pride and ego blinding man. But FEAR is the worst.

BECAUSE : Faith cannot exist in the presence of Fear!

Shalom,
MJ

yarash
02-20-14, 01:07 AM
Thank you for your welcome and response David Merrill.

"This changed me, it transformed my mind and I suggest that anybody would do this but understand that you may not have the inclination so consider it an example of things that are already happening to you for even considering the idea."

I don't have the confidence you have, on the contrary i ask why would Yah choose me for something i feel am ill equipped for. But i am trying to build confidence.


Hi MJ thanks for your response,

In regards to making a claim you've stated before in other posts "Declare Thyself" and "perfect the claim" but how is this done and to whom does one declare?

You said "There is no paperwork- there is no easy process where you fill in the blank - there is only a decision a life choice to pick a path and walk in it for the rest of your life! There are no easy answers - there is only truth and hard work."
The decision is made. I'm not afraid of truth and hard work, but am looking to emulate others who are journeying ahead of me who have the same calling.

You write from a previous post "I wrote a DA years ago a simple three paragraph letter which essentially said - produce the contract, trust, agreement or covenant that engages me to your law form. I then went to liability - Let Yehovah judge between you and I this day. Then I went to "Res Judicata" - your action or inaction is a self executing judgment."…"I, of course, kept my own record within the governing assembly that heard the matter - this goes also to double jeopardy."

Is this not paperwork? If one keeps these records in their arena, is this not submitting to their governing way of doing business? Can not the records of "Declaring Thyself" be kept or proclaimed elsewhere?

You also wrote "Being found innocent in the law form of the assembly convened I issued the courtesy judgment upon the county court in notice. However, I kept my word to the magistrate of the county and showed up as scheduled."

If the magistrate asked, i can see where you would keep your word if you'd agreed. But what if you were demanded to come before this convened arena and forced by intimidation to agree that you would (on behalf of YOU) and yet you respectfully/honorably declined by private communication in form of a notice "Declaring Thyself" yet this angered him and he refused your declaration by issuing a decree to kidnap you out of your Father's kingdom? What then?

"A claim is not about getting permission from someone else it is about going forth and taking full liability for the Uses that you are Claiming."--Would you be more specific?

"…but then with more knowledge you realize that the Kingdom of God is within. This realization is not mental meaning you can read the words but you will never realize their potential until you experience. You must experience. The battle within is between the Mind and the members of your Flesh. This is tribulation - testing by fire. Purification or refining of the "silver and gold"."

I comprehend, it's the knowledge and experiences that you have, (i so appreciate your posts) that i wish to learn from. "in the multitude of counsel there is wisdom"
I agree with David Merrill's LoR to a certain extent, but i'm not sure that is the direction Yahveh wants me to go.

"BECAUSE : Faith cannot exist in the presence of Fear!" Yahshua's disciples feared and hid themselves and they were a group. i am solo. I haven't been able to conquer fear yet--have you?

Thank you all, there are so many gems on this forum!

Michael Joseph
02-20-14, 03:48 AM
Is this not paperwork? If one keeps these records in their arena, is this not submitting to their governing way of doing business? Can not the records of "Declaring Thyself" be kept or proclaimed elsewhere?

That example was of me writing a letter. My records are kept within my Court. I keep my Court righteous - or I try my best - by keeping my word. I control - very carefully - how I contract with others.

I believe the Bible tells us to deliver ourselves. Therefore I do not share paperwork anymore. In fact the last time I did share my paperwork I was so disappointed because some of the men who read it, copied it word for word and placed their name on my work. I was not disappointed in terms of copyright, I was disappointed in terms of the fact that they BLINDLY placed their trust in my words and my success.

You are asking me how do I govern within a local group. Well a very good paper trail has already been left for you. Declaration of Trust [Independence] - Business Plan [Constitution]. Read them carefully and you will see what I mean.

Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion [People of God], that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon [People of Confusion].

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Psa 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

==============================

Now if you are just getting started, I would recommend that you study as much as possible. There are no easy paths, there are no processes that you can just easily follow. For me and my house, we do not recreate a new law form, we try our best to live under the Instruction of Yehovah, recognizing our Redemption in Yehoshuah.

