Legal name = mark of the beast ? [Archive]

View Full Version : Legal name = mark of the beast ?

shikamaru

06-07-11, 12:28 PM

I remember the phrase from somewhere that you can't "buy, sell, or trade" without it.

The legal name (along with identification) fits this description perfectly, in my opinion.

Agree or disagree?

John Booth

06-07-11, 05:11 PM

I see it as you cannot play the game without a token or game piece, and the LN is that, especially for the Public, yet the board has two sides, yeah?

So...as above, so below, and if you play on the Private side, it is the obverse/reverse side of the Public, and one can buy, sell, or trade - to me labels of exchange.

I do notice the "own" is not in the phrase, is it telling by omission?

shikamaru

06-07-11, 05:47 PM

I see it as you cannot play the game without a token or game piece, and the LN is that, especially for the Public, yet the board has two sides, yeah?

There is! I tend to forget that sometimes.

I do notice the "own" is not in the phrase, is it telling by omission?

To own in a beast system, both the name and item must be registered.

RThomas

06-07-11, 06:06 PM

Michael Joseph

06-07-11, 08:53 PM

“Mark of the Beast” may also mean money. My Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology lists mark as being used in old English as money or a unit of coinage (starting around 1200 AD). It is from Proto-Germanic origin. Germany still uses the term today, hence a German Mark.

give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give unto God what is God's. I take notice that I did not enter this age with any ownership and I shall not leave it with any ownership. I also take notice that I was, I am and I will be. Therefore what is a date in regard to my existence?

I also take notice that my people asked my God for a man-king [Trustee]. The State is a Nullity absent God. Because what man has the power to transfer rights in to another body of men?

The Mark of the Beast has been around since Eden. I take careful notice that it was a son of Cain that built the first city. Society requires Trust, yes? first in the hand - labor; then in the forehead - full faith. If you are looking for the Mark, you will be deceived for it has always been there.

It is simple - Trust God. Any other trust is mis-placed and is leaning on a false rock. But my Rock is unmovable - God's Word is the same yesterday [first Age] today [flesh Age] and tomorrow [Age to Come].

shalom,
mj

Treefarmer

06-08-11, 02:53 AM

I think that the American author Jan MARCUSSEN does a very good job of explaining what is the biblical "mark of the beast" which is only mentioned in the book of Revelation.
His relatively short, and I believe correct analysis of the topic can be read here (http://www.reg6.com/), where it is presented in an intentionally sensational style and at a 6th grade reading level in order to make it accessible to the TV minds.
Not a bad read though; I enjoyed it:p

RThomas

06-08-11, 03:07 AM

give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give unto God what is God's.

I interpret this as you seeing what I see. Money of that time (and now) contains images (graven) or imprints of the beast. The Beast’s mark or image on such, may have led to ‘money’ of the beast being referred to as the ‘mark’ of the beast. Books of etymology support the conclusion (albeit a circumstantial one) as to why in 1611this English word was used as the translation of the original Greek. I also see that money that originates from Caesar is Caesar’s and not of God.

I take notice that I did not enter this age with any ownership and I shall not leave it with any ownership. I also take notice that I was, I am and I will be.

Who is giving you notice? God does not need notice, God is knowledge. If you allow God to flow through you than you would ‘know,’ not ‘take notice.’

Therefore what is a date in regard to my existence?

I see that dates are a concept of man and not of God. The question before us was in reference to a concept that existed before the here and now. The response was to show the nexus to the here and now.

I also take notice that my people asked my God for a man-king [Trustee]. The State is a Nullity absent God. Because what man has the power to transfer rights in to another body of men?

Man can be deceived into giving up his ‘rights.’ This is the essence of ‘free will.’ God will not transfer ‘rights.’ The question is, is one of man or of God, and of which God?

The Mark of the Beast has been around since Eden.

The concept of deception has been around since Eden. The specific form of deception inquired about in the OP came later as a concept of money, as representing a proxy for the future exchange of labor.

I take careful notice that it was a son of Cain that built the first city. Society requires Trust, yes?

Joining a society requires trust. One who joins with blind trust may be foolish. A society accepting membership into their society requires no trust of them for you, but may accept one’s giving of trust (from you), blind or not. They may try to hold you to the pledge of trust, blind or not.

first in the hand - labor; then in the forehead - full faith. If you are looking for the Mark, you will be deceived for it has always been there.

