PDA

View Full Version : can you prove your identity?



Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 04:47 AM
Would anyone here care to take up the argument of identity with me? I challenge anyone here to prove their identity.

With specificity, what about you proves your identity? Specifically how can i identify you absent any outside source? What is it about you that specifically identifies you?


Lets just see what form of argument may be offered up to prove one's identity. I hope all will engage. This should be fun.

motla68
03-27-11, 06:06 AM
A biological father identifies me as his son, being the seed of my father my father and I are one.

Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 10:22 AM
Not sure based on that info I could pick you out of a crowd, even a small crowd at that. lol

Its all hear say I would suppose if you try to connect it to a name. What have you been calling yourself. Frederick Burrell.

David Merrill
03-27-11, 10:44 AM
Would anyone here care to take up the argument of identity with me? I challenge anyone here to prove their identity.

With specificity, what about you proves your identity? Specifically how can i identify you absent any outside source? What is it about you that specifically identifies you?


Lets just see what form of argument may be offered up to prove one's identity. I hope all will engage. This should be fun.

My thumbprint and photo on my signature typically are convincing evidence to identify me.

Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 12:23 PM
all of the foregoing can be changed. If i take a photograph - what about me cannot be changed in the future to completely look 100% different.

Thumbprint you say - those can be filed away - so what about you specifically proves who you are?

Mom and Dad don't cut it. They may be liars. I don't trust them. What, I am to take the word of a third party concerning your identity? How do I know it is you tomorrow?

Legal arguments have no basis here. What I am to trust in a third party again? I don't think so. Okay, I see the problem, Let me rephrase:

Let's say you and I have a talk today - face to face - and we agree to have another talk tomorrow - face to face. How will you know tomorrow that I am me? What will you use to prove my identity so that you can be assured 100% that I am me?

Thank you Frederick Burrell: your name comment is appreciated - names do not identify a living soul. Any rational mind can quickly come to that end.

motla68
03-27-11, 01:51 PM
Not sure based on that info I could pick you out of a crowd, even a small crowd at that. lol

Its all hear say I would suppose if you try to connect it to a name. What have you been calling yourself. Frederick Burrell.

Why does one need a name? Can not a man be described without a name?

motla68
03-27-11, 02:00 PM
Mom and Dad don't cut it. They may be liars. I don't trust them. What, I am to take the word of a third party concerning your identity? How do I know it is you tomorrow?


Since you have a belief in biblical knowledge, in reference to needing 2 or more witnesses, does not Mom and Dad make 2 witnesses?
Now you call them liar without proof of that, where is your standing?

Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 02:03 PM
Since you have a belief in biblical knowledge, in reference to needing 2 or more witnesses, does not Mom and Dad make 2 witnesses?
Now you call them liar without proof of that, where is your standing?

I asked you to identify me absent trusting in another. If you take the Word of Mom and Dad, then you TRUST they are not lying. How is this any way proof of my identity? What?, men and women don't lie? I bet I can drag in two to Claim they are my Mom and Dad will you believe them? How does their witness identify me?

However, your response goes to societal trust - two or more witnesses. Will these be required to take an oath before the Ever Living - at Beersheba - the Well of Oaths? What if these are atheists?

Furthermore, will Mom and Dad show up every day to give their testimony of my Identity?

I just caught David's response regarding Photo. Photo will not get it. I can change every aspect of my appearance. How will you know it me tomorrow?

Please attempt to focus and stay on topic. The topic is Identity. Clearly a Name is not identity.

Anthony Joseph
03-27-11, 02:51 PM
I asked you to identify me absent trusting in another. If you take the Word of Mom and Dad, then you TRUST they are not lying. How is this any way proof of my identity? What?, men and women don't lie? I bet I can drag in two to Claim they are my Mom and Dad will you believe them? How does their witness identify me?

However, your response goes to societal trust - two or more witnesses. Will these be required to take an oath before the Ever Living - at Beersheba - the Well of Oaths? What if these are atheists?

Furthermore, will Mom and Dad show up every day to give their testimony of my Identity?

I just caught David's response regarding Photo. Photo will not get it. I can change every aspect of my appearance. How will you know it me tomorrow?

Please attempt to focus and stay on topic. The topic is Identity. Clearly a Name is not identity.

Define "identity".

Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 03:23 PM
Hey Motla you sound different on audio. lol. perhaps I could Identify you by your voice.

Perhaps I could just read Michael Josephs Aura to ascertain whether he was the same person. Or I could Know or perhaps feel his particular vibration. Frederick Burrell.

I like looking at Aura's myself. But sometime it the soul that expresses itself through the eyes that is the tell tail sign. Night all. late here.

motla68
03-27-11, 03:36 PM
Hey Motla you sound different on audio. lol. perhaps I could Identify you by your voice.

Perhaps I could just read Michael Josephs Aura to ascertain whether he was the same person. Or I could Know or perhaps feel his particular vibration. Frederick Burrell.

I like looking at Aura's myself. But sometime it the soul that expresses itself through the eyes that is the tell tail sign. Night all. late here.

Yes I know, it is a haunting. This is why I usually digitize the voice or a lot of times at meetings have Onlashuk speak, his is a bit clearer and straight forward audibly.

I can see your point with appearance of Oras and Vibrations, they can save a lot of time when dealing with real life situations.

David Merrill
03-27-11, 03:39 PM
I asked you to identify me absent trusting in another. If you take the Word of Mom and Dad, then you TRUST they are not lying. How is this any way proof of my identity? What?, men and women don't lie? I bet I can drag in two to Claim they are my Mom and Dad will you believe them? How does their witness identify me?

However, your response goes to societal trust - two or more witnesses. Will these be required to take an oath before the Ever Living - at Beersheba - the Well of Oaths? What if these are atheists?

Furthermore, will Mom and Dad show up every day to give their testimony of my Identity?

I just caught David's response regarding Photo. Photo will not get it. I can change every aspect of my appearance. How will you know it me tomorrow?

Please attempt to focus and stay on topic. The topic is Identity. Clearly a Name is not identity.

I know that the Name of God is on you from today:

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7545/216gk.jpg


The 72-Fold Name originates from the (click) 72 letters (http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7585/72foldcommentary.jpg)/verse in Exodus 14:19-21.

I once took a supercomputer (http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/599/supercomputer.jpg) to task to find the best standard for resonance in the Table of Relative Weights (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDA4ZTAyYjAtOTkxZC00MDk5LTg1N TEtMjExNjY1MWNkYjBm&hl=en). If you look at that equation you will find too that Gadolinium 157 (named after God btw) is the best 157/157=1 Standard to near all the other values closer to 1 [rather than 12/12=1 Carbon 12]. So there is a place were the 0.99999'ss become 1.0000001's and there is a place where the 1.0000001's become .9999999's. Those two places on the Improved Table (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_72-weights.jpg) are Gadolinium 157 and Germanium 72 - like the 72-Fold Name of God (http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/72foldName.gif).

When I meet with you today (bottom of Page 15), I will take a DNA scan (http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/640/dnadoodle2.jpg):


http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6760/dnadoodle.jpg

I will sum up everything about every memory of every event in history adding up to Michael Joseph - ever recorded; which is sum total (http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6093/truebilltotaltheory.jpg), the man I meet today. Total Theory (http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3163/totaltheory.png). Everybody is a mathematician (http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4631/totaltheoryp22.jpg) - look closely (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2104/burningbush.jpg)! Bring this image (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2104/burningbush.jpg) up full screen ("+" cursor and F11), cross your eyes a little and then relax them while still 'looking'. Your brain might perform an FFT and show you Moses' Burning Bush! - Or better yet; you might have the sky come forward, and you will see the bush like a fist punched into soft clay? [View the incident from God's perspective? That is how your brain does the math?]

Today I might take your thumbprint and then tomorrow when we meet do that again, should the need for security be so great. If you show up tomorrow with an acid burned thumb and sorry excuses though, I will put a NOACHIDE title (http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2162/viningontitle.jpg) upon you - nakar, nokriy (http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/4397/foreignere.jpg). "...feign self to be another," [Foreigner in Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and stranger in 23:20. So now MICHAEL JOSEPH is right back where Michael Joseph was before he began non-endorsing the national debt.] You are now suspect about defrauding me, a representative of the community. If I identify myself with Israel of the Bible my community (state) will identify you with the Children of Noah... Page 1 (http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/2541/nausner1.jpg), Page 2 (http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5027/nausner2.jpg).

You will be correctly identified, mainly because I know who I am. Either way, you will be correctly identified.



Regards,

David Merrill.

motla68
03-27-11, 03:40 PM
I asked you to identify me absent trusting in another. If you take the Word of Mom and Dad, then you TRUST they are not lying. How is this any way proof of my identity? What?, men and women don't lie? I bet I can drag in two to Claim they are my Mom and Dad will you believe them? How does their witness identify me?

However, your response goes to societal trust - two or more witnesses. Will these be required to take an oath before the Ever Living - at Beersheba - the Well of Oaths? What if these are atheists?

Furthermore, will Mom and Dad show up every day to give their testimony of my Identity?

I just caught David's response regarding Photo. Photo will not get it. I can change every aspect of my appearance. How will you know it me tomorrow?

Please attempt to focus and stay on topic. The topic is Identity. Clearly a Name is not identity.

I can see your first point, it is all relative and subject to change at any given moment.

My direction was more towards description of body rather then name though.

Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 03:41 PM
motla

didn't mean to imply your talkshoes were not good. Not being polished is a plus in my book. But its nice you have a working partner. Have not heard him speak yet. maybe tomorrow. Frederick Burrell

Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 03:46 PM
Define "identity".

Excellent. Shows no trust. I am getting there. But for now: Identity is the ability for you to know who I am at a latter time.

Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 03:55 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
I asked you to identify me absent trusting in another. If you take the Word of Mom and Dad, then you TRUST they are not lying. How is this any way proof of my identity? What?, men and women don't lie? I bet I can drag in two to Claim they are my Mom and Dad will you believe them? How does their witness identify me?

However, your response goes to societal trust - two or more witnesses. Will these be required to take an oath before the Ever Living - at Beersheba - the Well of Oaths? What if these are atheists?

Furthermore, will Mom and Dad show up every day to give their testimony of my Identity?

I just caught David's response regarding Photo. Photo will not get it. I can change every aspect of my appearance. How will you know it me tomorrow?

Please attempt to focus and stay on topic. The topic is Identity. Clearly a Name is not identity.





I know that the Name of God is on you from today:

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7545/216gk.jpg


The 72-Fold Name originates from the (click) 72 letters (http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7585/72foldcommentary.jpg)/verse in Exodus 14:19-21.

I once took a supercomputer (http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/599/supercomputer.jpg) to task to find the best standard for resonance in the Table of Relative Weights (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDA4ZTAyYjAtOTkxZC00MDk5LTg1N TEtMjExNjY1MWNkYjBm&hl=en). If you look at that equation you will find too that Gadolinium 157 (named after God btw) is the best 157/157=1 Standard to near all the other values closer to 1 [rather than 12/12=1 Carbon 12]. So there is a place were the 0.99999'ss become 1.0000001's and there is a place where the 1.0000001's become .9999999's. Those two places on the Improved Table (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_72-weights.jpg) are Gadolinium 157 and Germanium 72 - like the 72-Fold Name of God (http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/72foldName.gif).

When I meet with you today (bottom of Page 15), I will take a DNA scan (http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/640/dnadoodle2.jpg):


http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6760/dnadoodle.jpg

I will sum up everything about every memory of every event in history adding up to Michael Joseph - ever recorded; which is sum total (http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6093/truebilltotaltheory.jpg), the man I meet today. Total Theory (http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3163/totaltheory.png). Everybody is a mathematician (http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4631/totaltheoryp22.jpg) - look closely (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2104/burningbush.jpg)! Bring this image (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2104/burningbush.jpg) up full screen ("+" cursor and F11), cross your eyes a little and then relax them while still 'looking'. Your brain might perform an FFT and show you Moses' Burning Bush! - Or better yet; you might have the sky come forward, and you will see the bush like a fist punched into soft clay? [View the incident from God's perspective? That is how your brain does the math?]

Today I might take your thumbprint and then tomorrow when we meet do that again, should the need for security be so great. If you show up tomorrow with an acid burned thumb and sorry excuses though, I will put a NOACHIDE title (http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2162/viningontitle.jpg) upon you - nakar, nokriy (http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/4397/foreignere.jpg). "...feign self to be another," [Foreigner in Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and stranger in 23:20. So now MICHAEL JOSEPH is right back where Michael Joseph was before he began non-endorsing the national debt.] You are now suspect about defrauding me, a representative of the community. If I identify myself with Israel of the Bible my community (state) will identify you with the Children of Noah... Page 1 (http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/2541/nausner1.jpg), Page 2 (http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5027/nausner2.jpg).

You will be correctly identified, mainly because I know who I am. Either way, you will be correctly identified.



Regards,

David Merrill.


David Merrill you have gone to the meat of this matter. I thought for sure there would be many who would come with :

1. How I Sound; or
2. How I Look; or
3. My personality; or
4. My memory; or
5. My Soul; or
6. My Spirit; or

Yet none of these things is able to Identify me to you tomorrow. For Items 1 - 4 can be revised. Items 5 - 6 cannot be seen to the Physical World. Therefore how can the Physical World Identify a man?

Let me cut to the chase - It is IMPOSSIBLE. If you think it possible - then enter the arena - and lets get it on.

Therefore, since it is impossible for a man to be identified from day to day - Persons were created.....Selah....

And now, because I just can't help myself, from Acts 17 - the Commonwealth of Yisra'el:

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

As in I trust in Him. Yet, how do I know you are who you say you are when dealing in commercial affairs. Why your twin brother may just show up and confuse me. Do we need a third party or can i trust in you?

The only way to overcome the problem of Identity is to TRUST. You either Trust in a third Party or you Trust the living soul before you. Yet at the end of the day, the problem of Identity still exists as even the best "devices" can be overcome by a skillful man.

Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 03:58 PM
I can see your first point, it is all relative and subject to change at any given moment.

My direction was more towards description of body rather then name though.

Exactly. Look at a Stream. It looks the same most every day. But is it? Each second new Hydrogen and Oxygen elements are coming and going. So in effect the Stream is NEVER the same. So tell me what about Man is ever the same so that we can gain a purchase on Identity? Nothing!

David Merrill
03-27-11, 04:26 PM
Please update your quote with my finished Post above thank you.

My confidence in identifying you tomorrow is as much correct as how accurately I identify myself today. I only know you by title. The simplest title is Michael Joseph and in the simplest example I gave, for commercial negotiations I would pigeonhole you into a subcategory Michael Joseph the Israelite (fellow/brother) or Noachide (subject to usury and not forgiven debt every seventh year).

Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 04:46 PM
I think I updated like you indicated...if you are thinking something different - let me know. I am getting used to the environment.....

Excellent. But notice that the frame that you context your response is within Trust in God. As we go to Deuteronomy or Leviticus to determine the Law. So then what if I have a twin the looks exactly like me, sounds like me, acts like me - what of Identity Now? Will you trust that my Twin is "Persona" - Michael Joseph?

If we Trust in God - we truly stand before the Ever Living and are Completely Liable for our actions - Just ask Korah. Numbers 16. Yehovah will not tolerate false balances - Proverbs 11:1.

Therefore Identity within a Yisra'elite system is based in Yehovah. Therefore Yehovah said "Do all things in my Name".

And later the Commonwealth was opened up to all nations - in Him - Acts 17:28. Peter being told - call no man common.

Yet Yisra'el defaulted on the Trust Agreement [Covenant if you like] and the Resulting Trust was picked up by the Sons of Cain - Jeremiah 35. The city builders who are well skilled at commerce - their Dad was the King of Tyrus. Yet these too will have truth - just in a different system.

Jdg 9:15 And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

cedars of Lebanon = children of Yisra'el. The bramble has a system under the Well of Oaths - Penalty of Perjury - yet these too are based in truth. The bramble creates Persona's and the Persona's are Identified. Because Man cannot be identified.

Survey questions like - DL, SSN, picture ID [2nd Form], DOB - all go to Survey and Identify the Persona.

David Merrill
03-27-11, 05:18 PM
I think I updated like you indicated...if you are thinking something different - let me know. I am getting used to the environment.....

Excellent. But notice that the frame that you context your response is within Trust in God. As we go to Deuteronomy or Leviticus to determine the Law. So then what if I have a twin the looks exactly like me, sounds like me, acts like me - what of Identity Now? Will you trust that my Twin is "Persona" - Michael Joseph?

If we Trust in God - we truly stand before the Ever Living and are Completely Liable for our actions - Just ask Korah. Numbers 16. Yehovah will not tolerate false balances - Proverbs 11:1.

Therefore Identity within a Yisra'elite system is based in Yehovah. Therefore Yehovah said "Do all things in my Name".

And later the Commonwealth was opened up to all nations - in Him - Acts 17:28. Peter being told - call no man common.

Yet Yisra'el defaulted on the Trust Agreement [Covenant if you like] and the Resulting Trust was picked up by the Sons of Cain - Jeremiah 35. The city builders who are well skilled at commerce - their Dad was the King of Tyrus. Yet these too will have truth - just in a different system.

Jdg 9:15 And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

cedars of Lebanon = children of Yisra'el. The bramble has a system under the Well of Oaths - Penalty of Perjury - yet these too are based in truth. The bramble creates Persona's and the Persona's are Identified. Because Man cannot be identified.

Survey questions like - DL, SSN, picture ID [2nd Form], DOB - all go to Survey and Identify the Persona.

Grab a current Quote (Ctrl-C) of my post and Replace it (Ctrl-V) into your Post. You were working on it while I was still editing. Sometimes I will put a red Still Editing... at the end but today I neglected to.

The Boundaries and Survey are seldom thought about in Western Christianity. I am speaking of the fundamental difference in laws. The Israelites/Jews have the Ten Commandments (www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif) (you neglected to mention Exodus, specifically the Laws of Moses - Chapters 20-24:7 (http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2732/hebrewlaw1s.jpg)) and everybody else has the Seven Noachide Laws (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL_102-14_1.jpg).