So when I am tested by other law boundaries, I, like Daniel [thanks David Merrill] let them see the Glory of God beaming upon my face and thru my actions. I choose Yehoshuah as my King. And in controversy I will convene a court of peers! That means fellows who have the same political and trust that I do.

I am sorry I have no easy answer for you - the only answer is as follows:

Ecc_12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

1Th_4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;

2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


As far as I am concerned there are VERY FEW books that I would recommend outside of the Bible and when it comes down to what I choose, I choose the Bible over any book. All Truth is in the Bible.

If you want to know how to Declare Thyself - read the Declaration of Independence. Who did they send their Declaration to? And, now see if you can find their Claim within that Declaration.

Shalom,
MJ

yarash
02-20-14, 08:18 PM
Hi Michael Joseph,

I realize this is an open forum and one must be careful what and how things are conveyed so as not to encourage what others would think as a quick fix/remedy to this babylonian system without any real understanding. However, i've been on this journey for a little over five years and have been diligently unlearning the indoctri-nations, and having to relearn and still learning, and, what it means to "come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins" That call was loud and clear. And you're right about the sweetness and bitterness aspect.

My pride and ego were not set aside but rather stripped by my heavenly Father so as to create in me a new heart with which i might truly worship Him. The fiery trials i've undergone and still undergoing that His reflection may be seen is not something that is easily accomplished. That's why Yahshua says count the cost before following Him. I've put my hands to the plow, and now, not only can't i turn back but will not, whatever the cost.

It is true that we are not to put confidence in man but in Yahveh. However, what does Yahveh kingdom consist of? Is it only kings and priests? And if all are kings and priests, and are going to rule and reign with the Messiah, who/what are they going to rule and reign over? And if servants of others, who are the others? Will you wash my feet? And what does that mean, if not to lay down your life for others? Why? Love. Love for your neighbor--brother, friend and even your enemy. Love entails sacrifice. Not just in word but in deed. 1Cor.13:1-8 is a good reminder. And we love because He first loved us.

What were the duties of Yahshua's disciples?--Go into all the world and make disciples teaching them to obey all that He had commanded them (after teaching them many things pertaining to kingdom government). Not everyone has David's knowledge of writing their own Torah but they can read the book of Romans and with help heed the instruction to "…and be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…" The Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of the Torah but did he understand it?
Knowledge especially pertaining to Kingdom govt. is to be imparted not kept hidden as the lawyers did who Yahshua warned. You like David and others here have loads of knowledge and from the things you share from a biblical perspective throughout this forum, is why i would like to know more to be able to not only apply it in my life but impart it to others as i am able.

Yes the Bible says we are to deliver ourselves (Zech.2:7) as in collective. i don't wish to follow blindly, as with every wind of doctrine. There's nothing wrong with doing things as others have if it means victory. That's what the brethren/kin do for each other--in building up the faith. When Paul says "imitate me even as i imitate the Messiah…and keep the ordinances as i delivered them to you." it is not understood as others blindly trusting his words and success, because ultimately he was martyred for what he taught, as it is appointed unto man once to die…since flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.

I'm sorry if you misread my intentions. But there are folks like me who are looking for guidance and support in their study and not for easy answers/fill in the blanks, who are willing to become living sacrifices for the benefit of others who are seeking the Kingdom. Yes we are to study to show ourselves approved…again, as in collective as well as individually. And if we are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood a holy nation, and His own special people, how do we proclaim the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light? By putting the light under a bushel? Paul says "woe to me if I don't preach the good news (the Kingdom of Yah is at hand)" Yes it's true, i want to know how to exit out of babylon and apply the Kingdom's teaching, and you know how to do it.

What are the ministerial duties of priests in the kingdom of Yah?

I'm sorry this is so long.
peace and blessings

Michael Joseph
02-20-14, 11:41 PM
Yarash,

I know this is going to sound trite but I mean what I am about to write in its most simplistic expression and this is not an attack upon anyone's ego or status:

When I started to believe I was free, then I started to do the things that a free child of God does. I am extremely careful about what I promise and who I make promises to.