As given above, the OP was about a specific reference to a form of deception and not to the general concept of deception itself.

It is simple - Trust God. Any other trust is mis-placed and is leaning on a false rock. But my Rock is unmovable - God's Word is the same yesterday [first Age] today [flesh Age] and tomorrow [Age to Come].

This last part appears to be a perception you hold that I do not see. What I see is much different. God only spoke through man, using the language of man. The ‘word of God’ may be metaphorical. The truths in the messages originating from God are universal in all languages of man and in all ‘dates’ (Ages) of man (our being and existence).

For the record, I am not one of 'religion.’ I see the messages expressed in the Bible, and find truth in them. I am one of and with truth, not belief. Also, I wish to express my appreciation of your post.

David Merrill

06-08-11, 08:51 AM

Treefarmer

06-08-11, 03:42 PM

Hopefully I may find time to catch up on this interesting thread. For now though - the comment about dating grabs me.

The term I hear comes from the term "to gift". So you are giving something up when you date a document. I have quit dating documents and allow the software, clerk or notary to declare the date for me.

Thank you for pointing this out David.
I looked at the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and it says this:

Origin of DATE
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin data, from data (as in data Romae given at Rome), feminine of Latin datus, past participle of dare to give; akin to Latin dos gift, dowry, Greek didonai to give
First Known Use: 14th century

By way of a nice coincidence, I had just been wondering if I should date a certain document when this little tid-bit of info helped me to decide:)

RThomas

06-09-11, 08:19 AM

The word ‘Date’ may be nothing more than an agreement of precedence or a gift of proof to another of what originated first. If you think about it a date is not required for a transaction. A signature is. A date is merely a giving of proof or precedence (supremacy) of a transaction. This ‘gift’ may be of a benevolent nature (one of truth within the provided form of communication of time (calendar)). As to the method of 'dating' an event, can anyone claim a third party right to refute the method of documenting (setting precedence of) that event? Can anyone who has declared a 'calendar' for the documentation of events, hold any right to define the meaning of those events outside of their language that originates from what can be known by anyone who sees the celestial bodies.

EZrhythm

06-09-11, 09:22 AM

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13&version=NIV

The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666
Revelation 13:15-18

This is the most viable theory I have seen; http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/toc.htm

David Merrill

06-09-11, 11:34 AM

I was heavily influenced by Eric Temple BELL's Numerology (1933). The party game of UCLA then was Beasting. The mathematics scholars could invariably find a variation of somebody's name equalling 666; of course they could bounce between variations and languages to get there. [Except uncannily for Eric's, that was the ongoing challenge - find a 666 for Eric.]

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

That is the magick encryption of the Angelic Name of God (72-Fold) and we find that Exodus 14:19-21 are 72 letters/verse alright. This has been a basis of gematria (qaballa) for many centuries now. 72 x 3 = 216. 6x6x6=216 too. I have many remarkable interpretations and decryptions of the KJV Bible if you have been paying attention and considering the passage in context of John isolated on a prison island, writing a letter he hoped would survive the Roman Empire occupation it strikes me more likely that this is the numerical operation that he was referring to.

I surmise that the white stone of acquittal is akin to knowing your identity; for being truth as a basis for distinguishing truth - like a tuning fork and your true name (given or Christian names/First and Middle only) functions for this purpose. There may be no useful metaphysics to that but I believe otherwise. Exodus 13:16 is part of the Libel of Review's Law of the Flag, indicating that the Mark of God is upon our hands and foreheads - exactly where John foretold of the Mark of the Beast? Monuments come to mind - surveys. Who will you find there? - In our actions and thoughts? One or the other.

While discovering our own Power (prayer) we may come to a point like Saul, who repented to Samuel; or David, who repented in front of Nathan to God. It is whether we utilize what we understand about the nature of God (216) and his manifestation of miracles for the Glorification of God or Mammon that really matters, as far as I am concerned. The manipulations of the Tetragammatron are inticing indeed, the fear of God is quite essential while discovering Power.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Chex

06-09-11, 03:34 PM

Social security always baffled me, I could never understand why I had to enlist into this program when I didn’t want it; never the less at fourteen I was told I needed this to get a job.