If you or your twin show up as Michael Joseph - only one of you wears that TITLE in honor - that determines metaphysically what your TITLE is - brother, or child of Noah. Presuming that I identify myself with Israel of the Bible - which I do not. [Serving God in his Bloodthirsty State at the Golden Calf Orgy is rather cumbersome, even through the Perfect Sacrificial Lamb, Jesus CHRIST.] Think about it, before the Income Tax a man had to slaughter his prize-perfect bull and soforth; sounds a lot like an income tax to me!



Regards,

David Merrill.

Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 05:49 PM
Grab a current Quote (Ctrl-C) of my post and Replace it (Ctrl-V) into your Post. You were working on it while I was still editing. Sometimes I will put a red Still Editing... at the end but today I neglected to.

The Boundaries and Survey are seldom thought about in Western Christianity. I am speaking of the fundamental difference in laws. The Israelites/Jews have the Ten Commandments (www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/HebrewLaw.gif) (you neglected to mention Exodus, specifically the Laws of Moses - Chapters 20-24:7 (http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2732/hebrewlaw1s.jpg)) and everybody else has the Seven Noachide Laws (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL_102-14_1.jpg).

If you or your twin show up as Michael Joseph - only one of you wears that TITLE in honor - that determines metaphysically what your TITLE is - brother, or child of Noah. Presuming that I identify myself with Israel of the Bible - which I do not. [Serving God in his Bloodthirsty State at the Golden Calf Orgy is rather cumbersome, even through the Perfect Sacrificial Lamb, Jesus CHRIST.] Think about it, before the Income Tax a man had to slaughter his prize-perfect bull and soforth; sounds a lot like an income tax to me!



Regards,

David Merrill.

You know this is not the place here as we are discussing Identity; but Yehovah did away with Animal Sacrifice long before Yehoshuah. I know where you are getting the Everyone Else doctrine from Acts yet if you read on they all came to agreement at the Tribunal in Jerusalem that they would preach Noahide Laws but that the people naturally at each Sabbath would hear Moses.

ah heck, I will do it Hosea 6:6. Love and Mercy is the Sacrifice that Yehovah desires. A strict reading of Isaiah 6:4 will also show that Yehovah did away with Animal Blood Sacrifice.

The Income Tax today "as you put it" - is your Mercy and Love - Charity to your fellow man.

----

Yet back to identity; while the Fake Claiming the Title is undeserving of it - how can one know unless one is a Watchman and has been Watching for a long time? The latter question goes very deep.

Therefore relationships are built on trust - your action - honor. To me what you call yourself is inconsequential. I know after a while if I can trust you or not. A watchman watches.

What if I start calling myself Michael son of Joseph. That is true as well. A name has nothing to do with identifying a man. For tomorrow if I completely change my whole outward appearance and start calling myself Andrew Michael how would you know it's me? Therefore the shortcut in LEGAL LAND - legal fictions - persona.

Nothing new under the Sun -

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.

Yet men desire to place constructs neatly in a box so that they can label the box - it makes things easier. If the Label shares the same Rights well then things get a whole lot easier. Especially for the ones in the eaves.

martin earl
03-27-11, 06:36 PM
My Identity is self-evident, as are my rights, endowed upon me by my creator, they need no witness, no certification, no record or agreement.

If I put my mark on something, I can attest to it, as can the witness to the event. That mark might be special for just that event.

Now, if we are to go strictly by the law, I should dip the great toe of my right foot into the blood of the sacrificial animal and seal the covenant record. That is where the "Thumb print in red ink" comes from.

I am is self-evident, Word bonded and blood atoned.

Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 07:22 PM
My Identity is self-evident, as are my rights, endowed upon me by my creator, they need no witness, no certification, no record or agreement.

If I put my mark on something, I can attest to it, as can the witness to the event. That mark might be special for just that event.

Now, if we are to go strictly by the law, I should dip the great toe of my right foot into the blood of the sacrificial animal and seal the covenant record. That is where the "Thumb print in red ink" comes from.

I am is self-evident, Word bonded and blood atoned.

who are you again? your assertion that you can be identified as self evident is absurd. There is nothing about you that cannot be changed. Fact is what if you were seized and your memories erased. There is nothing physical, mental or spiritual that does not change about you. Nothing. So my or your ability to identify ourselves in not inherent within ourselves. Others must trust we are who we say we are. Oh by the way martin earl, whats your last name? ROFLMAO.....

I suppose you have never entered upon any commercial endeavors martin earl; else if you had you might appreciate that those who engage you might want to know it is you they are dealing with. I am still waiting for that Last name, martin earl.....I am still laughing.

martin earl
03-28-11, 12:13 AM
who are you again? your assertion that you can be identified as self evident is absurd. There is nothing about you that cannot be changed. Fact is what if you were seized and your memories erased. There is nothing physical, mental or spiritual that does not change about you. Nothing. So my or your ability to identify ourselves in not inherent within ourselves. Others must trust we are who we say we are. Oh by the way martin earl, whats your last name? ROFLMAO.....

I suppose you have never entered upon any commercial endeavors martin earl; else if you had you might appreciate that those who engage you might want to know it is you they are dealing with. I am still waiting for that Last name, martin earl.....I am still laughing.

Those who know me can identify me and they do not need a name to it. That which makes me me is eternal and transcends this physical illusion, the I AM that is me was before, now and forever.

Who am I? If you are asking me to revel my New Name, I cannot do that here, not the time nor the place, nor have the proper signs and tokens been presented to qualify for such a revelation.

I have and do enter into commercial endeavors under many names, even the dreaded Trust name when there is an explicit agreement between the STATE and I as to what I accept and agree to in doing so.

Others trust in me has nothing to do with a name, but with my actions toward and with them. Should I violate that trust, no name is needed, as my accusers can stand witness that I AM who they trusted.

I have no "self" to identify, as I am self-evident, even if my memories were erased, I would still exist, changed for my experiences here, but still me.

Michael Joseph
03-28-11, 12:55 AM
well you have effectively ducked the entire argument. Tell me how those who know you can identify you? What is it about you that is so identifiable that other men lack?

Even the State cannot identify you. The State identifies its Person. Thank you for making my point.

Identity is a HUGE problem. Thus the Persona.

Who you are or who I am is of no consequence to this argument of what about me allows others to know with a surety it is me tomorrow. There is nothing about me that identifies me tomorrow.

Names change so a name cannot identify a man. If I met you today martin earl and we scheduled a time to meet tomorrow what about you would allow me to know it is you that I have met? There is nothing about you that strictly speaking can identify you tomorrow.

You ask why in the heck is he pushing this...BECAUSE the State created persons are used to mend the Impossibility of Identifying a man. The Person is easily identifiable - SSN, DL, DOB, etc. And if you even look remotely like the picture on the DL well then that's good enough. So then what if my identity is stolen - ROFLMAO.....my identity can never be proven - only the Person.

I do not believe i ever entered the option of Law to establish the identity of a man. How absurd. Law has no bearing in regard to the Physical Eyes (five senses) and the Spiritual Eyes.

Whether or not someone trusts in you has no bearing on your identity. I could care less about the State; the State has nothing to do with the Physical or Spiritual Identity of a man.

For those who think they can identify themselves, I open the door and put forth the challenge. Whether or not you deem it important, I could care less. The argument is that you cannot identify yourself. I'll wait.....

Michael Joseph
03-28-11, 01:09 AM
Just found this on the web regarding Identity and its importance (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/)

I like this one too (http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/02/personal-identity.html)

martin earl
03-28-11, 01:26 AM
well you have effectively ducked the entire argument. Tell me how those who know you can identify you? What is it about you that is so identifiable that other men lack?

Even the State cannot identify you. The State identifies its Person. Thank you for making my point.

Identity is a HUGE problem. Thus the Persona.

Who you are or who I am is of no consequence to this argument of what about me allows others to know with a surety it is me tomorrow. There is nothing about me that identifies me tomorrow.

Names change so a name cannot identify a man. If I met you today martin earl and we scheduled a time to meet tomorrow what about you would allow me to know it is you that I have met? There is nothing about you that strictly speaking can identify you tomorrow.

You ask why in the heck is he pushing this...BECAUSE the State created persons are used to mend the Impossibility of Identifying a man. The Person is easily identifiable - SSN, DL, DOB, etc. And if you even look remotely like the picture on the DL well then that's good enough. So then what if my identity is stolen - ROFLMAO.....my identity can never be proven - only the Person.

I do not believe i ever entered the option of Law to establish the identity of a man. How absurd. Law has no bearing in regard to the Physical Eyes (five senses) and the Spiritual Eyes.

Whether or not someone trusts in you has no bearing on your identity. I could care less about the State; the State has nothing to do with the Physical or Spiritual Identity of a man.

For those who think they can identify themselves, I open the door and put forth the challenge. Whether or not you deem it important, I could care less. The argument is that you cannot identify yourself. I'll wait.....

I have not dodged the argument, should YOU harm me, say, break my arm in a fight, without a mask or disguise, or if I could hold you at the scene until others arrived, I could IDENTIFY you as the man who broke my arm.

That is called witness. I can point my finger at you, in court and say "that is the man who broke my arm". Now, that is not to say you are guilty of a crime, just simple witness. Other witnesses could put you at the fight, and with enough eye witnesses, you could be convicted of a crime.

No name, no Date of Birth no PERSON needed. That is the way the law is supposed to work. You and I agree that nothing physical can identify me. I for one do not believe DNA is any indicator of a BODY since, I cannot testify if the DNA came from me, therefore, I cannot say if or who it DID come from. Does DNA even exist? I have never seen DNA and cannot be a witness to it.

I do not have to accept any "expert" opinion on the matter of DNA either, that would be bearing false witness, against me or another.

I have stood in front of the STATE High Priests and demanded they IDENTIFY me (remember, I used to be a police officer for these same people) they did not even try to tie me to the STATE Person. Not even a peep from my own neighbors (I was standing next to a former Sgt. of mine from the police department, he did not utter a word).

In fact, not even my "parents" can testify to my date of birth, place of birth or true name, because, reportedly, I was at least 3 days old when they became my "parents". I know of no man or woman on this earth that can identify ME.

That means is up to my Creator, and/or ME. I can identify me, it I am self-evident. HOW I chose to identify me is up to me.

However, you and I are in agreement, nobody else has the power to identify me, nor can I prove who I am, I fail to see why I would need to.

The Master recognizes His own, and I will recognize the Master, I hope. I cannot testify to the Fact that my Master even exists, since I have not seen Him with my physical eyes, thus faith is those things hoped for but NOT seen.

Testimony is those things seen and known, witness is not proof, only witness, but the law states in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses, the truth shall be established. That is the law for our physical realm.

I agree with you, no body can prove its own identity, that does not mean there is not a body.

Michael Joseph
03-28-11, 01:45 AM
Very good. Now that we agree it is impossible for one to prove identity we can go to numerous places in Yehovah's Word - I like this one in particular:

Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.


I will not argue that there are heuristics that a living soul may employ to "cut corners" in regard to identity; I have friends and I can listen to their speech patterns, they look approximately the same [maybe some weight fluctuations], they have approximately the same intellectual styles so I can feel pretty safe that my friend is who I think he is. But in reality i cannot know for certain so I must Trust my friend.

And the foregoing is an implied trust. The Society is not as forgiving when it comes to heuristic approximations; as such, "devices" are created that are not exactly true, they are fictions, yet, these devices require the Trust of a living soul in order to come into existence.

For instance, I went into a DMV office about three months back and asked the head clerk what would it take to get a State issued ID. His response to me was that I would need to show trust in the State, by way of a Driver's License, a Social Security Number, someone who is already Trusting in the State to "vouch" for me, perhaps a high-school picture, or proof of a Residential Address". I have none of those so I thanked him for his time and left.

Society Identifies the Person - not the living soul. The Living Soul shows his Trust by his words and his actions. Therefore the Persona belongs to State [societal trust]. See that a survey was taken on a child at birth and a person was created...just sitting there and waiting for a living soul to USE it.

The Living Soul has always been without the State.

Two trusts:

Jeremiah 17:5 - in man

Jeremiah 17:7 - in the Ever Living Self Existing One.

thank you for your testimony regarding your experiences. I just re-read your post.....Exactly! ONLY you are with the ability to say who you are. Why? Because there is NOTHING about you that I can use to identify you tomorrow - me too.

Thus the ancient saying my Word is my Bond. Why because I stand before the Ever Living - I lie not. Let Yehovah judge righteously between me and thee. But then one says, i know not your God. A choice is ever present for man to express his Trust. It is really quite simple.

The Truth is simple yes?

David Merrill
03-28-11, 04:08 AM
The simplest title I have on you is Michael Joseph; in natural law.

by implication
03-28-11, 04:41 AM
I am that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... I am' :p

David Merrill
03-28-11, 11:27 AM
I am that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... I am' :p

Constructive, implied and resulting trusts form Michael Joseph's identity. Relationships.

Michael Joseph
03-29-11, 05:42 AM
Quote Originally Posted by by implication
I am that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... I am'


Constructive, implied and resulting trusts form Michael Joseph's identity. Relationships.

What happens if I leave the circle of Trust? Do I lose my identity and need to rebuild?

Thus the convenience of Citizenry - Cestui Que Trust - a Fiction with basis in a Trusted "Higher Up" . Why the "Higher Up" would never lie - we Trust the "High Ones". They carry Titles - Governor, Congressman, Doctor, Engineer, Surveyor, Pastor; etc....

As for me, I'll just throw the country accent on so thick you would never in a million years guess you were speaking with Michael Joseph. I can make "boys" into three syllables if i need to. :)

I am unconcerned with identity; however, I can appreciate the problem it causes with those who help keep the Order and Rule.

David Merrill
03-29-11, 11:42 AM
What happens if I leave the circle of Trust? Do I lose my identity and need to rebuild?

Thus the convenience of Citizenry - Cestui Que Trust - a Fiction with basis in a Trusted "Higher Up" . Why the "Higher Up" would never lie - we Trust the "High Ones". They carry Titles - Governor, Congressman, Doctor, Engineer, Surveyor, Pastor; etc....

As for me, I'll just throw the county accent on so thick you would never in a million years guess you were speaking with Michael Joseph. I can make "boys" into three syllables if i need to. :)

I am unconcerned with identity; however, I can appreciate the problem it causes with those who help keep the Order and Rule.


That is probably why this thread came off (at times) childish and NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming). If I cannot identify you, then we simply have no relationship. Identification is critical. If my own perceptions of my own identity are faulty, then I have no basis for relationship with others (no contracts are binding). For a quick trip, to see if you might be interested in spending 90 minutes on it, listen to my opening remark in Part 1, and the very ending of Parts 2 and 3 (27:40 Minute Mark).

Psychological Evaluation as an Arraignment Tool. (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWI4OWZmNzEtMjY1My00MzJlLWE5Z mYtMjZjMmU2Y2UxNDFh&hl=en)

motla68
03-29-11, 12:41 PM
Why is that man has to make things so complicated all the time, we did not start out this way.

Gen. 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.

David Merrill
03-29-11, 12:50 PM
The only one punching keys on the keyboard here is me.

motla68
03-29-11, 01:23 PM
The only one punching keys on the keyboard here is me.

Who is " me " ? is me a name sealed on to your body in which to identify you with? and what about the other names, cousin, uncle, nephew or any of the other vulgarities when people get mad at us?

Michael Joseph
03-29-11, 04:02 PM
If I cannot identify you, then we simply have no relationship.

Exactly. Thank you for that.

Yet we do have relationships with other men and women. And, yet, it is impossible to identify those other men and women - so we take certain aspects of their nature on faith. The Banker does not share that same faith, so he would like to know about your Person.

osbogosley
03-30-11, 06:41 AM
I am everybody and nobody. I am everywhere and nowhere, but thats another topic.

David Merrill
03-30-11, 11:05 AM
Who is " me " ? is me a name sealed on to your body in which to identify you with? and what about the other names, cousin, uncle, nephew or any of the other vulgarities when people get mad at us?

The name is the most basic title. If I grab lamb chops, I know a fellow named Butcher. We have a relationship. I am headed for checkout with money to buy the product he is being paid for.


Exactly. Thank you for that.

Yet we do have relationships with other men and women. And, yet, it is impossible to identify those other men and women - so we take certain aspects of their nature on faith. The Banker does not share that same faith, so he would like to know about your Person.

The banker views me as an account holder. Well, until Information (indictment) is secured - there is no trust. Click Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6yorZgAUC0). I am sending cash to China (interesting enough) and so I wanted to replace 9-$20's ($180) with four bills ($100, $50, $20 and $10). I pulled out my Redeemed Lawful Money stamp and stamped my bills in front of Elisha but she waited for 15 minutes on hold, and was working on her routine so even though I was using her desk for the operation, I am not sure she even noticed. I was using my camera to record so the audio stops as I stood up to take the photo. She grabbed the Signature Card Form from me and corrected me; since there was no flash, apparently she chose the impression she grabbed it in time - before I got my shot.

As you listen though, note the photo is nearly illegible and that I say her title but have removed her full name, as I read it from her nameplate while she went to get my hardcopy - for me to read there only. You hear her even ask the attorney if she can just damage the Form so that I cannot possibly use it... I have removed long pauses while I read for example - but one pause is while the attorney gave her a lengthy explanation or instructions probably on the presumption I was waiting out in the lobby as conditioned.

As you start the video though, note that she was on hold for at least 15 minutes while they researched the trust formation I proposed - that I be able to take a blank Signature Card Form home so that I could read it in a relaxed and comfortable environment, discuss it with my spouse etc. The description of the trust was that I was expected to stand outside of earshot while she studied the "situation" but I moved in, and sat in one of the two customer chairs anyway, ignoring the conditioning that I was imposing on her space. She moved her work from directly in front of me because it had trusted customer names on it. When the attorney had done his research - apparently I am a strange animal because I would like not to be rushed while I consider a contract - he comes on the speakerphone for Alisha and she quickly jabbed the phone to make his side of the instructions private from me; rather than let me hear.