I literally went into the wilderness for five/six years and went from 250k / year to about 20k / year in income. All my pride in my developed personas was removed and in my weakness in the way the world defines success - I became strong. For in losing my life, I found my life. I have PURPOSE - therefore I am SUCCESSFUL.

Man will trade all of his existence just to find PURPOSE - for you cannot have happiness absent PURPOSE.

As such, it is not me that redeems me, it is my Father by and thru Yehoshuah. I tell you that for the past three years now I have started each year with 6k in savings - I have had zero work on the books in backlog and yet every year the bills are paid - even the stuff that just happens. And each year I am reminded of the "lilies in the field". Yehovah Yireh.

My duty and my purpose is the CHOOSE God. I choose the Good - which is to say the Leading of the Holy Spirit. I need no law to tell me what is good or bad - the Spirit prompts me in the direction I should go. Therefore I claim the promises of God.

For my Father said "A man who will not take care of His family is worse than a heathen". And He said "those who are led by the Spirit may call themselves the Sons of God". So I am a member of the Family of Elohim [God]. And as such, I am very careful to keep my Court free from locusts. You understand? From the Great Book of Joel?

Yehovah NEVER pays in the beginning of the day - He pays when the work is completed at the end of the day. As such, I am salty and I work for the Kingdom whenever I can and I rely on my Father to keep the wolves at bay!

Let me break this down into its simplest expression: I have placed my entire life in Trust with my God. I have hung my life on the Nail in the Tent which is The Word of God. It is my Life.

For man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that procedeth from the mouth of God.

When my enemy arises - I quote the Scripture. Because Jesus Christ warned the Sons of Cain saying:

Mat_18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mar_9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Luk_17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.


Now go to and check out that word believe. It means SOOO much more than Believe! I try to live a quiet life if possible. But when challenged I know where my refuge lies! In The Word of God. I am a member of the Commonwealth of Israel - I am declared in the Public to be a member of this State and my Status is that of Free. The Children of the King are free!

I walk as a priest in the order of Melchizedok under Yehoshuah my Great High Priest and King. It was Yehoshuah that joined the two crowns into one and he made me into One Man- For I was living apart from God in my own power. I was taking of the tree of knowledge - my own Central Nervous System. But I have learned to deny this tree and listen for God's instruction and leading. And Wisdom she pours out upon this tree - so that the latter rain causes this tree to grow.

For Wisdom is Chief! El Shaddai is beautiful - she is a Tree of Life.

There is only black and white - you believe or you don't. There is no middle ground! I am redeemed! Only in Jesus Christ! There is no other way!

In my mind I am left with my Word, my promises. Did I promise you anything? Have I undertaken for you in some way? And I believe the Scripture - do all things in my Name. My claim is in the name of Yehoshuah, I claim for my King! NOT MYSELF. I claim for the commonwealth of Israel - the Body of believers - in Union under ONE King!

Do you really believe [have you given up your life] and placed your existence in Trust with the Ever Living?

You will be found trusting - question is in what or whom? Therefore CONTRACT very carefully and learn the obligations of contract.

Deu 32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.

Deu 32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew , as the small rain upon the tender herb,[former rain to germinate the seed] and as the showers upon the grass: [latter rain to make the tree grow] [added by MJ]

Deu 32:3 Because I will publish the name of Yehovah: ascribe ye greatness unto our Elohim.

====================

Concerning the Covenants:

The Promise came long before the Law. And the Promise had a sign just as the new covenant has a sign. The first in circumcision, the latter in baptism. But the Promise came before circumcision. Consider.

What is the SEAL upon the latter covenant = New Testament? It is the giving of the Holy Spirit. What was the seal in the Former? It was the keeping of the Sabbath. So then is the Law done away with in terms of Covenant? Yes, I need no law to tell me right from wrong, THE SPIRIT OF GOD - Leads me into right and if I try to do wrong - The Spirit is Grieved and I feel it in my being!