My question is how am I with a new grandchild underway was going to get power of attorney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney)for this child. You know when the nurse comes in the first order of business is the SS5 (http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf)very important even before the B/C (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title16/ar37/ch2.html) gets signed by the informant (like Wisconsin (http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2010/69/69.13.html), Massachusetts (http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/vital_records/news_dec03supp.doc)and Louisiana Administrative Code RS 40:34 (http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/newWin.asp?doc=98398)and I’m sure the other states alike) to have this application filled out. I didn’t understand why it was necessary for a baby to have this number at birth other than the lie “you get a tax break”.

I needed some detailed information about this SSAct (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/ssact.htm)in that sensational style and at a 6th grade reading level and thanks to treefarmer from the Table of Contents (http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/toc.htm) starts the process.

What really caught my attention are the facts that represent the rulings especially in Chapter 8 (http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/Chap8.htm). Watching this judge (http://www.judgejudy.com/)really brought attention to detail, especially when one court case involving a minor (http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/minors-law/)who purchase an automobile from a adult (http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adult/)by contract and the judge told the plaintiff “You cannot contract with a minor, check your state laws”,

Although further research (http://www.netlawman.co.uk/info/entering-contract-minor.php)states “The minor is able to cancel any contract at any time prior to reaching the age of majority (http://contests.about.com/od/sweepstakes101/a/agemajoristate.htm)and for a reasonable period after that time.”

What is for a reasonable period of time? I might be thirty years past the date and slept through the class in high school when they were teaching this subject but I like to know how the SSA (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/ssact.htm)contracted with a fourteen year old and for some reason it’s considered a binding contract (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-binding-contract.htm)?

Curiosity gets the best of me so I called the SSA and told them to stop the deductions because I wanted to take those contributions (http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm)and invest them myself into a more promising venture (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=245005)(like me) in the same amounts that were taken out of my payments of debts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt)I was receiving.

I was told “NO” because if I continue working and my credits do not get applied I will be receiving a lower benefit (http://www.google.com/search?q=benefit+definition&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)instead of a greater benefit. I told her I understand that, I’ll take the penalty (http://www.google.com/search?q=penalty+default+rule&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=). Then the kicker, “You have to call the IRS for permission”. Why do I have to ask the IRS for permission? “They have the authority” she stated.

Chapter 5 (http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/Chap5.htm) referring to Fleming v. Nestor and the RESERVATION OF POWER (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html)maybe is not an earned right (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5776)perhaps that’s why I have to call the IRS or be in economic hardship (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/04/SSR83-28-di-04.html).

Maybe it's my Tax Class 5 (http://www.famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/TaxClass.htm)? "gift" and not an earned right.

Hbert997

06-09-11, 06:33 PM

I remember the phrase from somewhere that you can't "buy, sell, or trade" without it.

The legal name (along with identification) fits this description perfectly, in my opinion.

Agree or disagree?

I would agree with you only that it is a down-stream result of a much deeper and more historical context.

Go back in time to study Nimrod, Semiramus and Tammuz (the false trinity) from Babylon. They are the originators of the clever and secret doctrines of the world throughout history. And understanding what occurred back in the garden is key.

The solar magic square is an important mathematical and alchemical key and link among so many others. Solar deities and ancient mystery religions are based solely on Satan's/Lucifer's desire to counterfeit EVERYTHING from Yahweh/God/Our Creator and Father.

Lucifer wanted man/woman to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil instead of relying on the Tree of Life (Yeshua/Jesus).

I would suggest that the "mark" of the beast is identified in who we worship...knowingly or unknowingly.

A "mark" is also a "sign" or "seal". Kings and presidents have 'seals'. Their seals present their authority of who they are, what they have authority over and whom.

Yahweh's/God's mark of His authority is found in His Fourth Commandment:

Exodus 20:8-11

New King James Version (NKJV)

8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

"I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." Ezekiel 20:12. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth." Exodus 31:17.

Questions: Why do we "worship" on "Sunday"? Who are the "Sun/Solar" deities? Why is December 25th the "birth"day of ALL of the Solar deities?

Look down from the "heavens" on to D.C. and you'll see...the "image" of the beast? Is the Washington Monument the "image" of what is found in St. Peter's Square in Rome?

Just my thoughts! :-)

David Merrill

06-09-11, 07:17 PM

Thank you! You have outdone me with informative links. I know how much longer a post like yours takes and I appreciate that extra effort.