All the while I presume, she trusted me not to be recording the conversation or to be putting it on YouTube. But me, I apparently made the whole thing awkward because I was not conditioned to sign into a position of trust - Account Holder. I did not want to alert her that I got the photo so I did not turn the audio recorder back on afterward, after the photo. Best she forget about the camera; but I assure you, for me to get into that position of trust I would have to be actively engaged in the Social Security Trust.



I am everybody and nobody. I am everywhere and nowhere, but thats another topic.

Philosophical!

However you are not me. The latest StarGate episodes have "Stones" - which is a consciousness transference mechanism and there is a lot of confusion about who is in whose body...

osbogosley
03-30-11, 12:26 PM
Are you really in the body? Are you the conscious mind? Do you have thoughts or does Human think and you recieve?

David Merrill
03-30-11, 03:03 PM
Are you really in the body? Are you the conscious mind? Do you have thoughts or does Human think and you recieve?

It feels as though here is where I woke up, again. I repaired my audio recorder and so tested the battery while I slept. For grins I looked at it on my audio editor program and noticed a noise about 1:30 am - I coughed. I don't remember coughing but it sounds like me. There is a possibility I was not here, because I was unconscious and the only thing that indicates I was is the continuity test I inadvertently set up on myself as a Reality Check.

To me though, this entire thread is a bit childish; like kids sitting around the Ditch behind the high school smoking pot.

Mark Christopher
03-30-11, 04:24 PM
To me though, this entire thread is a bit childish; like kids sitting around the Ditch behind the high school smoking pot.

Ahh...those were the days!!

Childish, yes however that is where conditioning starts, and do we not start were we stopped? I think this is fun, we tend to forget the basics and we must build on a solid foundation (One thing I have learned painfully well). In a society identity is an agreed upon set of parameters that applies to ones who agree with it by their consent. (I am keeping this at a Macro level and assuming groups of fleshy thinking things, so don't kill me) Of course, there will never be total agreeance or adhereance to those principals but a loose frame work. Tom-a-to,Tom-ah-to but we understand it is a red fruit (some people think veggie:p) we slice and put on sandwiches. Also I believe the trick is agencies or other entities attempting to ensnare you don't identify you at all, they let you do it to yourself or confirm the assumption.
Guy: Excuse me are you, Mark Brinton?
Me: Yes.
Guy:We have a warrant for your arrest.
Me: Damn!

OR Is this YOUR SSN?

Now that I think of it doesn't claiming of property (even if it isn't yours) also imply Identity?

MC

motla68
03-30-11, 04:58 PM
To me though, this entire thread is a bit childish; like kids sitting around the Ditch behind the high school smoking pot.

Yep, 2 steps back to take 1 step forward, and how would you know this unless you had experienced it before? lol [grin]

osbogosley
03-30-11, 06:38 PM
Now that I think of it doesn't claiming of property (even if it isn't yours) also imply Identity?

A name is given to property by the owner, thereof. Isn't that what Eric WhoRU says?

Frederick Burrell
03-30-11, 06:54 PM
Now that I think of it doesn't claiming of property (even if it isn't yours) also imply Identity?

A name is given to property by the owner, thereof. Isn't that what Eric WhoRU says?

by that reasoning claiming anything would Identify you. Can and would you let anyone just walk into were you are living and take anything they want. What makes your right of use superior to another's right of use. You make a claim. As in the wild west, staking your claim. It would seem we can get very philosophical in this regard, but we must at some point bring it down to a level that works in the real world. FB

Michael Joseph
03-30-11, 07:03 PM
Are you really in the body? Are you the conscious mind? Do you have thoughts or does Human think and you recieve?

I recognize Plato's Cave. I too am a philosopher. No man can prove his identity, even with third party it is impossible - I cannot know the thoughts in my head are actually my thoughts. And since I cannot see my Soul/Spirit, I cannot know that it is even me tomorrow. Because that Serpent that crawled down into the Garden - Central Nervous System - has a way of tricking a man.

Identity with another living soul has the Sole basis of Trust. Because we must Trust we are dealing with the Same man from day to day. Most just never stop to think about it and presume there is no trickery. So to even carry on a conversation - implies Trust.

As such, when asked a question from an Attorney that I do not like - my response - I have no trust in you. They get it. Why others can't see it, is beyond me.

motla68
03-30-11, 07:13 PM
by that reasoning claiming anything would Identify you. Can and would you let anyone just walk into were you are living and take anything they want. What makes your right of use superior to another's right of use. You make a claim. As in the wild west, staking your claim. It would seem we can get very philosophical in this regard, but we must at some point bring it down to a level that works in the real world. FB

Talk to MJ about that one if he cares to extrapolate, he had a situation where the only thing claimed was the wife and children, he had acknowledged that the county was in possession of title to the property though, but they went away without searching the domicile. I myself have shared with you all a story about when I was pulled over, prepared to just leave the vehicle on the side of the road and walk away from it, but cop said no that will not be necessary even though the DL, inspection and registration were all expired. They cannot charge a name if nobody claims it then it is setoff or discharged(#23) (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?151-Law-of-Trusts&p=1171&viewfull=1#post1171).

Anthony Joseph
03-30-11, 07:33 PM
Rather than continue with this discussion in futility whereby any offers will be rebuted with the same style, methodology and reasoning already displayed here, let us move on to the next part of the issue presuming your argument as true; if proving one's identity is not possible, what then?

What is your solution to this question you posed or what, if anything, should be done in the absence of being able to prove "identity"?

Michael Joseph
03-30-11, 08:02 PM
Rather than continue with this discussion in futility whereby any offers will be rebuted with the same style, methodology and reasoning already displayed here, let us move on to the next part of the issue presuming your argument as true; if proving one's identity is not possible, what then?

What is your solution to this question you posed or what, if anything, should be done in the absence of being able to prove "identity"?

A man who cuts to the Chase - I like it.

One might get very upset with me for my persistence - so be it. Yet, my persistence seems is paying off as I hope we have shed now the illusion of identity.

Since I cannot identify you and you cannot identify me - WITH ANY CERTAINTY. We must TRUST each other.

And some men do not TRUST another man - they TRUST in society. So they run into Egypt to help them settle their problems. And Society acts to fashion a Construct that is equally repugnant. A man trusting in a third party to help said man identify another man is repugnant to me - at least. Maybe not you.

So the Third Party - lets call it STATE - form Persons - to cure the Impossibility of Identity. Are you seeing the Person now in a new light? The Person is the "work around" to identity.

You say "work around" - huh?

That's Right - and it works because the Person continues to Persist based on the Energy that the Living Soul puts into IT. Therefore the ONLY one who can identify himself does so in the Person by and thru that One's ACTIONS. And Actions Imply TRUST. And the Society TRUSTS in this system.

But is is True? No. A Third Party can not identify a man; it can only Trust too, that the Man using the Person is honest.

This seems obvious to me.

Frederick Burrell
03-30-11, 08:04 PM
Is the name the real issue in regards to separating oneself from the state. It would seem that presumption that you are somehow fall under their jurisdiction would seem to be the issue. MJ has already shown that silence is not the answer they will just give you a new name ie. John Doe and proceed with the prosecution. Many have stated that to claim the name is a trespass and hence you are guilty for using the name. But this does not seem to be the bottom line for is John Doe guilty of the trespass. No. So it would seem that the name is not the linch pin holding there case against you together. FB.

Sorry off topic. So I guess we must concede that MJ statement is true. we cannot prove our identity.

motla68
03-30-11, 09:04 PM
Is the name the real issue in regards to separating oneself from the state. It would seem that presumption that you are somehow fall under their jurisdiction would seem to be the issue. MJ has already shown that silence is not the answer they will just give you a new name ie. John Doe and proceed with the prosecution. Many have stated that to claim the name is a trespass and hence you are guilty for using the name. But this does not seem to be the bottom line for is John Doe guilty of the trespass. No. So it would seem that the name is not the linch pin holding there case against you together. FB.

Sorry off topic. So I guess we must concede that MJ statement is true. we cannot prove our identity.

I have found it to be solved by a simple phrase so far: " I do not consent to be recognized by that name ". Unless they have literally branded your body how could they prove consent otherwise without wet ink signatures of your " mark " or a certified copy thereof?

I have a right to self determination as my mind changes learning more without needing approval of a piece of paper telling me otherwise.
The COLB is recording when we were a child, well, we are no longer children anymore.

Michael Joseph
03-30-11, 09:32 PM
Is the name the real issue in regards to separating oneself from the state. It would seem that presumption that you are somehow fall under their jurisdiction would seem to be the issue. MJ has already shown that silence is not the answer they will just give you a new name ie. John Doe and proceed with the prosecution. Many have stated that to claim the name is a trespass and hence you are guilty for using the name. But this does not seem to be the bottom line for is John Doe guilty of the trespass. No. So it would seem that the name is not the linch pin holding there case against you together. FB.

Sorry off topic. So I guess we must concede that MJ statement is true. we cannot prove our identity.

Thank you for that - the thread is not about separation it is about Identity.

Michael Joseph
03-30-11, 09:42 PM
I have found it to be solved by a simple phrase so far: " I do not consent to be recognized by that name ". Unless they have literally branded your body how could they prove consent otherwise without wet ink signatures of your " mark " or a certified copy thereof?

I have a right to self determination as my mind changes learning more without needing approval of a piece of paper telling me otherwise.
The COLB is recording when we were a child, well, we are no longer children anymore.

Please continue Motla68 as you are leaving out a HuGE chunk. Your statement is Vague at best. A name CANNOT identify a man. That is an impossibility - so I refuse to be identified by that name is absurd and the judge knows it. So does anyone else who has even taken a moment to consider identity. Yet, i guess that statement does show your intent to "self govern".

Therefore each man and groupings of men [State or Corporations] are left with Trust. Implied or Express.

So you handle certain papers - how did you get them? Why did you get them? I can already hear the Civilians roar - by Necessity. Get used to the conflict is all I got to say; but I digress; those papers DO NOT identify a man - they identify a man's Person. And this concept is probably at least 5500 years old or older. Yet the concept of the Person is recorded by the writer of the Great Book of Job.

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man

The Right of Self Determination has nothing to do with Identity. Control is established to resolve this problem thru State - man ACCEPTS the position IN Cestui Que Vie Trust and thus also accepts being Governed.

I say michael joseph, am I, yet I cannot prove it. Will you trust me that I am an honest man? Or do you need a second witness?

John Booth
03-30-11, 09:49 PM
"As such, when asked a question from an Attorney that I do not like - my response - I have no trust in you. They get it. Why others can't see it, is beyond me."

that is a brilliant example. I see it.

You say and act in concert with who you are, and display your identity. It cannot be duplicated.

What can be repeated though, is the opportunity to engage again in circumstances of your liking and control due to the recognition of where your trust is.

Thank you for this thread, identity is a fundamental tautology in this arena. And if your first principle is flawed then all heck breaks out.

Michael Joseph
03-30-11, 10:04 PM
"As such, when asked a question from an Attorney that I do not like - my response - I have no trust in you. They get it. Why others can't see it, is beyond me."


that is a brilliant example. I see it.

You say and act in concert with who you are, and display your identity. It cannot be duplicated.

What can be repeated though, is the opportunity to engage again in circumstances of your liking and control due to the recognition of where your trust is.

Thank you for this thread, identity is a fundamental tautology in this arena. And if your first principle is flawed then all heck breaks out.

Thank you John Booth I am happy to see that someone has finally expressed back to me what I was trying to hard to show. I had to park a lot of tradition at the door before I could see this simple truth. Identity goes to Foundation - if you house is on sand and you think some sort of "name" builds your identity - well there you go. Enjoy that. I used to think the same way. But not anymore.

In the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I remain. Which is a WAY OF LIFE.


shalom

P.S. Why do I know that simple expression works? Heheh. I have had it used on me three times now by Attorneys. So I took notice of its power and started to dig to comprehend its meaning and now I have it and it is mine. "I have no trust in you" simply means: "I do not desire a relationship with you, and I do not have a relationship with you; and, stop talking to me."

If we continue in discourse well then, that is an implied trust - isn't it? It is so simple.

David Merrill
03-30-11, 10:40 PM
The COLB is recording when we were a child, well, we are no longer children anymore.

I don't remember it getting like this in high school. Well, before I mentioned it anyway. That is as interesting to me; how immature it seemed before I mentioned it all sounded immature, trying to sound profound or whatever - space each other out for a moment! Then we got right into the heart of it - identity.

This author - Joseph VINING really has a way with words. I think we need to look at a few pages from his apology to help understand what John Booth said:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1541/viningpreface1.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7075/viningpreface2.jpg


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/269/viningstanding1.jpg
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4747/viningstanding2.jpg
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2159/viningstanding3.jpg

When using the Person, then you can have the positive ID. Interestingly, when you lose the Person, your cause becomes a Class Action, according to VINING. Our Cause all blends together, like what MJ is saying - quite lucidly too. Without our identity, we are just the same generic cause - eat, sleep and excrete. If we don't do that the invariable result is death. Our common cause is to stay alive.

It is a great book but the concluding chapters - that is what I heard the book is about. So it is an apology for what MJ is saying, written from the attorney/court side of the whole issue of identity; Legal Identity - The Coming of Age of Public Law (http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3819/viningauthorityandreali.jpg).

motla68
03-30-11, 11:44 PM
Please continue Motla68 as you are leaving out a HuGE chunk. Your statement is Vague at best. A name CANNOT identify a man. That is an impossibility - so I refuse to be identified by that name is absurd and the judge knows it. So does anyone else who has even taken a moment to consider identity. Yet, i guess that statement does show your intent to "self govern".

Therefore each man and groupings of men [State or Corporations] are left with Trust. Implied or Express.

So you handle certain papers - how did you get them? Why did you get them? I can already hear the Civilians roar - by Necessity. Get used to the conflict is all I got to say; but I digress; those papers DO NOT identify a man - they identify a man's Person. And this concept is probably at least 5500 years old or older. Yet the concept of the Person is recorded by the writer of the Great Book of Job.

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man

The Right of Self Determination has nothing to do with Identity. Control is established to resolve this problem thru State - man ACCEPTS the position IN Cestui Que Vie Trust and thus also accepts being Governed.

I say michael joseph, am I, yet I cannot prove it. Will you trust me that I am an honest man? Or do you need a second witness?

Is it really that I left something out OR is it that you do not "trust" that it can be that simple? The rest is you fill in the blank what you give permission to be called, friend, envoy, living soul, take your pick. I should not have to think for people on every post like this. If that is the case it is not a brain trust, it is a paper trust or the silver platter trust. People have to be left there to make their own connections sometimes or else how does anyone ever learn? - teach them to Learn how to self teach. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for life, is that not technically how it should go morally speaking? [ self govern so that we do not need a nanny government outside ourselves ]

Offers of labels are given to us everyday, when your children call you Dad, could you not rebut the mistake of that and give permission to be called father?
A man should be able to think on their feet without a piece of paper giving them approval to do so.

Thank you for adding that verse by the way. Check out / deconstruct flattering, it may or may not be a surprise to you.

motla68
03-30-11, 11:50 PM
I don't remember it getting like this in high school. Well, before I mentioned it anyway. That is as interesting to me; how immature it seemed before I mentioned it all sounded immature, trying to sound profound or whatever - space each other out for a moment! Then we got right into the heart of it - identity.

This author - Joseph VINING really has a way with words. I think we need to look at a few pages from his apology to help understand what John Booth said:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1541/viningpreface1.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7075/viningpreface2.jpg


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/269/viningstanding1.jpg
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4747/viningstanding2.jpg
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2159/viningstanding3.jpg

When using the Person, then you can have the positive ID. Interestingly, when you lose the Person, your cause becomes a Class Action, according to VINING. Our Cause all blends together, like what MJ is saying - quite lucidly too. Without our identity, we are just the same generic cause - eat, sleep and excrete. If we don't do that the invariable result is death. Our common cause is to stay alive.

It is a great book but the concluding chapters - that is what I heard the book is about. So it is an apology for what MJ is saying, written from the attorney/court side of the whole issue of identity; Legal Identity - The Coming of Age of Public Law (http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3819/viningauthorityandreali.jpg).

Yes, you are on the right track with this. Soon I will be putting up a new thread with a slight parallel path to this thought, but instead of Class Action it is more like Probate, returning the instrument with name to the source for indemnification. Now to get this straight I am not talking about an account somewhere funds are pulled from, talking about a forgiveness of debt here.
Stay Tuned!

Michael Joseph
03-30-11, 11:56 PM
Is it really that I left something out OR is it that you do not "trust" that it can be that simple? The rest is you fill in the blank what you give permission to be called, friend, envoy, living soul, take your pick. I should not have to think for people on every post like this. If that is the case it is not a brain trust, it is a paper trust or the silver platter trust. People have to be left there to make their own connections sometimes or else how does anyone ever learn? - teach them to Learn how to self teach. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for life, is that not technically how it should go morally speaking? [ self govern so that we do not need a nanny government outside ourselves ]

Offers of labels are given to us everyday, when your children call you Dad, could you not rebut the mistake of that and give permission to be called father?
A man should be able to think on their feet without a piece of paper giving them approval to do so.

Thank you for adding that verse by the way. Check out / deconstruct flattering, it may or may not be a surprise to you.

This is what I mean by the rest of the story. You leave the novice just dangling. Remember there will be many who will read this thread some time down the road...experience levels differ.

Yet you say " I do not consent to be recognized by that name ". But you fail to state the operation of thought construct that allows you to make that statement. I know I am making a demand upon you, so be it. Not for my edification but for the newbie?

I mean the newbie probably carries all sorts of chattels that carry that NAME. And I for one know it takes much study to even see the construct. I tried my best to describe it the other day to a woman. I was just happy with myself for the analogy that was given me. I was rolling along thinking "man this is really good; of course she must see" - only to look up and see the look on her face - total confusion.

shalom,
mj

motla68
03-31-11, 12:43 AM
This is what I mean by the rest of the story. You leave the novice just dangling. Remember there will be many who will read this thread some time down the road...experience levels differ.