So why study Torah and Prophets, BECAUSE you cannot understand Yehoshuah as a Jewish Rabbi - a Law Keeper - until you comprehend the Torah and Prophets. When Jesus was asked what shall we teach this child "He said Law and Prophets". Why do the Christians refuse to read the front of the book? And why do the Jews refuse to read the back of the book? It is a mystery to me.


What I find humorous is that many folks today have time to read, this book or that book or read forums or watch TV or blah blah blah....but they have zero time to actually STUDY the Word. Sure there are some who do not have access to the Word and like I have formerly written they do what is right in a natural way - as such they become a law unto themselves - and God is the Judge. NOT MAN. However, what does Romans say? They will be judge per what was meted out to them. So what of those who have the Law of God? These will be judged by that Law! For remember the commandment was IF you are faithful to confess your sin, then He would be faithful to forgive.

Now I have work to do. I hope this helped you.

Answer these questions and that will help you determine your path:

1. What is it you want?
2. How will you know when you have it?

Be specific and set goals. The Israelites did not come out of Egypt overnight!


Shalom,
MJ


P.S. In the attached study I state that Paul was of the House of Judah - he was of the Tribe of Benjamin - and the House of Judah was made up of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

Chex
02-21-14, 01:48 PM
There is only black and white - you believe or you don't. There is no middle ground! There is no other way! They will be judge per what was meted out to them.

Journeys do take us places, its good to step out of ones shoes and into another's.

"They will be judge per what was meted out to them". That is a strong statement MJ and it made me want to understand what meaning it has behind it.

I don't much about Woodward v. Alabama (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-5380_08l1.pdf) although I am seeing the difference between God & man laws (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2013/11/death-meted-out-by-politicians-in-robes.html).

Michael Joseph
02-21-14, 03:03 PM
Interesting fact in Roman usage the term SYSTEM meant SEWERS. Today man has so corrupted the Way of God and of course Nature that it is hard to tell up from down. Nevertheless - God's Way is that a murderer should not be allowed to live. This is fair and equitable. Notice what happened to Daniel's accusers? All 120 of them and their wives and their children were put to death. This complies with God's Way. Thou shall not be a false witness and that which you would falsely testify shall come again upon your own head.

Isn't that fair?

They thought to set a trap for Daniel such that they might kill him. And finding the truth, the king made a correct judgment and put all 120 and their families in the lions den. For they [the 120] said to Daniel - lets see if your God can save you now! And the king said to them [the 120] lets see if your god can save you now! That is equity.

For if Daniel was cutoff, then so would his seed. Meaning he would have no Posterity.

To do premeditated murder is a long way from what so many misinterpret from Scripture "thou shall not kill". The term "kill" is to do premeditated murder. To lie in wait as Cain did to Abel - to plan and do a murder. Now at the mouth of two or three witnesses is the matter established. When a man speaks he carries full liability. And whether he knows it or not - the Divine Laws will not be broken. If that man is a liar in terms of his witness, then I feel sorry for that man!

What crazy times this Age is when there need be a law on the books in order to let someone know it is NOT okay to do premeditated murder! Yet in the Royal Law we see Equity. If you desire fairness, then you must be fair to others. If you deal with others in a harsh way, then you will be dealt with in a harsh way! Equity.

Now if one has been living in a jungle all of your life and has no concept of God - does that mean that one cannot be saved? To the contrary. Said one would be judged by God according to nature and what is naturally right. Do animals go around and kill just for the sake of killing or is their purpose? If one animal steals from another are there consequences? yes! When folks do unnatural acts do they get sick? Are their consequences? So these become a law unto themselves. And it is up to Elohim to Judge that one.

Now if men have joined together in Society placing their trust in their societal womb - appointing their representatives to perform acts for them on their behalf so they need not concern themselves with the daily toil of keeping the society safe - then they have agreed in their consent to be bound by Societies Pliers. And if they get bent out of shape, well that too bad! They consented to be ruled. And if they later come back and say - look these rules are stupid, do they have standing to do anything about it? NO.