I went to the SSA office and had a discussion with the manager. Since that time I have not had a SSN.

Why not?

Because I do not write it or say it. When somebody asks me for one, I say, I do not have a Social Security Number.

I am uploading a very special example (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/showentry.php?e=27) of utilizing the priesthood METRO organization - for example:

According, the original Federal Reserve Act also appears to be Federal MUNICIPAL law.

How about that?

If you have some time to spend get into this download. Just so that you don't feel you wasted your time though - if you go into the ER for X-Rays or CAT Scans make sure you leave with the whole report on CD. If you try to get them later they will charge you. My point is that these requirements are not really required.

If you understand relationships (trusts) well enough, you can usually just wait for the truth to catch up with the logic that you owe the billing information at all. Most of the time, the delivery - the biological one is done through the ER anyway with the woman or more often Daddy so flustered he will sign anything in front of him. What will they do? Just make the woman deliver in the waiting room?

There are horror stories though... about handing the new baby over to protective services so keep context about your research!

RThomas

06-10-11, 07:22 AM

RThomas

06-10-11, 07:55 AM

shikamaru

06-10-11, 09:29 AM

I wish to add to this thread that I am aware that shikamaru might perceive my post as off topic. As this is his thread, I hope he sees that I am sharing what I see as on topic within my perception of his pursuit of truth. Let me know, and I will cease.

Not at all !!
Contribute anything and everything you care to.
The thread will take its own course :).
I'm ignorant on this subject so, I'm just soaking it all in.

The phrase of "being unable to buy, sell, or trade without it" caught my eye. The legal name fits the bill perfectly.

shikamaru

06-10-11, 09:32 AM

Social security always baffled me, I could never understand why I had to enlist into this program when I didn’t want it; never the less at fourteen I was told I needed this to get a job.

I think I can explain this.

If you look at the case Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, you will note that there is a standard for raising a Constitutional issue.

If you avail yourself of a statute or act, you will be unable to raise a Constitutional issue. The issue becomes merely administrative.

This is why it is important to correct your status and remove one's self from statutory benefits.

Ashwander rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashwander_rules)

1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."[1]

2. The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it." [2] "It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case." [3]

3. The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the Precise facts to which it is to be applied." [2]

4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.

5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right to challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right.

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

7. "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided." [4]

Many of the other one's are important too.

shikamaru

06-10-11, 09:33 AM

Thank-you everyone for your contributions.
So much meat to chew on here !!

shikamaru

06-10-11, 09:38 AM

David Merrill

06-10-11, 10:52 AM

As David Merrill has clearly shown on this site and others, there exists intent to convert ones fruits (your labor; paycheck) into acceptance of another’s claim to them (a claim that you gift your labor to satisfy their debt). David has shown a way to refute any such claim.

There is a similarity to this type of claim of ones knowledge of truth and a recording of such in a ‘Bible.’ The ‘Bible’ (conceptually) does show many truths. But whose ‘Bible’ is true to the ‘word of God.’ Is the ‘word of God’ (KJV) actually from ‘God’ or from servants of King James who may have translated the original language in a manner that served their master? Does not the introduction of the King James Version show who their master was? Does it show that they serve only one master, King James, and not the one true ‘God’ as evidenced conceptually in their text? Who, conceptually, is ‘God’ to you? Conceptually, is ‘God’ as what you may have been conditioned to believe? Or is ‘God’ conceptually what you have come to see within a pursuit of truth? Did not Jesus say that the only way to ‘heaven’ (heaven may be a concept and not an actual place) was by truth and light?

If one pursues, the concept of ‘God’ with a religious bias (conditioning originating from others as opposed to a mind that is like an innocent baby, or a mind that is ‘born again’) they may never see that which is hidden in plain sight.

Thank you for the Ashwander Rule. I am amazed sometimes at my ignorance of such obvious doctrine.

1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."[1]

2. The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it." [2] "It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case." [3]

3. The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the Precise facts to which it is to be applied." [2]

4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.

5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right to challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right.

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

7. "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided." [4]

That will really make a big difference in some work I am doing.