Yet you say " I do not consent to be recognized by that name ". But you fail to state the operation of thought construct that allows you to make that statement. I know I am making a demand upon you, so be it. Not for my edification but for the newbie?

I mean the newbie probably carries all sorts of chattels that carry that NAME. And I for one know it takes much study to even see the construct. I tried my best to describe it the other day to a woman. I was just happy with myself for the analogy that was given me. I was rolling along thinking "man this is really good; of course she must see" - only to look up and see the look on her face - total confusion.

shalom,
mj

For the benefit of all I give this to be a permanent link for the forum:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?166-Deposit-Your-Pledge-Into-a-Bank-and-Freely-Elect-to-be-Bankrupt-and-Insolvent&p=1201#post1201

John Booth
03-31-11, 01:09 AM
If we continue in discourse well then, that is an implied trust - isn't it? It is so simple.

hold that thought

hehehe

Michael Joseph
03-31-11, 02:11 AM
hold that thought

hehehe

ROFL.....Reminds me of the joke "how do you anger a stupid man"? ;)

VariationOfSubstances
04-15-11, 04:10 PM
Both, it would appear. The Conscious mind is in the body that is programmed via external stimuli as it lives throughout live.

Michael Joseph
04-15-11, 04:16 PM
Both, it would appear. The Conscious mind is in the body that is programmed via external stimuli as it lives throughout live.

I cannot identify your conscious mind. I cannot SEE it with my Physical Eyes. I can only perceive it with my mental processes; yet that does not in any way solve the problem of identity.

And your conscious mind is constantly changing - like a river - with new thoughts. So it can never be in the present because at the moment you capture a thought in the present it is now the future. As the river flows - new thoughts emerge and thus your conscious mind is not now what it used to be.

You make the argument of DUALISM. But this in no way helps us to solve the Identity problem. We must TRUST in order to create a work around Identity.

VariationOfSubstances
04-15-11, 04:23 PM
One cannot see the energy of the Universe either. However we can identify it. I can identify it as soon as I think of it. The Present it would seem is a continuous identification of the all in the now. Dualism is the past and future. For me not identifying the now is to deny my conscious awareness of the manifestations of the unseen Consciousness of all.

David Merrill
04-15-11, 04:33 PM
Assuming there is a man or woman there on the keyboard -


Welcome VariationofSubstances! Interesting handle. Maybe VoS for me though.

VariationOfSubstances
04-15-11, 05:12 PM
Hello Dave. Waves

Michael Joseph
04-15-11, 06:46 PM
One cannot see the energy of the Universe either. However we can identify it. I can identify it as soon as I think of it. The Present it would seem is a continuous identification of the all in the now. Dualism is the past and future. For me not identifying the now is to deny my conscious awareness of the manifestations of the unseen Consciousness of all.

I am thinking of the persona known as VOS yet for some reason I cannot identify the man or woman at the keyboard.

VariationOfSubstances
04-15-11, 07:37 PM
Maybe VOS is a hierarchy that many men and women manifest. These question are old. And when one answer is found 10 more questions abound. They are based on the interaction between the past and future. And are intertwined as a nursery rhyme. Candy for the brain. What you have talked about. Duality. It seems that enlightenment is not really the objective of philosophy. It is boring. No thought. Because enough thinking has been done to reality it is truly the duality in which one is trying to overcome. But this is not ideal, as all philosophy is not, so the quest continues, down the rabbit hole and into the woods of yesteryear and futurerama.

Whatever it is that we are experiencing is so far beyond our comprehension that continue insisting we know anything at all is utter foolishness. For the questions of old are still new when whatever it is we are existing in has continued on not even observing this little speck of dirt floating around in the smoothie.

Maybe this would be a good start. A surrendering of our egos and accepting defeat.?. That sounds like a good starting point.

I know nothing, and am not sure of anything in which I think, state, feel, or observe. Direct observation however dictates to me that I must follow my body. It directs me. If I dont the thoughts such as these have little meaning. We might decide that we 'believe' in many things in which lead to a further believe that we in fact dont need to follow the body, but these things have no truth in them beyond speculation, and philosophy, which are confined to mostly non-reality. By reality I mean what effects us on a daily basis that alters our lives from the ideals we have, or the perceptions of those ideals.

The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote coeternal binary opposition. As long as there is a question, there will be dualism then, because you have the binary opposition in the problem of a right answer and a wrong answer to a problem or question.

Proof of this "that I can see with my eyes" is this statement: "You make the argument of DUALISM. But this in no way helps us to solve the Identity problem. We must TRUST in order to create a work around Identity. "

You are supporting binary opposistion in your statement, by creating opposing forces.

I see this AS the very problem in which you state is the problem, since a singularity; as opposed dualism, is the mechanism used to solve the problem.

Life is a paradox. It is both. It is all. It is nothing at all. It is everything. It is parts.

We know this, but yet still look for what is above it in understanding, when there is no above, below, or sideways to begin with.

Michael Joseph
04-15-11, 08:19 PM
Maybe VOS is a hierarchy that many men and women manifest. These question are old. And when one answer is found 10 more questions abound. They are based on the interaction between the past and future. And are intertwined as a nursery rhyme. Candy for the brain. What you have talked about. Duality. It seems that enlightenment is not really the objective of philosophy. It is boring. No thought. Because enough thinking has been done to reality it is truly the duality in which one is trying to overcome. But this is not ideal, as all philosophy is not, so the quest continues, down the rabbit hole and into the woods of yesteryear and futurerama.

Whatever it is that we are experiencing is so far beyond our comprehension that continue insisting we know anything at all is utter foolishness. For the questions of old are still new when whatever it is we are existing in has continued on not even observing this little speck of dirt floating around in the smoothie.

Maybe this would be a good start. A surrendering of our egos and accepting defeat.?. That sounds like a good starting point.

I know nothing, and am not sure of anything in which I think, state, feel, or observe. Direct observation however dictates to me that I must follow my body. It directs me. If I dont the thoughts such as these have little meaning. We might decide that we 'believe' in many things in which lead to a further believe that we in fact dont need to follow the body, but these things have no truth in them beyond speculation, and philosophy, which are confined to mostly non-reality. By reality I mean what effects us on a daily basis that alters our lives from the ideals we have, or the perceptions of those ideals.

The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote coeternal binary opposition. As long as there is a question, there will be dualism then, because you have the binary opposition in the problem of a right answer and a wrong answer to a problem or question.

Proof of this "that I can see with my eyes" is this statement: "You make the argument of DUALISM. But this in no way helps us to solve the Identity problem. We must TRUST in order to create a work around Identity. "

You are supporting binary opposistion in your statement, by creating opposing forces.

I see this AS the very problem in which you state is the problem, since a singularity; as opposed dualism, is the mechanism used to solve the problem.

Life is a paradox. It is both. It is all. It is nothing at all. It is everything. It is parts.

We know this, but yet still look for what is above it in understanding, when there is no above, below, or sideways to begin with.

Yet if I am to do business with one I am gonna want to know which one I am doing business with. Especially if I am to forgive the debt in the seventh year such that we can come to agreement based on the year we entered into engagement.

Fact is I can never identify you and you cannot ever identify me. Rather we can not do it with surety or certainty. So we have the Word of a man - my word is my bond.

And since some men do not trust other men, a pledge helps to secure the trust.

I cannot for someone else - I can only do for myself. As such, I am to be with honor and other men will see that honor and perhaps want to engage this man or not. But in reality they see the works of a man they perceive is the same man they saw yesterday. So in heuristics, they trust.

The man with his Spiritual Eyes opened claims - "I see men as trees walking". Transmutating lead grudges into gold. So I shall let it go and put honor out and honor shall return onto me. But that has nothing to do with my Identity.

My identity, the identity of this man who is sometimes conveniently called michael joseph is in Yehoshuah. That should be easy enough to see - a Christ Man. Now shall we engage on that basis or do you need to see papers? If the latter, I cannot help you.

I heard another man say - what's that? I never heard of Yehoshuah and for that matter I don't believe in God. Now we got problems. Can I engage that man? Probably not. That man is going to want to see some "FORM" of identity that he TRUST[s] in.

----------------------------------------------

TOOL - The Grudge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiR1hmpk-x4)

"To consume you till you choose to let this go.

Give away the stone. Let the oceans take and
Transmutate this cold and fated anchor.
Give away the stone. Let the waters kiss and
Transmutate these leaden grudges into gold.
Let go".

---------------------------------------------

Regarding EGO, we see the EGO in King Nebuchadnezzar a great Ego:

Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?

Commentary: and we see Yehovah taking this "anti-type" right off the throne to humble him.

Dan 4:31 While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.

Dan 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Dan 4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

Commentary: and while Nebuchadnezzar was in the field he was made to see a Sovereign sits in the Heavens.

Dan 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

Dan 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Commentary: I know the foregoing is a Tangent and does not go exactly to Identity; yet notice that the Yisra'elites have their identity in Yehovah.

The serious student will notice that Daniel chapter four is written by Nebuchadnezzar in Syriac - reference the Masoretic Text.

When Nebuchadnezzar realized that God is Judge [Dan-i-el] and he stopped with the I, me, my stuff, then his kingdom was given back to him.

Shuftin
12-18-11, 02:04 AM
What an easy question to answer.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.Pursuant to Common Law, a Persons name is whatever name said Person publicly uses, is publicly known by, is publicly called by, is publicly introduced by, is publicly put forth as being, and publicly conducts business as.

I mean C'mon. Joe Shoemaker, son of Jack Shoemaker, wants to bake pies for a living. Now Joe Shoemaker, son of Jack Shoemaker, is publicly known by, is publicly called by, is publicly introduced by, is publicly put forth as being, and publicly conducts business as "Joe Baker." Pursuant to Common law, Joe Shoemaker is now Joe Baker.

The question is not "Can you prove your identity." The question is "Can the PTB disprove your valid identity."

NOTE: Proof is on the shoulders of the accuser.

Let the accuser bring forth
BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMEDthat one's identity is anything other than what one claims as being his true identity.

He He He, ain't going to happen!!!!

Michael Joseph
12-18-11, 04:14 AM
What an easy question to answer.Pursuant to Common Law, a Persons name is whatever name said Person publicly uses, is publicly known by, is publicly called by, is publicly introduced by, is publicly put forth as being, and publicly conducts business as.

I mean C'mon. Joe Shoemaker, son of Jack Shoemaker, wants to bake pies for a living. Now Joe Shoemaker, son of Jack Shoemaker, is publicly known by, is publicly called by, is publicly introduced by, is publicly put forth as being, and publicly conducts business as "Joe Baker." Pursuant to Common law, Joe Shoemaker is now Joe Baker.

The question is not "Can you prove your identity." The question is "Can the PTB disprove your valid identity."

NOTE: Proof is on the shoulders of the accuser.

Let the accuser bring forth that one's identity is anything other than what one claims as being his true identity.

He He He, ain't going to happen!!!!

The argument is not a legal one it is a philosophical one. For at legal then the law will decide HOW TO do a thing. But philosophically speaking are you really going to present an argument before this forum that you are going to rely upon another to prove who you are?

How completely absurd. I am reminded of the Logical Song - Please tell me who I am.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQfjIw3mivc

"I said now, watch what you say, now we're calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel your acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable."

It is utterly impossible for anyone to prove identity. Yet if you will concede to a weak position, then I will accept your concession - as long as you are suppliant to my grant.

Law to prove identity - how absurd. Now I got to go to some Law - a benefit - to prove who I am? Who settled said Law? Whose Law? China, U.S., Russia, God's Law [which one].....

If you think you can prove your identity, please pray tell enlighten me so that I may be resurrected in mind to your level. Will you as Moses pull me up - in vibrational thought - will you now solve the problem of the ages?

I am the ONLY one who can say who I am, and therefore You must either trust me or not. For where there is one, identity fails, but where two or more gather, the problem manifests. For there is NOTHING about you that cannot be altered.

Now therefore, I hold up your picture and ask for the jury "Is this you"? If you respond "yes", then thank you - problem solved. if you answer anything, then that is implied trust - for you respond to my authority - else why respond at all?

shalom,
mj

Darkcrusade
12-18-11, 04:15 AM
Yet if I am to do business with one I am gonna want to know which one I am doing business with. Especially if I am to forgive the debt in the seventh year such that we can come to agreement based on the year we entered into engagement.

Fact is I can never identify you and you cannot ever identify me. Rather we can not do it with surety or certainty. So we have the Word of a man - my word is my bond.

And since some men do not trust other men, a pledge helps to secure the trust.

I cannot for someone else - I can only do for myself. As such, I am to be with honor and other men will see that honor and perhaps want to engage this man or not. But in reality they see the works of a man they perceive is the same man they saw yesterday. So in heuristics, they trust.

The man with his Spiritual Eyes opened claims - "I see men as trees walking". Transmutating lead grudges into gold. So I shall let it go and put honor out and honor shall return onto me. But that has nothing to do with my Identity.

My identity, the identity of this man who is sometimes conveniently called michael joseph is in Yehoshuah. That should be easy enough to see - a Christ Man. Now shall we engage on that basis or do you need to see papers? If the latter, I cannot help you.

I heard another man say - what's that? I never heard of Yehoshuah and for that matter I don't believe in God. Now we got problems. Can I engage that man? Probably not. That man is going to want to see some "FORM" of identity that he TRUST[s] in.

----------------------------------------------

TOOL - The Grudge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiR1hmpk-x4)

"To consume you till you choose to let this go.

Give away the stone. Let the oceans take and
Transmutate this cold and fated anchor.
Give away the stone. Let the waters kiss and
Transmutate these leaden grudges into gold.
Let go".

---------------------------------------------

Regarding EGO, we see the EGO in King Nebuchadnezzar a great Ego:

Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?

Commentary: and we see Yehovah taking this "anti-type" right off the throne to humble him.

Dan 4:31 While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.

Dan 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Dan 4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

Commentary: and while Nebuchadnezzar was in the field he was made to see a Sovereign sits in the Heavens.

Dan 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

Dan 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Commentary: I know the foregoing is a Tangent and does not go exactly to Identity; yet notice that the Yisra'elites have their identity in Yehovah.

The serious student will notice that Daniel chapter four is written by Nebuchadnezzar in Syriac - reference the Masoretic Text.

When Nebuchadnezzar realized that God is Judge [Dan-i-el] and he stopped with the I, me, my stuff, then his kingdom was given back to him.

I always thought that this is where the legend of the ''wolf-man'' started.

If not for Daniel's 'husbandry' of Nebuchadnezzar,over the seven years,the kingdom would be lost. Daniel,nothing negative noted about him in the Scripture, he was a Christ type and conspicuously absent the fiery furnace trial.

Michael Joseph
12-18-11, 05:27 AM
I always thought that this is where the legend of the ''wolf-man'' started.

If not for Daniel's 'husbandry' of Nebuchadnezzar,over the seven years,the kingdom would be lost. Daniel,nothing negative noted about him in the Scripture, he was a Christ type and conspicuously absent the fiery furnace trial.


Yes, Nebuchadnezzar had Lycanthropy - I believe.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Identity:


Within State the ONLY available office is that of Trustee. All undertake for the benefit of the Kingdom. Therefore the Kingdom is placed into Trust forming an [e]STATE. Wherein the Equitable Title remains in the King/Queen and the Legal Title is Granted to those who would UNDERTAKE for the kingdom. Therefore the question is regard to State is not necessarily your name, but it is your TITLE. And the ONLY title that will be available to you, as Subject, is TRUSTEE. And a Trustee either accepts to be Trustee or not. And if the Trust can be constructed or implied, then ALL of the Bylaws, domestic and international, apply to said Trustee.

Therefore the problem of IDENTITY is resolved in Trust. For there is ONLY one issue before any competent authority and that one issue is WHAT IS YOUR OFFICE? Are you Trustee or Unaffiliated?

For only Trustees go to jail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvwqK2gn3S0) for failure to perform according to the UNDERTAKING.

UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

UNDERTOOK. Assumed; promised.

Now Therefore, if you, take the benefit of Estate Property, as Grantee, Undertaking, as Trustee, then you are now with the Obligation to perform. Therefore the argument before any [e]State court is regarding a Nexus in Contract Agreement - have you received the benefit of Estate? If so, then the presumption, rightfully so, is then you are HOLDING estate property, and if so, that makes you Trustee.

Yehoshuah [Jesus] infuriated the rabbi's because when they sought to trap him in State matters, regarding did he pay tribute. Yehoshuah called for a coin - notice they jumped at his command - upon looking at the coin, he asked "whose image is on the coin"? Again, they perform right on command, then Yehoshuah said "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, but give unto God what is God's." Now the rabbi's were really in a pickle - for where was THEIR trust? Did they now make a claim on God? And would they Dare argue this position to Their Ruin?


Mat 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

Mat 22:16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Commentary: What snakes. They intend to trap him with the persons of men. Persons of State that is.

Mat 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?


Commentary: Right on. These speak out of both sides of the mouth. False ones. They sought to kill him and they were looking for a nexus to do so righteously.

Mat 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

Commentary: See the command and then the performance.


Mat 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Commentary: Now, the Pharisees have to be saying, we have never seen him in the Lodge before. How on earth has he come to such wisdom? Who taught him the power of state and government? Who taught him letters? But notice the Pharisees themselves did not engage themselves, but they sent their Agents.

Joh 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?




Shalom,
mj

Shuftin
12-18-11, 05:48 AM
Your argument is extremely flawed. The argument is not a legal one it is a philosophical one. Philosophically speaking are you really going to present an argument before this forum that you are going to rely upon another to prove who you are?JESUS F**king Christ. Did you not read my post at all??? You "Mo' Fo." You "PROVE IT." The burden of proof is upon YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

Me, myself and I???

I need not PROVE anything at all. The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

F**k I made a mistake of posting with such retards.

YOU = I???

I have no defense against such stupidity such as YOU = I!!!

EZrhythm
12-18-11, 07:53 AM
Hey Shuftin, great to see you around again! :cool:

Michael Joseph
12-18-11, 04:56 PM
JESUS F**king Christ. Did you not read my post at all??? You "Mo' Fo." You "PROVE IT." The burden of proof is upon YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

Me, myself and I???