They consented to allow others take the rule over them. So the only ones who have standing to determine what Society will do are those who occupy in the governing class of representatives - Trustees and Administration. Where does that leave the people who consented - well, they are left with what they should be doing - OBEYING the laws that their representatives have enacted.

So when I say "meted" out - one man is born with capacities that another man will never achieve and that is natural in this Age. Anyone looking at nature can see this is true. So to whom God gives much, He expects much and therefore the converse is true. To whom God gives little, He expects little.

And yet, one with little, if He will act in Faith, is like a MUSTARD SEED. With little meted out to said one, in Faith, God can make it grow into abundance! It is all about TRUST - which goes directly to what is Legal and what is Equitable. Man is given Choice. And clearly The Man [Eth - Ha - Aw- Dawm] or sometimes called Adam, defaulted in this Trust and in doing so he submitted to be ruled by another. And therefore man choose one who would exercise Dominion over him.

The EXACT same choice is before you this day!

Luk 22:25 And He said unto them, "The kings of the nations lord it over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greater among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that doth serve.

Luk 22:27 For whether is greater, he that reclineth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am in the midst of you as He that serveth.

Luk 22:28 Ye are they which have continued with Me in My trials.

Luk 22:29 And I assign unto you a kingdom, even as My Father hath appointed unto Me;

Luk 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

One who is a Judge had best learn Humility as Joseph did - he must go thru the Needle Gate - on his belly - if need be! He must also be one knowledgeable of Law and Equity.

Hos 6:6 For I desired lovingkindness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Hos 6:7 But they like Adam have rebelled [against] the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against Me.

Hos 6:8 Gilead is a city of them that work vanity, and is tracked with heel-marks of blood.

Hos 6:9 And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness

Spiritual murder is the worst of all - for it is permanent! And these priests do so in order to make merchandise of the people but notice the people CONSENT - freely consent - to partake of this withered Fig Tree.

Consider what I mean by withered Fig Tree in light of what you have presented in some Court Case. God's Law will not be mocked. Some court case only has bearing on those who would consent to the Societal Trust wherein [Law Boundary] that case is resident. Otherwise the folks in China could not give a rats ass about some Alabama court case. And neither do I. Except to shake my head and wonder - how long will men and women refuse to walk in full liability BEFORE THEIR CREATOR? How long will they consent to be spoiled? Will they have to be made as the prodigal son to eat pig slop before they realize their condition? Perhaps.

Deu 32:25 The sword without, And terror from the inner chambers, Shall bereave both the young man and the virgin, The suckling also with the man of gray hairs.

Deu 32:37 And He shall say, Where are their gods, Their rock in whom they trusted,

Rev 19:15 And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, in order that with it He should smite the nations: and He shall shepherd them with a scepter of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the Almighty.

Rev 19:16 And He hath on His vesture and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS

Man has chosen his path - to depart from The Way of God. Just as Adam in default, and in equity what is naturally fair? To give man what he wants!

Amo 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the LORD:

Amo 8:12 And they shall go staggering from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

Amo 8:13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.


How far has this Assembly come since 1639 - for I read:

The 4th day of the 4th month, called June, 1639, all the free planters assembled together in a general meetinge, to consult about settling civil government according to GOD, and about the nomination of persons that may be found by consent of all fittest in all respects for the foundation work of a Church which was intended to be gathered in Quinipieck. After sollemne invocation of the name of GOD in prayer, for the presence and help of his Spirit and grace in these weighty businesses, they were reminded of the business whereabout they met…

Quaere 1. Whether the Scriptures doe holde fourth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duteyes which they are to perform to GOD and men as well in the government of famyles and commonwealths as in matters of the Church?

This was assented to by all, no man dissenting, as well expressed by holding up of hands. Afterwards it was read over to them, that they might see in what wordes their vote was expressed: They againe expressed their consent thereto, by holding up their hands, no man dissenting.

=================================

She once was a golden cup in the hand of Yehovah. But now she is a golden cup filled with abominations - a Great Whore. The woman uses this Cup to pour out wrath upon the nations: That little "red worm" has destroyed the Gourd which once granted a great Shade.