I need not PROVE anything at all. The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

F**k I made a mistake of posting with such retards.

YOU = I???

I have no defense against such stupidity such as YOU = I!!!


I wasn't talking to you. Tone down your language. Burden goes go law. Prove to whom? You can't prove your identity to yourself. And you call me a retard?

Roflmao. Tell me genius how on earth will you prove your identity even to yourself? If you can muster the philosophy to even enter upon this forum of discourse, which apparently you do not have as you go directly to insults and vile language.

I would say, I'll wait for your argument, but I would be waiting a lifetime because I already know you cannot do it. If you think me to argue in the forum of laws and burdens of said law, then you think wrong; and, perhaps you should start over and read from the beginning. But then again I suppose my former statement would indicate that we are all waiting for your great insight - maybe a couple two or three curse words - you know to make yourself feel superior and to feed your ego.

Defend yourself - now that is just precious. I care not for burden's of proof here. This is philosophy NOT law. Throw your precious Law in the trash if you can and enter upon this discourse if you can.

Shuftin
12-18-11, 07:14 PM
I wasn't talking to you. Tone down your language. Burden goes go law. Prove to whom? You can't prove your identity to yourself. And you call me a retard?

Roflmao. Tell me genius how on earth will you prove your identity even to yourself? If you can muster the philosophy to even enter upon this forum of discourse, which apparently you do not have as you go directly to insults and vile language.

I would say, I'll wait for your argument, but I would be waiting a lifetime because I already know you cannot do it. If you think me to argue in the forum of laws and burdens of said law, then you think wrong; and, perhaps you should start over and read from the beginning. But then again I suppose my former statement would indicate that we are all waiting for your great insight - maybe a couple two or three curse words - you know to make yourself feel superior and to feed your ego.

Defend yourself - now that is just precious. I care not for burden's of proof here. This is philosophy NOT law. Throw your precious Law in the trash if you can and enter upon this discourse if you can.My apologies to Michael Joseph and the board. I waaaaay over indulged in adult beverages and am guilty of PWI (Posting While Intoxicated). That is most certainly not the way I express myself in the normal flow of life.

I'd like to start anew. The topic question is "Can you prove your identity?" My initial thought was "What a silly question?" Why on Earth would one prove anything at all, especially one's identity? My name is Shuftin. This is my name for no other reason than simply because I say so. Then I delved into Common Law. Now if TPTB want to arrest me, charge me, and prosecute me under a name other than Shuftin----Let them bring forth two or witnesses to establish the fact that my name is not Shuftin. The burden of proof is on the opposing party. Me, myself, and I? I have nothing to prove, much less my identity. I found your reply extremely aggravating as it was diametrically 180 degrees opposite of what I scribbled.
Your argument is extremely flawed. The argument is not a legal one it is a philosophical one. Philosophically speaking are you really going to present an argument before this forum that you are going to rely upon another to prove who you are?A more sensible response to your reply would be a single word, "NO." And I should have walked away.

I have no argument to present before this forum as you indicated. My name is Shuftin. That's that and that's finial. I have no desire to argue nor prove my identity to anyone.

Michael Joseph
12-18-11, 08:02 PM
My apologies to Michael Joseph and the board. I waaaaay over indulged in adult beverages and am guilty of PWI (Posting While Intoxicated). That is most certainly not the way I express myself in the normal flow of life.

I'd like to start anew. The topic question is "Can you prove your identity?" My initial thought was "What a silly question?" Why on Earth would one prove anything at all, especially one's identity? My name is Shuftin. This is my name for no other reason than simply because I say so. Then I delved into Common Law. Now if TPTB want to arrest me, charge me, and prosecute me under a name other than Shuftin----Let them bring forth two or witnesses to establish the fact that my name is not Shuftin. The burden of proof is on the opposing party. Me, myself, and I? I have nothing to prove, much less my identity. I found your reply extremely aggravating as it was diametrically 180 degrees opposite of what I scribbled.A more sensible response to your reply would be a single word, "NO." And I should have walked away.

I have no argument to present before this forum as you indicated. My name is Shuftin. That's that and that's finial. I have no desire to argue nor prove my identity to anyone.


I accept that you are called Shuftin. I also accept your apology.

You show the point exactly. I must accept you or not - that is IF, and only IF, I desire a relationship. You can only give what you can give. I must either accept or reject.

But IF my office is within another trust construct, then I must accept with conditions. Said conditions being are you in that same trust structure. So we are not discussing man to man - rather trustee to trustee. For if man to man, the fact that we are having a conversation is an implied trust.

A lady a the Feast of Tabernacles hounded me last year with the simple question: Why won't you give me your last name? My simple response "do I know you?" Meaning, do we have an established Trust? Otherwise get lost.

--------------------------

So the issue of Identity cannot be resolved even with DNA for that testing is subject to man's weakness. And again relies on a third party for I cannot see my DNA.

So then will we both go on now to Beersheba and Seven ourselves at the "Well of Oaths". Will we state an oath before God, such that we call on God as our witness? That begs the question do we have faith in the same God? And that takes us back into Trust boundary.

For the Israelite identity was IN Yehovah their Elohim. And Yehovah expressly told Israel - Do things in my name!

But we seek relationships, right? So then we must have a foundation or a place where said relationships may be developed. And that place is Trust. I trust you or I don't trust you.

And therefore Identity is of little consequence as it is but a candle beside the Sun of Trust. For you cannot identify yourself, and I cannot identify you and as such, I weigh your offer and accept or reject.

To the closed boundary called Estate: Is it Legal or Illegal? Goes to Legal Title and Trustee.

-----------------------------------

Now if we go to Scripture we have our closed boundary - the truth in identity is made by two witnesses. But that truth is established according to the Moral Code - Bylaws of the Scripture Trust - "Thou shall not bear false witness." For we appeal to a higher power, the Creator.

Pro 21:28 A false witness shall perish: but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.

Pro 19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
Pro 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.

Pro 12:17 He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Lev 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

So we see that the Law of Scripture is manifest in the Creation. In other words, we have only but to watch the Created to know the Truth for God is the Judge and the Judgment for lying or falsehood will manifest before our eyes.

Example: Daniel and those princes that sought to place him in the Lions Den. They created a trap to ensnare Daniel to his death. Therefore when righteousness was established BY THE HAND OF GOD - the Lions mouths lay agape - the king rolled back the stone and ordered those princes into the Lions Den. For they sought to end Daniel's life in dishonesty, by laying a trap. Therefore in righteousness their lives and the lives of their wives and sons/daughters were cut off.

For just as all of the Seed is Abel was cut off by Cain, so too would have been the seed in Daniel. Therefore those princes paid with all of their seed [family].

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

There are two intercessors in heaven: The Holy Ghost and Yehoshuah.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself [herself] maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.


There are TWO witness in the Heavens that are watching our every word for out of our mouths come Oaths with Full Liability before God. Therefore one is compelled to be honest in their dealings - to speak the truth. For the Trust is not in man, but in God.

But man has sought to throw off the bands of God and place himself, as God, in the Temple.

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 2:11 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.


And therefore Identity is of little consequence as it is but a candle beside the Sun of Trust. For you cannot identify yourself, and I cannot identify you and as such, I weigh your offer and accept or reject. And therefore the greatest of all is Love. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. Therein is no malice or deceit only fair balances and righteousness and equity. And therefore we identify as "sons of God" or "Trees of Righteousness".


in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah [The WAY of LIFE], I am michael joseph.

David Merrill
12-18-11, 11:11 PM
My apologies to Michael Joseph and the board. I waaaaay over indulged in adult beverages and am guilty of PWI (Posting While Intoxicated). That is most certainly not the way I express myself in the normal flow of life.

I'd like to start anew. The topic question is "Can you prove your identity?" My initial thought was "What a silly question?" Why on Earth would one prove anything at all, especially one's identity? My name is Shuftin. This is my name for no other reason than simply because I say so. Then I delved into Common Law. Now if TPTB want to arrest me, charge me, and prosecute me under a name other than Shuftin----Let them bring forth two or witnesses to establish the fact that my name is not Shuftin. The burden of proof is on the opposing party. Me, myself, and I? I have nothing to prove, much less my identity. I found your reply extremely aggravating as it was diametrically 180 degrees opposite of what I scribbled.A more sensible response to your reply would be a single word, "NO." And I should have walked away.

I have no argument to present before this forum as you indicated. My name is Shuftin. That's that and that's finial. I have no desire to argue nor prove my identity to anyone.

I am still laughing about that Shuftin! I have often wondered about that topic in general. I noticed during better economic times five liquor stores all within a few blocks of each other in a neighborhood that was upon a glance full or nice respectable professional people. My mind of course did the math and I quickly figured out that either everybody has a drinking problem or a few folks have terrible drinking problems. Sometimes I even ponder when the legislation will get hold of "Drinking While Logged On". If you play the stock market while drunk could you get your money back?

I found a little insight into identity the other day. Somebody threatened me with inuendo of the sort, The last person to do that is dead now. I decided to find out for $50 if that was really the case. Maybe the guy is a murderer? Or if the death was of natural causes then maybe it was not a threat at all but just a statement of fact. But if the subject is still alive, then I am justified in labeling this a class 3 felony - Tampering with a Witness or Victim. I am glad that for teaching Record-Forming for several years now I make a much better witness than victim!

I thought that I should call and tell the professional Private Investigator how to seach for other surnames and name changes around marriage etc. but bit my tongue. When I saw this death record search (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/2193/deathrecordexample.pdf) it dawned on me clearly. When somebody gets a legal name change all they do is reassign the SSN to the new name. Any searching for identity is done through the SSN.

No wonder when officials want my SSN and I respond, I do not have a Social Security Number, their first response is usually, Everybody has a Social Security Number!

Treefarmer
12-19-11, 03:28 AM
I accept that you are called Shuftin. I also accept your apology.

You show the point exactly. I must accept you or not - that is IF, and only IF, I desire a relationship. You can only give what you can give. I must either accept or reject.

But IF my office is within another trust construct, then I must accept with conditions. Said conditions being are you in that same trust structure. So we are not discussing man to man - rather trustee to trustee. For if man to man, the fact that we are having a conversation is an implied trust.

A lady a the Feast of Tabernacles hounded me last year with the simple question: Why won't you give me your last name? My simple response "do I know you?" Meaning, do we have an established Trust? Otherwise get lost.

--------------------------

So the issue of Identity cannot be resolved even with DNA for that testing is subject to man's weakness. And again relies on a third party for I cannot see my DNA.

So then will we both go on now to Beersheba and Seven ourselves at the "Well of Oaths". Will we state an oath before God, such that we call on God as our witness? That begs the question do we have faith in the same God? And that takes us back into Trust boundary.

For the Israelite identity was IN Yehovah their Elohim. And Yehovah expressly told Israel - Do things in my name!

But we seek relationships, right? So then we must have a foundation or a place where said relationships may be developed. And that place is Trust. I trust you or I don't trust you.

And therefore Identity is of little consequence as it is but a candle beside the Sun of Trust. For you cannot identify yourself, and I cannot identify you and as such, I weigh your offer and accept or reject.

To the closed boundary called Estate: Is it Legal or Illegal? Goes to Legal Title and Trustee.

-----------------------------------

Now if we go to Scripture we have our closed boundary - the truth in identity is made by two witnesses. But that truth is established according to the Moral Code - Bylaws of the Scripture Trust - "Thou shall not bear false witness." For we appeal to a higher power, the Creator.

Pro 21:28 A false witness shall perish: but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.

Pro 19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
Pro 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.

Pro 12:17 He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Lev 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

So we see that the Law of Scripture is manifest in the Creation. In other words, we have only but to watch the Created to know the Truth for God is the Judge and the Judgment for lying or falsehood will manifest before our eyes.

Example: Daniel and those princes that sought to place him in the Lions Den. They created a trap to ensnare Daniel to his death. Therefore when righteousness was established BY THE HAND OF GOD - the Lions mouths lay agape - the king rolled back the stone and ordered those princes into the Lions Den. For they sought to end Daniel's life in dishonesty, by laying a trap. Therefore in righteousness their lives and the lives of their wives and sons/daughters were cut off.

For just as all of the Seed is Abel was cut off by Cain, so too would have been the seed in Daniel. Therefore those princes paid with all of their seed [family].

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

There are two intercessors in heaven: The Holy Ghost and Yehoshuah.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself [herself] maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.


There are TWO witness in the Heavens that are watching our every word for out of our mouths come Oaths with Full Liability before God. Therefore one is compelled to be honest in their dealings - to speak the truth. For the Trust is not in man, but in God.

But man has sought to throw off the bands of God and place himself, as God, in the Temple.

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 2:11 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.


And therefore Identity is of little consequence as it is but a candle beside the Sun of Trust. For you cannot identify yourself, and I cannot identify you and as such, I weigh your offer and accept or reject. And therefore the greatest of all is Love. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. Therein is no malice or deceit only fair balances and righteousness and equity. And therefore we identify as "sons of God" or "Trees of Righteousness".


in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I am michael joseph.

Very well spoken michael joseph.
Thank you.

Darkcrusade
12-20-11, 07:37 PM
JESUS F**king Christ. Did you not read my post at all??? You "Mo' Fo." You "PROVE IT." The burden of proof is upon YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

Me, myself and I???

I need not PROVE anything at all. The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

F**k I made a mistake of posting with such retards.

YOU = I???

I have no defense against such stupidity such as YOU = I!!!

Singh and Zingg, in recording the story of the well known feral child, Caspar Hauser, remark upon the effect of alcohol on his body when he was given a small quantity for the first time in his life at the age of about seventeen years. Caspar Hauser had been kept in a tiny dungeon in almost total darkness since infancy, without any human attention except the occasional washing of his body and cutting of his hair by an attendant whom he never saw because he was always drugged before receiving this minimum of personal attention. There is some reason to suppose that he may have been confined because he was a contender for some hereditary position which was being occupied illegally by one of his captors. Singh and Zingg observed: (153)

A certain person made the attempt to force some brandy upon him. Scarcely had the glass been brought to his lips when he turned pale, sank down, and would have fallen backwards against a glass door if he had not been instantly supported.

A few drops of beer made from malted wheat, though much diluted with water, gave him a violent pain in his stomach accompanied with so great a (sense of) heat that he was all over dripping with perspiration; which was succeeded by ague attended with headache and violent eructations (i.e. passing of wind).

It is significant that such a minute quantity of alcohol could have such a profound effect on his totally unaccustomed body. The effect of fermented grape juice on Eve's perfect body could conceivably have been even more dramatic and quite evident to Adam. Eve had no forebears to pass on to her the slightest measure of immunity to its poisoning effects, whereas Caspar Hauser's body had at least this much preparation that he was born of a line of forebears with centuries of experience of alcoholic beverages, even though he himself may never have touched it.

In his commentary on Genesis, Lange rejected the idea that there could be any analogy between the experience of Adam and of Noah though both "discovered" their nakedness as a consequence of ingesting a damaging substance. He wrote: "(It) does not justify us in concluding that (in Adam's case) it was a wine, but some other fruit perhaps, whose effect for the first man was too strong, being of an intoxicating or disturbing nature." *

* Lange, John Peter, Genesis: or The First Book of Moses, tr. Taylor Lewis, Grand Rapids, Zondervan reprint, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 245.

http://www.custance.org/old/seed/ch11s.html

Hate it when that happens. BAC.??? :eek:

Shuftin
12-20-11, 08:14 PM
Hate it when that happens. BAC.??? :eek:My poison of choice is Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey straight [room temperature] with no ice. Unfortunately, when I drink malt liquor beer, I don't get drunk. I get absolutely stoned out of my gourd. Possible it is an allergic reaction, I don't know. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've brought horrible trouble on my head while being stoned on malt liquor. It took a while to make that association. Regular beer hardly effects me. Occasionally I still get stoned on malt liquor. I need to stay off the internet when I do.

Binbokusai Yagyuu
12-22-11, 03:01 AM
JESUS F**king Christ. Did you not read my post at all??? You "Mo' Fo." You "PROVE IT." The burden of proof is upon YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

Me, myself and I???

I need not PROVE anything at all. The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

F**k I made a mistake of posting with such retards.

YOU = I???

I have no defense against such stupidity such as YOU = I!!!



Thank You for that very succinct summation, brother Shuftin ... :D

Chex
12-22-11, 01:31 PM
MJ's quote "Would anyone here care to take up the argument of identity with me? I challenge anyone here to prove their identity.”

Maybe one can find themselves in here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/83046.pdf). Good Luck!

David Merrill
12-22-11, 05:20 PM
MJ's quote "Would anyone here care to take up the argument of identity with me? I challenge anyone here to prove their identity.”

Maybe one can find themselves in here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/83046.pdf). Good Luck!


Thanks for that link Chex!

My thoughts on identity self-amend with new information. I am think that I am an individual expression of God and the only identity that matters in the end is that. However my name David Merrill is my elemental expression of identity. Next comes a title VAN PELT to express lineage for heritage.

I think myself especially qualified to take up Michael Joseph's challenge after arguing this many times with a persecuting attorney mindset and even being jailed as the System forged the legal identity around me.

I am David Merrill.

What further proof do you need?

Michael Joseph
12-22-11, 09:42 PM
Thanks for that link Chex!

My thoughts on identity self-amend with new information. I am think that I am an individual expression of God and the only identity that matters in the end is that. However my name David Merrill is my elemental expression of identity. Next comes a title VAN PELT to express lineage for heritage.

I think myself especially qualified to take up Michael Joseph's challenge after arguing this many times with a persecuting attorney mindset and even being jailed as the System forged the legal identity around me.

I am David Merrill.

What further proof do you need?


Hereinafter The TERM "you" or "your" means The Forum Participants.

Consider the "mindset" of almost ALL of the respondents to this thread - that of a DEFENDANT. Why is that? Consider now if the tables are turned and you a prosecuting an action? How now will you establish identity upon someone who defends by such means? Will you label an office, such as Defendant and await someone to show up? How will you be sure you are not dealing with one who has come to "cloud" the proceeding? Will you use force? If so, how can you be sure you are right?

The Answer lies in the ACTIONS of the one before you which IMPLIES their TRUST.

When I used to run a Civil Engineering Firm, I would from time to time hold pre-construction meetings. Invariably such that the meeting had order, I would ask each man to state his Name and his Role. Because I don't give a [insert language here] what you call yourself, I want to know your Title and your Office. Title and Office go to Role in the Drama. In the foregoing, your identity to me is of little concern. Because I am concerned about the OFFICE and ROLE. For if you claim to be Surveyor, I am going to get upset if you act as an Engineer! See now the workaround the IMPOSSIBILITY of full assurance of Identity?

If you think that you can form an argument, in Logic, such that I may with complete assurance know you are the Prosecutor, [or you may know, I am the Prosecutor] each and every time I am compelled to answer to you [or you are compelled to answer to me], then I await the responses. Perhaps there is a genius in our mix who will solve this Ageless problem.

Shalom,
mj

Shuftin
12-22-11, 10:35 PM
This is a cut-n-paste from another website.
Re: Booked as "John Doe"
by Shuftin » December 9th, 2011, 2:16 am


I am unfamiliar with the Stop & Identify law, or what might be the Law of the Street in LA
it is unlawful to arrest someone simply to ID them in many States.I just did an independent study of this subject in the Georgia Statutes a month or so back. Damned if I DID NOT keep notes, oh well. So from memory, for now.

Police officer: "I need to 'Identify' you." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem. But to the Georgia Statutes I went. Yes, a Person is required to "Identify" himself/herself upon demand. But still!!! A police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem. Back to the topic. To "Identify" yourself means just that, to "Identify" yourself. How does one "Identify" oneself? Easy. "I am the owner of this house," "I am the owner of this business," "I am the owner of this car," etc., etc., etc., "I am your worst nightmare," etc., etc., etc. Pursuant to Georgia Statute, you have just "Identified" yourself. To "Identify" yourself pursuant to Statute does not require a Christian "Name" composed of a first middle and last name.

Police officer: "I need to know your 'Name'." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem. But to the Georgia Statutes I went. The term "Name" is listed 2,514 times in the Georgia Statutes. Of these 2,514 times that the term "Name" is listed in the Georgia Statutes, not once was it spelled out that a "Name" is composed of a first middle and last name. Whenever the term "Name" is used in the Statutes, it is listed as "A Name", "The Name", or "His/Her Name," always in the singular. This is why I was conducting this independent study. My singular "Name" is Shuftin, should I choose to give it.

And by the way. A "Name" need not be given unless a citation is written. A citation needs be applied to a "Name." Meaning??? No citation, no "Name" required.

Hopefully I will inspire others to conduct their own independent research into their own respective State Statutes on this subject.

Police officer: "I need you to roll down your window." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need to see your ID." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to step out of your vehicle." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to step to the back of the vehicle'." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to empty out your pockets." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to turn around." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to put your hands behind your back." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.

For merriment I can keep on going. But this direction to taking us towards "Consent." Conclusion #1, police officer's are a damned NEEDY bunch of bastards. Conclusion # 2, crackheads are easier to get along with.

Darkcrusade
12-23-11, 05:26 AM
A biological father identifies me as his son, being the seed of my father my father and I are one.

:p Moma's baby, Daddy's maybe:confused:

osbogosley
12-23-11, 12:38 PM
I need you to identify yourself: Look in a mirror and say, "Yep, thats me."

Chex
12-23-11, 02:41 PM
Proficiently spoken: MJ could have not said it any better when anyone asks: “I want to know your Title and your Office.”

That’s all they need to know.

Man laws such as “Stop and identify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes)” statutes that allow police to detain persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime and some utter it unconstitutionally vague (http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/443/443.US.31.77-1680.html).

From Shuftin’s post posed a good question, How does one "Identify" oneself?

Unfortunately from Joni’s difficulty (http://bible.org/seriespage/war-within-romans-714-25) we see things in a different light in a way to live righteously (http://www.theliberatingsecret.com/reading_room/Pearce/pdf/How%20Do%20You%20Identify%20Yourself.pdf) in understanding (http://www.bibleviews.com/romans7.html).

Isn’t it easier to follow the “Ten Commandments” that trying to follow mans laws they have to reference from volumes of books?

Everyone has their own theme it just how you carry it that counts.

Michael Joseph
12-23-11, 07:00 PM
Proficiently spoken: MJ could have not said it any better when anyone asks: “I want to know your Title and your Office.”

That’s all they need to know.

Man laws such as “Stop and identify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes)” statutes that allow police to detain persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime and some utter it unconstitutionally vague (http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/443/443.US.31.77-1680.html).

From Shuftin’s post posed a good question, How does one "Identify" oneself?

Unfortunately from Joni’s difficulty (http://bible.org/seriespage/war-within-romans-714-25) we see things in a different light in a way to live righteously (http://www.theliberatingsecret.com/reading_room/Pearce/pdf/How%20Do%20You%20Identify%20Yourself.pdf) in understanding (http://www.bibleviews.com/romans7.html).

Isn’t it easier to follow the “Ten Commandments” that trying to follow mans laws they have to reference from volumes of books?

Everyone has their own theme it just how you carry it that counts.

I was asked a couple years back "What is the address of your office"? I answered in light of this:

Exo 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

Exo 28:1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

Eze 44:13 And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed.

Psa 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.


The one in the office PERFORMS - Trustee. The physical address sought was one to Locate said office within a particular Trust Boundary. Therefore, that goes to Jurisdiction.

But we have not even come close to Identity. Let me be Blunt. You cannot even identify yourself. Because even if you say you can - I can show that Memory is your basis and even that can be tampered with.

"He appears to be Michael Joseph" is the correct statement - for noone, even Michael Joseph can be absolutely sure. Therefore since Identity is impossible, the Rules or Bylaws regulate the OFFICE. Said Office is one of Trustee. However so that you can see boxes within boxes....what if one trustee performs for another? Is not one of those trustees a Beneficiary? See now the Public Trust?

I love you all, welcome to my Trust! Love breaks down this Secular Humanism that is Trusting in Man. Nimrod being the father of it. For in those days, men began to Profane the name of Yehovah. And they began to trust in their NEW GOD - The Kingdom and Government of Nimrod! Which is to say the OFFICE of the King and the Office of the Trustee.

1st Samuel 8 - We want a king we can see, like all the other nations. Those five smooth stones - Senses. They will trick you for they are unreliable.

But i often stray in tangency, back to the point....Since I cannot identify you, I want to know your office, because tomorrow a new man may show up to my construction site, but he had best be performing the same OFFICE.

Shalom,
michael joseph

Darkcrusade
12-25-11, 02:33 AM
How did the Christ respond to an ID request?

The rebuttal by many to this mode of the "name game" is always the same: "it's okay to give your name to Caesar, because Jesus did when his soldiers sought Him at John 18:4-8." This is incorrect, because when we compare the KJV with the original Greek text, He did not answer to the name, to wit:




"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them.

As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way:" (KJV)




Note that in the KJV text the "He" in "I am He" is interpolated (added by the translators; it does not exist in the Greek text) in every verse.

And we see that the first time He said "I am" to the Roman soldiers who had come to arrest Him, at verse 6, "they went backward, and fell to the ground." This occurred because they were speaking to the same "I am" as Moses spoke to at Exodus 3:14:




"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."




And note that our Lord, in the Gospel of John, asked them a second time, at verse 7, who they were seeking. If He was answering to "Jesus of Nazareth" the first time, why would He ask them a second time who they were seeking.

We may also note that our Lord never answered to the fictitious "legal" personalities of, "carpenter" (Mark 6:3) and "the carpenter's son" (Matt 13:55). He was accused of being those fictions, but He never confirmed it. He did not "join" the question to allow "legal personality" to be attached to Him.

When one asks you your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community and the Law you minister to. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from "conformed to His image and likeness" to being conformed to Caesar's, and thereby give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings and others of like 'species.'

The commercial aspect of names is where the imperial governments are looking. With the giving of your name, you answer as a belligerent in the field, operating in a commercial venue, making you fully regulateable through the natural man's codes, rules and regulations.




Consider the following statement by one of their own:




"Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it [*and therefore, its "persons"] can have no possible existence until it [*and therefore, its "persons"] is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal [*form of the law] aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to The Law of Names, by Anthony Linell (1938).




A bondman in and of Jesus the Christ has a name given to him by God. He does not have a name given to him by Caesar. Those named by Caesar become novated into persons, human beings, individuals, residents and other "legal fictions" answering to his mark, those marks being for commercial purposes, to wit:


"Name. A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known.

Designation. The use of an expression, instead of the name, to indicate a person or thing.” A Dictionary of Law (1893) by William C. Anderson. (See Issue the Sixth of The News, 'To Be or Not To Be, a Human Being,' for a study of what human beings and natural persons really are.)




"Name. 1. The particular combination of vocal sounds employed as the individual designation of a single person, animal, place, or thing.

Designation. 5. In Law, the statement of profession, trade, residence, etc., for purposes of identification 1824." The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933).





"Name. The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.

Designation. A description or descriptive expression by which a person or thing is denoted in a will without using the name." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 1220.

And two of man's maxims of law reveal that those who answer to Caesar's designations are nothing more than a "thing":




Nomina sunt notæ rerum, Names are the marks of things.


Nomina sunt symbola rerum, Names are the symbols of things.




A bondman of Christ Jesus is not a thing. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction asks to see your "identification" or asks if your name is 'so and so,' let them know that you are a bondman of Christ Jesus, and being such, you have not been given a name by Caesar, and therefore you do not have a name that can be "rendered unto him.

The implications of giving your so-called "name" to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating.




Therefore, it is important to fully consider the following:




"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in Court...Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names', by Anthony Linell (1938).




http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/boh/boh2.shtml Food for thought.

Chex
12-27-11, 02:58 PM
Since 18 is the legally binding age for contracts, are children still liable when they reach 18 for documents their number may have been attatched to before reaching 18? {link (http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=905)}

David Merrill
12-27-11, 04:27 PM
How did the Christ respond to an ID request?

The rebuttal by many to this mode of the "name game" is always the same: "it's okay to give your name to Caesar, because Jesus did when his soldiers sought Him at John 18:4-8." This is incorrect, because when we compare the KJV with the original Greek text, He did not answer to the name, to wit:




"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them.

As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way:" (KJV)




Note that in the KJV text the "He" in "I am He" is interpolated (added by the translators; it does not exist in the Greek text) in every verse.

And we see that the first time He said "I am" to the Roman soldiers who had come to arrest Him, at verse 6, "they went backward, and fell to the ground." This occurred because they were speaking to the same "I am" as Moses spoke to at Exodus 3:14:




"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."




And note that our Lord, in the Gospel of John, asked them a second time, at verse 7, who they were seeking. If He was answering to "Jesus of Nazareth" the first time, why would He ask them a second time who they were seeking.

We may also note that our Lord never answered to the fictitious "legal" personalities of, "carpenter" (Mark 6:3) and "the carpenter's son" (Matt 13:55). He was accused of being those fictions, but He never confirmed it. He did not "join" the question to allow "legal personality" to be attached to Him.

When one asks you your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community and the Law you minister to. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from "conformed to His image and likeness" to being conformed to Caesar's, and thereby give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings and others of like 'species.'

The commercial aspect of names is where the imperial governments are looking. With the giving of your name, you answer as a belligerent in the field, operating in a commercial venue, making you fully regulateable through the natural man's codes, rules and regulations.




Consider the following statement by one of their own:




"Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it [*and therefore, its "persons"] can have no possible existence until it [*and therefore, its "persons"] is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal [*form of the law] aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to The Law of Names, by Anthony Linell (1938).




A bondman in and of Jesus the Christ has a name given to him by God. He does not have a name given to him by Caesar. Those named by Caesar become novated into persons, human beings, individuals, residents and other "legal fictions" answering to his mark, those marks being for commercial purposes, to wit:


"Name. A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known.

Designation. The use of an expression, instead of the name, to indicate a person or thing.” A Dictionary of Law (1893) by William C. Anderson. (See Issue the Sixth of The News, 'To Be or Not To Be, a Human Being,' for a study of what human beings and natural persons really are.)




"Name. 1. The particular combination of vocal sounds employed as the individual designation of a single person, animal, place, or thing.

Designation. 5. In Law, the statement of profession, trade, residence, etc., for purposes of identification 1824." The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933).





"Name. The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.

Designation. A description or descriptive expression by which a person or thing is denoted in a will without using the name." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 1220.

And two of man's maxims of law reveal that those who answer to Caesar's designations are nothing more than a "thing":




Nomina sunt notæ rerum, Names are the marks of things.


Nomina sunt symbola rerum, Names are the symbols of things.




A bondman of Christ Jesus is not a thing. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction asks to see your "identification" or asks if your name is 'so and so,' let them know that you are a bondman of Christ Jesus, and being such, you have not been given a name by Caesar, and therefore you do not have a name that can be "rendered unto him.

The implications of giving your so-called "name" to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating.




Therefore, it is important to fully consider the following:




"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in Court...Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names', by Anthony Linell (1938).




http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/boh/boh2.shtml Food for thought.

I like how you think and enjoy your easy to read writing style.

I venture to say that Jesus identified himself with his faith in God. This is the distinction between having faith in Jesus and the Faith of Jesus.

I did a bible study (through Strong's etc) when I found a list of Jesus' miracles during his ministry. He consistently asked in one form or another first, Do you have faith? The exception is the blind man who thrice identified Jesus desperately seeking remedy, Jesus, Son of David! Have mercy on me!

This is a notable key about Jesus' identity and that he identified himself through faith in God. The only time he avoided checking for a patient's faith is when the patient already had Jesus identified.

Brian
01-27-12, 06:45 PM
At about 9:05 listen closely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NnQNYiUJfM0#t=538s

only those who have ID will be brought here. Seems Dean might be on to something.

yme
02-06-12, 06:05 PM
At about 9:05 listen closely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NnQNYiUJfM0#t=538s

only those who have ID will be brought here. Seems Dean might be on to something.



They don't need your name to identify you. All they need is your thumb print. If you have a driver license, then they already have your identity. They can't identify you if you refuse to give them your thumb, but they might hold you over in jail a few days, months or or years if you don't give it to them. They could also get your thumb print off anything you touch.

allodial
02-07-12, 05:43 AM
After skimming through this thread. Various opinions and views obviously abound. However I recall finding that if one swears an oath or made an general appearance before a notary a State ID might be required in one jurisdiction or another. However for making a special appearance State ID was not required. Something perhaps worth pondering. Perhaps without some obligation to you or by you there is no need for "ID". From observation, 'identity documents' tend to be about identifying or evidencing affiliation with a group or some organization. Illinois State ID, for example, evidencing affiliation with the State of Illinois, no?

Identify vs distinguishing or making distinctions between one or another?

There are those that hold that the "old you" died with time passage and that the "new you" is essentially new all the time--but its your mouth that might make the association with the long, gone past. "What school did you go to?" "How old are you?" "Are you from around here?" "Do you have a social security number?" "Whats your date of birth?" "Whats your sign?" "Where were you yesterday?" "Are you a writer?" "What was your SAT score?"

Isn't it interesting how so very many seemingly innocuous social fixations exist which encourage one to bear witness against oneself and/or to limit oneself?

Are you six feet tall or is your body six feet tall when in standing position? Or is it six feet long? Are you a red-head or is the hair on your head red? Is it your body anyway? If its not your body how is 'your' hair red? Are you your body or are you in your body? Are you a carpenter or are you a living soul that has can express skills of a good carpenter through your body? *points at picture on the wall* Is that you? If it is, pretty amazing how a some ink on a piece of paper can move a mass of flesh and bone around the house and make it talk, aint it?

How much do you weigh? How much do souls weigh? How much does a personality weigh? If you have a wife and your wife's body and your body are made twain how many feet do you have? Do you have a diploma? Is it in your hands now? If its not in your hands right now how can you having it? Do you have your hiking boots? No you left them at home? Ok if you don't have them cos they are at home how do you have a diploma when its hanging on the wall at home ten miles away?

*points at screen in cop car* Is that you? If it is, amazing how a bunch of dots on a computer is you. *turns off screen* Did you just die cos I turned off the screen cos your freakin' gone? See how much power I have? I made you disappear! Did all those dots just abandon a body in the backseat? Since the body was abandoned by those pixels, should take it to the police station and register it?

What color is the sky? Blue you say? Then why is Patrick in China saying sky black and starry (its midnight there)? How can Patrick be *in* China? Is China the landmass the dirt and soil or is it the people that call themselves "China" or is it the borders on the map? How can Patrick be inside all of those people at once? (Hope he doesn't catch a disease, right?) How can Patrick be inside of the map on the wall? If China is a landmass and if Patrick is walking around on the surface, wouldn't Patrick be upon China rather than in China? Or is he *gasp* dead? Or maybe he's stuck in a mudhole up to his neck and thusly *in* China? But how can he type on that iPhone if he's stuck inside of China (the landmass)? If China is imaginary how can Patrick be *in* something imaginary? Is China a tribe? Does this mean that Patrick is a member of the China tribe? Are tribes real or imaginary? Is Patrick imaginary?

(Doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink). Newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak). Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).)

809

allodial
02-07-12, 06:35 AM
Since 18 is the legally binding age for contracts, are children still liable when they reach 18 for documents their number may have been attatched to before reaching 18? {link (http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=905)}

Perhaps if they continue to adhere to the agreements. 21 is the more 'magic number'. Infant-hood can extend to 21 years.

Chex
02-07-12, 06:08 PM
Adhere to the agreements. Ok I get it now. (800 (http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.08/handbook-0800.html))

It’s because at the age of majority (http://www.google.com/search?q=age+of+majority+in+law&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)(Transfer of rights at 1404 (http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.14/handbook-1404.html)) you are at the legally defined age at which a person is considered an adult, with all the attendant (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/attendant)rights and responsibilities of adulthood which require the presence or absence of attendant circumstances (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Attendant+circumstances).