But now:
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and having the unclean things of her fornication:

And what is really sad to me is to see "bleeding heart Christians" holding their candles praying for a KNOWN murderer's life. It truly shows how ignorant the church has become and it is a PROOF of Amos 8:11.

Amo 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the LORD:


Shalom,
MJ

allodial
02-22-14, 12:55 AM
Perhaps this might help: my observation (and a cop has confessed to this being true) is that the name on State-issued birth certificates is property of the State like the birth certificate itself. Also, there might be too much tendency to read too much into things. The body of Christ and the State aren't necessarily the same thing. I wouldn't expect figs from honey comb.

EZrhythm
02-22-14, 07:23 PM
I say that the STATE owns the account/entity/person that the STATE has created to which one has informed the STATE of the name to use for such. Similar to a music band that forms and that band offers for you to help in giving the band a name to which you suggest they use the same name that you utilize. They then take that name and begin to utilize it for their own purposes and own it limited to their use.

Chex
02-24-14, 03:32 AM
I say that the STATE owns the account/entity/person that the STATE has created to which one has informed the STATE of the name to use for such. They then take that name and begin to utilize it for their own purposes and own it limited to their use.

If the legal name of your trust, as shown in your trust document, shows more than one trustee and the names are joined by the connector "AND" you will be required to provide a Summary of Trust also known as Certificate of Trust or Memorandum of Trust or the appropriate pages of the trust showing that either named co-trustee may act independently.

IRS Name Control: When establishing an entity account, you must furnish a name control code provided by the IRS. A name control is a sequence of characters, generally the first four characters of a taxpayer's last name or the first four letters of a business name. The name control is used by the IRS to process information electronically reported to them. It is important that the combination of name control and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) provided on electronically reported information match IRS´s record of name controls and TINS. For more information on name control, go to www.irs.gov and search ‘name control’. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accounting-entity.asp

Moxie
02-24-14, 04:43 AM
...a music band that forms and that band offers for you to help in giving the band a name to which you suggest they use the same name that you utilize. They then take that name and begin to utilize it for their own purposes and own it limited to their use.

Unless this happens:

1570

Michael Joseph
02-24-14, 06:53 PM
If the legal name of your trust, as shown in your trust document, shows more than one trustee and the names are joined by the connector "AND" you will be required to provide a Summary of Trust also known as Certificate of Trust or Memorandum of Trust or the appropriate pages of the trust showing that either named co-trustee may act independently.

IRS Name Control: When establishing an entity account, you must furnish a name control code provided by the IRS. A name control is a sequence of characters, generally the first four characters of a taxpayer's last name or the first four letters of a business name. The name control is used by the IRS to process information electronically reported to them. It is important that the combination of name control and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) provided on electronically reported information match IRS´s record of name controls and TINS. For more information on name control, go to www.irs.gov and search ‘name control’. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accounting-entity.asp

Since we are agreed a Name is a Person, then consider that it cannot identify a man. THEREFORE, it reflects an Equity interest. Therefore, the Treasury that is vested in Liability for said Name, would also by right have the Administration over said name. Therefore if a summons issues in that name - is it identifying a man or reflecting upon an ACCOUNT. Consider.

Shalom,
MJ

yarash
03-17-14, 11:20 PM
What I find humorous is that many folks today have time to read, this book or that book or read forums or watch TV or blah blah blah....but they have zero time to actually STUDY the Word. Sure there are some who do not have access to the Word and like I have formerly written they do what is right in a natural way - as such they become a law unto themselves - and God is the Judge. NOT MAN. However, what does Romans say? They will be judge per what was meted out to them. So what of those who have the Law of God? These will be judged by that Law! For remember the commandment was IF you are faithful to confess your sin, then He would be faithful to forgive.

Now I have work to do. I hope this helped you.


Be specific and set goals. The Israelites did not come out of Egypt overnight!


Shalom,
MJ

P.S. In the attached study I state that Paul was of the House of Judah - he was of the Tribe of Benjamin - and the House of Judah was made up of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

I don't always have time to read pages and pages of nonsensical information trying to uncover a glimpse regarding a specific topic of interest. Hence why i asked directly.