So it was my attendant (http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/adjunct/)duty and my lack of ostrich instruction (http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim05.htm)that I failed to ask for the social security handbook (http://www.google.com/search?q=social+security+handbook&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)that went with the application I signed at the age (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/minority)of minority (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/legal+age)(or infancy (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infancy)) for the social security card that I was to conduct the business (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Incorporated+business)over the Personal Jurisdiction (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Personal+Jurisdiction)of the name (http://peaceportal.mobi/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70&Itemid=48)on the card.

I wonder if this is why they give a new born that much time to read the rules and regulations of the handbook. (1330 (http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.13/handbook-1330.html))

allodial
02-07-12, 06:51 PM
Adhere to the agreements. Ok I get it now. (800 (http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.08/handbook-0800.html))

It’s because at the age of majority (http://www.google.com/search?q=age+of+majority+in+law&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)(Transfer of rights at 1404 (http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.14/handbook-1404.html)) you are at the legally defined age at which a person is considered an adult, with all the attendant (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/attendant)rights and responsibilities of adulthood which require the presence or absence of attendant circumstances (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Attendant+circumstances).

So it was my attendant (http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/adjunct/)duty and my lack of ostrich instruction (http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim05.htm)that I failed to ask for the social security handbook (http://www.google.com/search?q=social+security+handbook&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)that went with the application I signed at the age (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/minority)of minority (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/legal+age)(or infancy (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infancy)) for the social security card that I was to conduct the business (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Incorporated+business)over the Personal Jurisdiction (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Personal+Jurisdiction)of the name (http://peaceportal.mobi/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70&Itemid=48)on the card.

I wonder if this is why they give a new born that much time to read the rules and regulations of the handbook. (1330 (http://ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.13/handbook-1330.html))

Well or perhaps why they spent 12 years brainwashing and blinding the newborn and feeding it fluoride so its pineal gland functions minimally? The point being above that you could have walked away and prevented appearance of formation of any enforceable contract at 18 or 21 and probably still can. But to keep you from doing so, they baited you with vainglory, degrees, money, cars n hoez, empty promises of fame and fortune, plastic drinking permission and other trinkets and baubles figuring you'd not want to walk away.

Michael Joseph
02-08-12, 01:31 AM
Well or perhaps why they spent 12 years brainwashing and blinding the newborn and feeding it fluoride so its pineal gland functions minimally? The point being above that you could have walked away and prevented appearance of formation of any enforceable contract at 18 or 21 and probably still can. But to keep you from doing so, they baited you with vainglory, degrees, money, cars n hoez, empty promises of fame and fortune, plastic drinking permission and other trinkets and baubles figuring you'd not want to walk away.

Amen.

A SSN was issued to me and a USE was made in ME when I called it mine. I possessed it and the USE was fixed. I found that I don't have to ever claim it as it is not mine. Fact is I left it for I cannot annul it cause it is not mine.

Therefore I express my Trust in CHURCH. I am recognized in Yehoshuah [Scripture] and in State [508(c)(1)(a)] my identity is in my God. Because there is nothing and I mean nothing about me that cannot change and therefore my identity tomorrow can be unknown to you with certainty.

Alas I know the legal mind will go directly to Statutes and the like in order to prove me wrong - which is to make this writer laugh out loud. Even with the so called Papers in your hand - I still cannot identify you - but I can sure identify your office - that being Trustee/Subject/Citizen.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.

I am reminded again of a river. Tomorrow it looks exactly like a river, but the particles [atoms] that comprise the river are completely different. Therefore, is it the same river as yesterday?

Let me now take out my pen and pad and perform a SURVEY:

Name, DOB, SSN, DL, Address, etc.....

Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

-------

I asked a man recently - "how are you?" He proceeded to tell me all about his work life. Sad.

How do you Identify YOURSELF? I'll wait. Is it your thoughts? Can't see them! Please with Precision locate in time/space [pick any convenient coordinate system] your next thought. I should like to know where my thoughts reside.


-------

Vanity of vanities - and all is vanity. And they caused the Image to speak.

allodial
02-08-12, 03:52 AM
A SSN was issued to me and a USE was made in ME when I called it mine. I possessed it and the USE was fixed. I found that I don't have to ever claim it as it is not mine. Fact is I left it for I cannot annul it cause it is not mine.
...
It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.

Interestingly I dont ever recall calling any birth certificate or social security number mine. Seems they have tried to do ventriloquism and what amounts to forgery to create evidence of I, Myself having one even though my name isnt even remotely related--they just kept trying cos I wouldn't confess to what seems to be impossible. In my study of fingerprinting, forensics, police science, identification and such I found that it came down to your mouth. Why is it that police with State ID in hand still ask "Date of birth", "Last name". Can they not read? They want you to confess. Since "Lady Justice" is blindfolded, she's only taking oral testimony. Insiders say that face recognition doesn't work at all. They want you to confess a name, height, date of birth--something. Fingerprints between family members are probably so very similar that even fingerprinting is hardly useful even with computers unless they have a height, weight, name or residence to make a connection. Even if they can match fingerprints, who is to say that the particulars associated those fingerprints with the name or information wasn't doctored or coerced or forged?

Cops admitted to me that police regularly put false information into computers and make things up. He told me that I was smart by staying out of that system. :) If you consider stories about software called PROMIS how they are allegedly able to alter, modify, swap or replace details in most any case or police record..it becomes even more hystericialish.

There were some guys I'd maybe knew for 7 years. I was consistently kind, loving, honest, charitable. The conversation came up about "not really knowing someone" without them having "State ID". I replied that, if someone can show you love and kindness, never steal from you, never betray you in seven years and you say that you don't know because they dont have a piece of plastic issued by strangers hundreds if not thousands of miles away--piece of plastic that hardly-intellectual 16 y/o girls easily print and copy and fabricate to get in bars, then perchance there is something wrong with all of you?

**

I've met females and others that go to great lengths to tell me about themselves about "who" they are by telling me when they were born and that whether they're a "teacher" or a "doctor" or a "lawyer" and where they want to high school. They are probably astonished when they I tell them that I could car less what their last name is or what their DOB is or where they went to school. I'm more concerned about their personality. All of those things like degree, 'occupation' might have a habit of being used like cosmetics to cover up character defects or the like. I'd more interested in whether they'd tend to act like A traitor or liar or a loyal friend/companion. And whether they were at least reasonably honest? "I'm a doctor" could be akin to seven layers of perfume and a bunch of fancy jewelry and a big fat coat to hide knives, rashes and poisons underneath.

Chex
02-08-12, 04:48 AM
"It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.” True. But you have an entity to run until you revoke. Do you want to revoke is the question?

Sabo
02-08-12, 06:02 AM
But you have an entity to run until you revoke. Do you want to revoke is the question?

And for some of us, the question is 'How?'

allodial
02-08-12, 06:24 AM
"It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.” True. But you have an entity to run until you revoke. Do you want to revoke is the question?

Having an entity vs BEING the entity. Something about Stockholm Syndrome and 'last names'.

Michael Joseph
02-08-12, 08:31 PM
"It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.” True. But you have an entity to run until you revoke. Do you want to revoke is the question?

I cannot revoke what I did not create. Let me put it like this: I liken the LEGAL DUMMY [given name + SURNAME] to be a limited liability vessel. Call it company - or trust vessel - or whatever you want to call it - Person - I care not. All corporations, LLC's etc are just fancy names for Trust. The United States, under "This Constitution" picks up the liability. I have never seen "the Constitution" so I don't have much to say about "the Constitution"

Since I did not create LEGAL DUMMY I cannot annul or revoke it as you say. What I can do is stop using it. Let me be very careful now as I am about to incorporate the term USE in a legal sense and not in a common sense.

When I act in the NAME = LEGAL DUMMY, then a USE is made in me, as Trustee, fbo another. Now another trust is created between the so called government, as grantor/beneficiary and me now as Trustee. But see that I too can benefit from the transfer of the estate.

Therefore in any court - Judge as Administrator, State as Beneficiary, Defendant as Trustee.



Shalom,
mj

allodial
02-08-12, 09:02 PM
To expand upon that.. John Henry != JOHN HENRY DOE != DOE JOHN H != JOHN H DOE. Michael Joseph appears to be asserting that he has neither culpability nor fiduciary duty for or concerning {ENTITY}. And rather than revoking the ENTITY he has or would terminate or quit such fiduciary duty or culpability. Seems such has to do with fiduciary relationships.

Michael Joseph
02-08-12, 09:35 PM
To expand upon that.. John Henry != JOHN HENRY DOE != DOE JOHN H != JOHN H DOE. Michael Joseph appears to be asserting that he has neither culpability nor fiduciary duty for or concerning {ENTITY}. And rather than revoking the ENTITY he has or would terminate or quit such fiduciary duty or culpability. Seems such has to do with fiduciary relationships.

I propound that if I act in and for any vessel trusting in the United States, then my Trust can be either express by signature bond or implied by my actions and therefore my trust relates me as fiduciary. In Affiliation or Accommodation.

For it is the TRUSTEE going to Jail - else I have no trust in you. I am just me, Minister about my Ministry in CHURCH in CHIEF, in Yehoshuah by Yehovah. And my TRUST is recognized by State in 508(c)(1)(a); yet I, michael joseph am unidentifiable except to say "I trust in Yehovah" and my trust is known by my actions - I try to keep his Law, in Love.

Therefore, I decrease and Yehoshuah increases. Therefore, my family name is really of no importance except to be known within my Family in terms of my inheritance and my grant. Said inheritance and grant will all be made in the Private behind a Trust veil. Again, said trust is made in Church and I am Minister in Corporation Sole.

For example: The Mayor of the City of Savannah is Corporation Sole. The sole member = The Mayor; the Ministry is the City of Savannah. I have a ministry and my ministry benefits not only my Posterity and The Church, but also the Public.

Shalom,
mj

michael joseph is not equal to [!=] Michael Joseph; My claim is not in name, my name means nothing, my claim is in God, I call on the Character of God and attempt to walk in The Way of Life.

In the end, where is your Trust? Your name is well not really important. "We try John Doe all the time."

If I Trust in the System at Large and I have received the benefit of the estate, then I am with fiduciary. Okay so let's get this right, whose NAME is it again? Whose SSN is it again? If not mine, then why do I allow a USE to be formed in me? Answer is: I don't USE the NAME or the SSN or the DL, etc, etc.



------

FROM PADELFORD


[14.] 3. Supposing this not to be a tax for inspection
purposes, has Congress consented to its being laid?
It is certain that Congress has not expressly
consented. But is express consent necessary? There
is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There
is nothing in the practice of men, or in the
Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations,
or the Law of nations that says so.

Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life.

A tender of bank bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills
are objected to. To stand by, in silence, and see
another sell your property, binds you. These are
mere instances of the use of the maxim in the
Municipal Law. In the Law of Nations, it is equally
potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty
binds a Nation. (Vattel, ch. 16, sec. 199, book 1.
See book 2, sec. 142, et seq. as to usucaption and
prescription, and sec. 208 as to ratification.


*54 Express consent, then, not being necessary, is
there any thing from which consent may be
implied? There is-length of time. The Ordinance
was passed the 24th of January, 1842, and has been
in operation ever since. If Congress had been
opposed to the Ordinance, it had but to speak, to be
obeyed. It spoke not-it has never spoken: therefore,
it has not been opposed to the Ordinance, but has
been consenting to it.

[15.] 4. Say, however, that Congress has not
consented to the Ordinance, then the most that can
be maintained is, that the Ordinance stands subject
to “the revision and control of Congress.” It stands
a Law-a something susceptible of revision and
control-not a something unsusceptible of revision
and control as a void thing would be.


--------------

Even the lawyers building their house on Precedent, know that implied trust can be gained in silence; for one sleeping on his rights has none.

David Merrill
02-09-12, 08:16 PM
I propound that if I act in and for any vessel trusting in the United States, then my Trust can be either express by signature bond or implied by my actions and therefore my trust relates me as fiduciary. In Affiliation (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8756/affiliations.jpg)or Accommodation (http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9892/accomodation.jpg).

Shalom,
mj

Looking at accomodation in context of endorsement (http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4388/accomodationincontextof.jpg) one might say when challenged about making a demand for lawful money - I cannot accomodate you.

Your entire post is profound Michael Joseph but I encourage the reader to linger on those two words - affiliation and accomodation.

The Secretary of State threatened me thrice (http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6715/20mlien22.jpg) about using the Great Seal without any affiliation with state business. On the third threat the Secretary was in breach of contract (no trust) with a fellow on the territorial republic (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9568/20mlien17.jpg) by sending his approval of corporate charter to me instead of him. I forwarded the papers to him, accepting the resulting trust and was therefore in position of state appointed trustee, in affiliation with state business and sure enough the Secretary accepted my corrections and published my $20M lien (http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7398/20mlienoriginalreturn.jpg). I adopted the bastard child becoming of the state (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9166/20mlien23assent.jpg) with the Secretary's malfeasance - note the notice on page 2 (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9568/20mlien17.jpg) of the form. By sending the paper directly to the man on the land the Secretary would rent the veil by exposing the Secretary knows "this state" is a fiction living on the district. Note the Great Seal proclaims the land aka Territory.

Thank you Michael Joseph. Accomodation is even more interesting!!

allodial
02-09-12, 09:30 PM
Accommodation is one thing. Culpability for or equinamity with {ENTITY} are another. Fiction of Missouri and Fiction of Ohio are similar on this:


A person signing an instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party... (Source-Ohio Code (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1303.59))

Identical -> http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400-499/4000030419.htm

Michael Joseph
02-09-12, 09:31 PM
Looking at accomodation in context of endorsement (http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4388/accomodationincontextof.jpg) one might say when challenged about making a demand for lawful money - I cannot accomodate you.

Your entire post is profound Michael Joseph but I encourage the reader to linger on those two words - affiliation and accomodation.

The Secretary of State threatened me thrice (http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6715/20mlien22.jpg) about using the Great Seal without any affiliation with state business. On the third threat the Secretary was in breach of contract (no trust) with a fellow on the territorial republic (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9568/20mlien17.jpg) by sending his approval of corporate charter to me instead of him. I forwarded the papers to him, accepting the resulting trust and was therefore in position of state appointed trustee, in affiliation with state business and sure enough the Secretary accepted my corrections and published my $20M lien (http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7398/20mlienoriginalreturn.jpg). I adopted the bastard child becoming of the state (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9166/20mlien23assent.jpg) with the Secretary's malfeasance - note the notice on page 2 (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9568/20mlien17.jpg) of the form. By sending the paper directly to the man on the land the Secretary would rent the veil by exposing the Secretary knows "this state" is a fiction living on the district. Note the Great Seal proclaims the land aka Territory.

Thank you Michael Joseph. Accomodation is even more interesting!!

Thank you - my wife just came in to ask why I jumped from my seat and yelled YESSSSSSSS. "Absent Accommodation" is akin to "I have no trust in you"

Notice that one who Undertakes, well lets just let John Bouvier state it like it is:

UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

UNDERTOOK. Assumed; promised.

2. This is a technical word which ought to be inserted in every declaration of assumpsit, charging that the defendant undertook to perform the promise which is the foundation of the suit; and this though the promise be founded on a legal liability, or would be implied in evidence. Bac. Ab Assumpsit, F; 1 Chit. Pl. 88, note p.


Therefore if you sign the back of a check - which by the way is not what this thread is about - but nevertheless IT's ALL connnected - then it is ASSUMED that you intend to UNDERTAKE for the benefit of the Federal Reserve System by Express Trust - Signature Bond of the Trustee! And therefore since you are Trustee, you are Affiliated and bound to perform in Fiduciary, but you are not the Surety - they Surety is in the United States; however you may be a Constitutor For the Benefit of the United States - again by Voluntarily Undertaking FBO another.

You promised to perform as expressed in your signature bond. If you did not want to perform, then you would not have slept on your rights, but because you fell asleep, you have consented, agreed and promised in your non-objection or absence of disclaimer.

By the way, we are Identifying a Trust Relationship - NOT a man. We are Identifying the TRUSTEE. And the Trustee has been Granted trust estate - Property which is Intangible or Incorporeal and therefore there is a consideration; however, there need not be a consideration if one is to Undertake for another. Therefore the Cestui que Use - or let me more precisely say the one for whose benefit the USE was made in you, as Trustee, is going to demand an Accounting - that dear Reader is a RETURN.


The Statute creates the basis of the Undertaking - it is a Bill first and underwritten by say FRS or US; but a Constitutor Undertakes in Accommodation - in UCC language that is called an Accommodation Party.

What is an Accommodation Party? (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-419)


Quoting: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx)


"Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them."


"United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971."


but I digress, the only one that can be identified is the Trustee by express or implied trust - therefore Name or NAME or name, is just an illusion because a name never identified anyone - however it serves a tool to effect relationships built upon the Pillar of Trust.

Pro 22:1 A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.....


Do you have trust in me?


Shalom, let me do it this way to support my point:

absent liability assumed, absent benefit received, absent accommodation, absent surety, absent joinder, non-assumpsit with any other writings or records, absent assurance of value and without warranty express or implied and without prejudice and without recourse and demand is made for lawful money with the express intent to remain without the Federal Reserve cities and districts by and thru Michael Joseph.

David Merrill
02-10-12, 12:43 AM
Thank you - my wife just came in to ask why I jumped from my seat and yelled YESSSSSSSS. "Absent Accommodation" is akin to "I have no trust in you"

Notice that one who Undertakes, well lets just let John Bouvier state it like it is:

UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

UNDERTOOK. Assumed; promised.

2. This is a technical word which ought to be inserted in every declaration of assumpsit, charging that the defendant undertook to perform the promise which is the foundation of the suit; and this though the promise be founded on a legal liability, or would be implied in evidence. Bac. Ab Assumpsit, F; 1 Chit. Pl. 88, note p.


Therefore if you sign the back of a check - which by the way is not what this thread is about - but nevertheless IT's ALL connnected - then it is ASSUMED that you intend to UNDERTAKE for the benefit of the Federal Reserve System by Express Trust - Signature Bond of the Trustee! And therefore since you are Trustee, you are Affiliated and bound to perform in Fiduciary, but you are not the Surety - they Surety is in the United States; however you may be a Constitutor For the Benefit of the United States - again by Voluntarily Undertaking FBO another.

You promised to perform as expressed in your signature bond. If you did not want to perform, then you would not have slept on your rights, but because you fell asleep, you have consented, agreed and promised in your non-objection or absence of disclaimer.

By the way, we are Identifying a Trust Relationship - NOT a man. We are Identifying the TRUSTEE. And the Trustee has been Granted trust estate - Property which is Intangible or Incorporeal and therefore there is a consideration; however, there need not be a consideration if one is to Undertake for another. Therefore the Cestui que Use - or let me more precisely say the one for whose benefit the USE was made in you, as Trustee, is going to demand an Accounting - that dear Reader is a RETURN.


The Statute creates the basis of the Undertaking - it is a Bill first and underwritten by say FRS or US; but a Constitutor Undertakes in Accommodation - in UCC language that is called an Accommodation Party.

What is an Accommodation Party? (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-419)


Quoting: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx)


"Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them."


"United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971."


but I digress, the only one that can be identified is the Trustee by express or implied trust - therefore Name or NAME or name, is just an illusion because a name never identified anyone - however it serves a tool to effect relationships built upon the Pillar of Trust.

Pro 22:1 A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.....


Do you have trust in me?


Shalom, let me do it this way to support my point:

absent liability assumed, absent benefit received, absent accommodation, absent surety, absent joinder, non-assumpsit with any other writings or records, absent assurance of value and without warranty express or implied and without prejudice and without recourse and demand is made for lawful money with the express intent to remain without the Federal Reserve cities and districts by and thru Michael Joseph.



When I showed my WSA photo ID to the nurse at the ER she declared it a "fake ID". I was simply unaccomodating.

allodial
02-10-12, 01:07 AM
When I showed my WSA photo ID to the nurse at the ER she declared it a "fake ID". I was simply unaccomodating.

By definition isn't 'fake ID' ID that 'is counterfeit' in that it purports to be issued by a State Entity or Government Entity when it is not? AFAIK WSA cannot issue counterfeits/fakes of its own issues. Perhaps we ought to start suing them for slander since they are alleging one or more of us to be carrying around "fake ID" when its actually genuine even if its printed off at the local library.

David Merrill
02-10-12, 01:29 AM
By definition isn't 'fake ID' ID that 'is counterfeit' in that it purports to be issued by a State Entity or Government Entity when it is not? AFAIK WSA cannot issue counterfeits/fakes of its own issues. Perhaps we ought to start suing them for slander since they are alleging one or more of us to be carrying around "fake ID" when its actually genuine even if its printed off at the local library.

Back on topic!

I told her that it was factual.

osbogosley
02-22-12, 01:00 PM
I had a short discussion with the local constabulary yesterday. He threatened failure to identify and arrest. Not much else to it, but I did some more looking and found this site: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html

Now I'm thinking of filing a complaint, I think he may have been giving false legal advice. They have been taught to ask for name, date of birth, etc. He even admitted he knew what I go by. I wanted to know why he had to ask if he already knew. He wouldn't answer that.

Here's a little from the link:
Throughout most of history, by custom and tradition, an ordinary individual's declared name was the extent of identity information used to describe a person. There were no Social Security Numbers, Drivers' Licenses, Passports, voter registries, deed polls, credit reports....

Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).

Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.

David Merrill
02-22-12, 03:31 PM
Thanks!


That is quite refreshing to know.

osbogosley
02-22-12, 09:07 PM
After work, I'm reading more from the site. I find it very refreshing because it isn't coming from a "patriot" thing. Identity is crucial for anyone who has suffered domestic violence. The sections on identity are titled:

Birth Certificates & Identity

Passports & Identity

Social Security Numbers & Identity

Drivers' Licenses & Identity

Marriage & Identity

Fascism & Identity

I hope others enjoy reading them. Your welcome David.

allodial
02-23-12, 01:04 AM
I had a short discussion with the local constabulary yesterday. He threatened failure to identify and arrest. Not much else to it, but I did some more looking and found this site: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html

Now I'm thinking of filing a complaint, I think he may have been giving false legal advice.
An attorney at bar probably has something to do with it. I've come across quite a few cops or court clerks misled by attorneys who were effectively using them as PMDs.


They have been taught to ask for name, date of birth, etc. He even admitted he knew what I go by. I wanted to know why he had to ask if he already knew. He wouldn't answer that.

Because your verbal confession is necessary. He is likely incompetent. Whereas the attorney pulling his strings is likely more knowledgeable.


Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).

Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.

Simply: it is a type of violence, a type of involuntary servitude to force someone to assume culpability for an artificial entity. When dealing with those who have forsaken Good Conscience for profiteering from reducing men to chattel, one might do well to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

818


Forcing someone to assume liability for a legal entity that is in intrinsically allegiant to a belligerent can have serious ramifications. Consider that under military law to dress up in enemy uniform and kill the enemy while wearing their uniform was punishable by death. Perfidy. What are the ramifications of forcing a neutral to wear the clothes of an belligerent? Hmmm.


ab·ject (bjkt, b-jkt)
adj.
1. Brought low in condition or status. See Synonyms at mean2.
2. Being of the most contemptible kind: abject cowardice.
3. Being of the most miserable kind; wretched: abject poverty.


To reduce someone to: chattel, peonage, involuntary servitude..these things are against the laws of the United States. "Lucifer" was suggested as being involved in "bringing the world low".

osbogosley
02-23-12, 12:55 PM
http://docs.ncidpolicy.org/IIULA_00-03c.pdf

Contract for Limited Privileges and Limited Usage:
Identity Information User License Agreement (IIULA)

David Merrill
02-23-12, 09:32 PM
Lucifer bringing the world low?

I wonder if that is why so many accuse the NWO of Luciferianism?

Pfunk
02-23-12, 11:30 PM
Now I'm thinking of filing a complaint, I think he may have been giving false legal advice. They have been taught to ask for name, date of birth, etc. He even admitted he knew what I go by. I wanted to know why he had to ask if he already knew. He wouldn't answer that.



So I've been on this kick about "domicile". I think what is going on when they ask for that information is they are trying to make presumptions about domicile. Name, date of birth, etc. leads to presuming residence which leads to presuming domicile. If domicile is within their jurisdiction, then one is under the rule of their statutes. In terms of a biblical stance, I have found people to declare domicile within the kingdom of heaven on earth, or even the ocean. That way, God's law is the only form of law that can be used in court when a judgement is being made. If domicile isn't specifically stated, it is presumed to reside within the area of the residence.

That's where I'm at with it right now at least.

Now back to more research...

David Merrill
02-23-12, 11:40 PM
So I've been on this kick about "domicile". I think what is going on when they ask for that information is they are trying to make presumptions about domicile. Name, date of birth, etc. leads to presuming residence which leads to presuming domicile. If domicile is within their jurisdiction, then one is under the rule of their statutes. In terms of a biblical stance, I have found people to declare domicile within the kingdom of heaven on earth, or even the ocean. That way, God's law is the only form of law that can be used in court when a judgement is being made. If domicile isn't specifically stated, it is presumed to reside within the area of the residence.

That's where I'm at with it right now at least.

Now back to more research...


It may be what you describe is more like astrology (http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/626/admiraltybindsthewholew.pdf). I admire that you do not set upon a fixed belief set.

padreilluminato
02-24-12, 03:41 AM
I believe it would be impossible for any man or woman to IDENTIFY themselves as a "thing", unless the "thing" is comprised of many, thus the identifier becomes one and the same.

Let take the BC for example, it was issued as an IDENTIFIER to be used for identification in a public arena, but what or whom is it identifying ?
Is it we are part of a "thing" if so, then one can only conclude you are identified as the "thing" one and the same.
If I am me, or one as a being, then I truly cannot identify myself to anyone, for me to reflect upon myself is not true identity, for the being is not reflective.

The only way an identity can take place if one (the being) is part of a collective of beings, and that collective make a majority in which the objective is to create 1 WHOLE, then one can conclude that you are part of that WHOLE and thus able to be identified with, NOT AS, but identified with.

So when Agents wants a date of birth and Name, they are not saying that is you, what they are saying, to which WHOLE do you apply, and in that case you make 1, part of something, called the PERSON.
The Identity is that which of the “thing” is to be IDENTIFIED.

Let take a dog and his so called owner. The Man calls the dog sparky, but sparky cannot identify himself, because the dog cannot self-represent, that would be impossible, but THROUGH the Man as his representative (Steward) the dog can be identified, but not as sparky, but THROUGH the man naming him sparky.

It is the will and intent of the legislature to be recognized through the NAME, not the Man as the name, they want to know which society (comprised of many to create a WHOLE 1) that you apply yourself to be part of.
If you identify with a thing” then you become one and the same, and if the thing is created by another, then one can surmise you are acting as one and the same, IN CONCERT as the thing.

They assume that one has to be part of a collective, and one as an individual is still part of a collective.
Individual
Driver
Employee
Employer

All of these are still part of the WHOLE. If one is given a Name, then the identity of oneself is lost, because another is identifying, and if you identify by a given, then you are still part of the collective, the WHOLE.

The statement of live birth or registration of life birth dictates given names. The name was given to a man or woman, but that does not identify the one it was given to, unless those given names were INCORPORATED into a whole, the given names take on a whole new PERSONA.
That SOLB or ROLB is PLEDGED into a fiction (body corporate) where the subrogation begins, the bloodline is severed and thus one takes on a PERSONA, a fictional IDENTITY.

That PERSONA reflects back to the “things” which is a collective, just like in Start Trek with the BORG, Picard was associated to the Alliances of federations, but once captured by the BORG, he was assimilated into the BORG collective, and thus took on a new PERSONA.
So can anyone prove their IDENTITY ?, Utterly impossible unless you are part of a whole, and the assumption is, you are always part of something else a SOCIETY, and you IDENTIFY with that CORPUS.

Break that assumption, DO NOT enter into commerce, let a body corporate handle the commercial transaction and thus you will have immunity and free of the “thing” that binds.


Peace

Padre

Pfunk
02-24-12, 05:02 AM
It may be what you describe is more like astrology (http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/626/admiraltybindsthewholew.pdf). I admire that you do not set upon a fixed belief set.

Sorry David if I interpreted the astrology thing wrong, and if so where might I go to research it some more (keywords)? But here goes.

The way I see it, I have a gut feeling about things and my beliefs that words just can't describe. The English language is so limiting that the words to describe my belief system are ever evolving. I find keeping an open mind towards others allows myself to take bits and pieces here and there in an ever long battle to finding the exact words to describe my beliefs. Also as to the astrology thing, how is a party expected to appeal something if it was enacted before the party was born? how were they given proper notice when they weren't even here on earth, per say? I try to keep an open mind about "past lives" but as far as I'm concerned, I haven't experienced one yet. Maybe something will jog my memory one of these days, so as to why I keep the open mind. You never know. But really, if this is my first life/last life, how am I expected to be judged even before I'm on this planet? That is absurd. I'm really expected to read through ALL publications of past judgments against me before I was born? Come on! If it's what I have to do, that's one thing, so I'm not yelling at any of you, but really, how anti-productive is that? Here is something that I found that pretty much says to the man-made governments, and pardon my french, "F*CK OFF" and stop harassing me. You're saying, in an affidavit of truth, that in the past you have been forced to lie in order to contract with others and survive, who otherwise would not have been able to contract with you had they known the truth. You did this in order to survive. But now you are ready to take care of yourself. I haven't yet figured out how to file it, or if this is better saved for when you retire, or how to make life work without retiring, still being able to deal in commerce, and doing this sooner. My understanding is you would still be able to be a private contractor under this title, so I don't see why you couldn't make it work before retirement. You're basically "identifying" yourself as having nothing to do with their corrupt system, as you are part of another jurisdiction, peaceful, self-sufficient, and wish to be left alone. Imagine what the world would be like if we ALL had one of these....

http://familyofsanders.info/Declaration.php



My job right now requires me to have a drivers license. If I do this and identify myself as this,
(I'm spiritual so this sits well within my moral standards)

A) Can they fire me for no longer having a drivers license as I wouldn't be required by law anymore?

B) Is there a potential suit involved? (I could care two sh*ts about losing it and suing as I aspire to have my own business and this teaching job is a dime a dozen until I reach my capital goal, which I'm close too anyways)

The reason why I'm so adamant about all this is because I know what's best for me as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. Being paranoid about me harming someone else sounds like their problem, not mine. I want to fix this harassment with the easiest, simplest remedy possible. This right now seems like it to me, but I'd like to see what others think before I identify myself with this before I'm ready...

allodial
02-24-12, 09:34 AM
Lucifer bringing the world low?

I wonder if that is why so many accuse the NWO of Luciferianism?

Illumin---

allodial
02-24-12, 09:38 AM
One interesting thing about the whole issue of identity is that a birth certificate can serve to identify or pertain to 'identifying' in the sense of associating a name or entity with a particular 'date' (consider the distinction between 'day' and 'date'). JOHN HENRY DOE identified with 1/1/1950 compared to JOHN HENRY DOE identified with 9/11/2001.

Chex
02-24-12, 04:02 PM
It may be what you describe is more like astrology (http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/626/admiraltybindsthewholew.pdf). I admire that you do not set upon a fixed belief set.

What book is this from?

I'm sure anyone who knows admiralty can relate to this:

check this out vessels :

As the high court of admiralty has a special jurisdiction as a respect to a variety of matters connected with merchant shipping and the government is also involved in complications with foreign governments through the same medium its important to examine what constitutes a “British ship” and what general rules are the owner and masters and are expected to comply.

In order for a ship to be a British ship it must be wholly either to natural-born British subjects or to “denizens (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denizens)” – that is a person to whom a partial citizenship has been conceded by letter-patented from the Crown -or to bodies corporate, established under, subject to the laws of, or having their principal place of business in a British possession.

Unless the ship be a small one, or be used for mere river or coasting navigation it must be duly registered.

This is the part I like:

The “certificate of registry (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/certificate+of+registry)” states the name of the ship and of the port to which she belongs, her tonnage and build, the name of her master, and the name and description of her registered owner.

bodies corporate: makes you wonder?

osbogosley
02-24-12, 06:28 PM
About the 1907 supreme court citation: I talked with Patrick this morning and he is looking for the case as well. He
thought we could find it in http://tjsl.libguides.com/content.php?pid=109983

This is Shepards United States Citations. Has to do with shepardizing a case.
I'm looking, hope you give it a try also.

allodial
02-28-12, 11:14 PM
It should be no surprise that the Torrens System is utilized by the United States of America and that such system is applied for both the registration of vessels and the registration of real estate.


The idea of a system of land title registration originated with Sir Robert Torrens of Australia, and has generally become known as the "Torrens System." Sir Robert Torrens was a business man who had been a Collector of Customs in charge of shipping. In this position he became familiar with a law under which ships were registered, under the practice of which the registry showed the name or names of the owners of the vessel and all liens and incumbrances against it. It was required that all liens or claims be noted on the registry, so that any inspection would show briefly and simply the condition of the title. Later Sir Robert Torrens became Registrar-General of South Australia. His experience with shipping led him to believe that the principle of registration of titles could be applied to land as well as ships. In 1857 he introduced a bill providing for the registration of land titles. This bill became a law in South Australia January 27, 1858, and went into effect on July 1, 1858. The idea spread rapidly. British Honduras in Central America passed a Land Registering Act the same year, 1858. Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria followed in 1861. New South Wales in 1862, New Zealand in 1870, West Australia in 1874, Fiji in 1876. Other British colonies have since adopted the system


The System In England

While we have said that the idea of a system of land title registration spread rapidly, it must also be said that the speed does not seem to have been maintained. A Land Registry Act, known as the "Lord Westbury Act," was passed in England in 1862. The law was a failure and was repealed in 1875. Only 411 titles were registered in the 13 years. It has been stated by Mr. Torrens and others that the law did not follow the original Torrens Act, but diverted from it in many essential features. The Act of 1875, which repealed this law, was known as the "Lord Cairns Act."

It simplified the system and corrected many of the mistakes of the old law. It failed, however, to provide an assurance fund out of which losses could be paid. This defect was a serious one - compensation for loss to the injured through error or otherwise was lacking. Under a new act in 1897, an assurance fund was provided, the national treasury making good any deficiency. Registration became compulsory in the County of London by the same act. The records show that 3,825 titles were registered in England and Wales in the 20 years from 1875 to 1895, and that in the following 10 years, 91,284 titles were registered in London alone.

England evidently did not get a workable Torrens system until nearly 40 years after her colony, South Australia, had one. The system, however, had to struggle against conditions peculiar to English land ownership. The law of entail prevails, and many English freeholds are inalienable, the owner in possession having only a life interest. Great landed estates exist and a large proportion of the land is in the hands of comparatively few persons. England was jealous of its customs and the lawyers were opposed to changes. However, in spite of the handicaps, the Torrens system seems to have been successfully adopted.

Michael Joseph
02-29-12, 07:33 PM
What book is this from?




"THE AMERICAN ADMIRALTY ITS JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE WITH PRACTICAL FORMS AND DIRECTIONS" - by Erastus C. BENEDICT

Chex
02-29-12, 11:28 PM
Thank "You" MJ

fishnet
03-07-12, 04:11 AM
Would anyone here care to take up the argument of identity with me? I challenge anyone here to prove their identity.

With specificity, what about you proves your identity? Specifically how can i identify you absent any outside source? What is it about you that specifically identifies you?


Proving identity is not possible. There is only EVIDENCE of identity i.e. a Certificate of Live Birth with footprints; however, that might be considered "outside source".

Michael Joseph
03-07-12, 09:43 PM
Proving identity is not possible. There is only EVIDENCE of identity i.e. a Certificate of Live Birth with footprints; however, that might be considered "outside source".

Thank you fishnet, my work here is done.

Now we can move on to how one cures that defect in Identity. Since it can't be proved with certainty - the defect is cured in Trust. Your writings and your actions.

for the Scripture does say - a double minded man is unstable in all his ways......

Therefore let our actions match our words [expressed verbally or in writing]