I read the Word but don't have the mindset of interpreting it as you do since i'm not well versed in contracts, trusts etc to see the words unfold in that light. You have to know that it takes time to unlearn all the lies from the pulpits. But since reading your posts on this site i'm reading the Word in a new light, so thank you.

I know you don't have time to babysit and hold anyone's hand, we're all busy, but bullet-points at least go a long way. It's true that the Israelites didn't come out of Egypt overnight, but people came out of Rome overnight during Yahshua's days and also after, during the disciples'.

Thanks for the attachments. If you have any others please post them.

walter
03-18-14, 03:28 PM
I say that the STATE owns the account/entity/person that the STATE has created to which one has informed the STATE of the name to use for such.

have you noticed that the State can because of statutes change the NAME on a BC
but there is no statute that can grant them a Name change on the SOLB.
One they have power to over ride and the other they don't.
So the real issue might be not what is in the Name but where the name is in.

Freed Gerdes
03-18-14, 08:51 PM
The COLB identifies a new living man; he/she/it is given a name by the parents. Later the living man can choose any name he wants to use for himself. The BC creates title to a Limited Liability Corporation, actually a corporate subdivision of the United States of America Corporation (chartered 1871). It is an account to be used by the living man as a transmitting utility for the living man to put his assets into the public trust. These assets are now owned (legal title to the military, equitable title to the corporation) by the public trust, which is pledged as collateral to the banksters for the public debt. Use of the account (THE NAME) confirms the presumption that you the living man choose (volunteer) to be a surety for the public debt, and thus that you volunteer your assets (all property and income) for the use of the public corporation. Thus THE NAME has only the right of naked use of the assets so titled. You, the living man, by acting as accommodation agent for the LLC, also enjoy the naked use of your own assets, but now you are liable for the taxes and fees imposed by the state on your own property. The LLC is fully controlled by every law, rule, and code the state bureaucracy can think up, and you, by using THE NAME, obligate yourself to comply with all these ridiculous rules, and you agree that any presumed or accused violation of those codes will be resolved by an administrator, who will administer the state's property (THE NAME) under the rules for contracts (the Uniform Commercial code - Roman Law). You the living man are defined by the state as 'an animal' and will not be recognized by the administrator; the entity being judged is the LLC (YOUR NAME), and it has no rights except naked use of titled assets.
Thus if you appear in court and agree to be identified by YOUR NAME, you have already lost. Thus there is a lot of difference between a COLB and a BC.

Freed

Michael Joseph
04-02-14, 03:52 PM
who is it that God has been appointed to rule over you in the Kingdom of God, Michael Joseph?

it is my obligation to serve my creator, my family and my fellow man; does every man require a "ruler" to carry this out?

usufruct (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,usufruct) - the right to use that which is proper to one and exclusive of all others [property]

who makes claim to the property which you claim you have the right to use by way of "usufruct" - have you met him or her?

has something called "state", "State" or "STATE" ever spoken to you in regards to a rightful vested interest claim of the property which you use in "usufruct"?


Pharaoh anointed Joseph above all of the people. El Elyon anointed Yehoshuah with the oil of gladness above all of his fellows! El Elyon is that God that appointed Yehoshuah to be over me! And I will submit to that rule in engagement or not. My choice. But if I desire to be married one day, I will make myself presentable to the Groom. Ref. Book of Esther.

Shalom,
MJ

pumpkin
04-03-14, 03:38 PM
IMO, you can appear in court for YOUR NAME but you must clearify that you are not there in any representative capacity (removing the presumption of a fiduciary duty) but are instead there on your own behalf, as one of the people, endowed with inalienable rights. And if the oppisition is governmental, to address that trust relationship within your pleadings, and specifically indentify the fiduciary (government) and the benificiary (that'd be yourself). This changes things.

walter
03-11-16, 04:52 AM
http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/9205.htm

IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Petition of Michael Herbert Dengler to Change His Name to 1069.

Civil No. 9205