The Club de Paris (http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/) is a non-organization. It has obvious roots in the UN's IMF though. It would seem to be the controlling arm, which would at first blush seem extraordinary - considering it is a non-organization. The Club de Paris though, decides unilaterally it would seem, which nations get loans and more importantly - what dispositions and setoffs will be granted.

This disorganization; or rather non-organization shuffles upward into chaos and the power accrues as it does so! The power seems to accrue with immunity. [This coagulates for the other echo chamber as I write here; for a woman whom the trial judge swapped out the LEO, probably because she identified herself correctly to be the woman, not the legal entity on the Card. Notice how non-organized this trial judge is - no conformity (http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8332/hansenoath.jpg) to swearing in the authority of the Name of God. She is a county court judge, who would file her oath with the county clerk and recorder - not the Secretary of State! But her oath went with the chief judge's oath hours after my $20M lien (http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7398/20mlienoriginalreturn.jpg) was perfected at the SoS (http://img858.imageshack.us/img858/9650/20mliendateofpublicatio.jpg)... Before (http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2062/oathsamelson103.jpg). After (http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9089/oathsamelson209.jpg). All the while the AG (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg)claiming before the Tenth Circuit the trial judge has immunity has never subscribed his swearing to God at all!] As 'government' descends into the depths of non-organization in other words, the officials acquire power through being immune - "judicial immunity from suit" is what the AG likes to call it.

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8219/oathsdefactoconstcite.jpg

That is all just to prepare you for the staggering implications that the non-organization descends to a century-old dinner club (http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/pilgrims_society.htm) - replete with members who have nothing to do with each other, and when they do are as likely to squabble as to agree. The point being it is these non-organized diners of the Anglo-World who have the trusts (UBO's - Unorganized Business Organizations) that hold all the energy accrued from... where? Well that must be awaiting claim of the Beneficiary:

Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.

All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

If they are holding all the wealth by dishonest means, that means they are criminals. But consider this; they are holding the wealth as trustees. [This non-organization; on it descent into the 20th-Century Dinner Club above linked, formed through Scottish Rite Masonry (http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2753/honeycomb1.jpg) (note the honeycomb under the eave) along the way - through a Southern General named Albert PIKE. Ergo, some poetry worth reading might be the required reading - also found in the Library of Congress - Morals and Dogma.]

Is not that exactly what would happen in the hospital? The issue (baby) would be held in trust should the parent decide to be the trustee by claiming the baby? This claim would be made by failing to transfer the issue into the state registry - the Department of Health.

Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial

06-10-11, 03:54 PM

Is not that exactly what would happen in the hospital? The issue (baby) would be held in trust should the parent decide to be the trustee by claiming the baby? This claim would be made by failing to transfer the issue into the state registry - the Department of Health.

However, let's remember that a hospital is not a building..but a "legal entity"..a corporation. "Born" in a hospital means charter/origin within the corporation. If the hospital is a public entity under a bankruptcy claim...then perhap the fruit of the hospital is.... But remember its just a corporation--it doesn't exist in nature.

***

As David Merrill has clearly shown on this site and others, there exists intent to convert ones fruits (your labor; paycheck) into acceptance of another's claim to them (a claim that you gift your labor to satisfy their debt). David has shown a way to refute any such claim.

When you sign a check in blank..its BASIC/SIMPLETON/RUDIAMENTARY banking knowledge that a check signed in blank is a bearer instrument. Stop being your own worst nightmare. Redeem for lawful money. Stop doing blank endorsements. Walk away from a bearer instrument is just like leaving one hundred bill on the counter--it can be akin to abandonment.

Relevantly...I'd considered starting a thread headed "A New Trend". Just recently, someone went to deposit money to a bank account. Now for some reason, a direct deposit form with bank account information and routing nubmer and all that printed out automatically from a printer by the teller. AFTER the item printed out--AUTOMATICALLY--without ANY request from the one depositing the funds, the teller asked "Would you like a direct deposit application form? If not I'll shred it for you." Normally there would just be a receipt printed and that would be all! The one depositing the money was extremely puzzled since it stunk of poo that by simply depositing funds that a document containing routing number, account number, name on account or the like would automatically be printed out without any request and that the financial institution would have the audacity to ask if it was wanted AFTER it was already printed WITHOUT request--without asking. Of course, the teller effectively said "We can shred it for you" immediately after the printout was made. But he knew better because if he left it, it would be a kind of abandonment (1099-A).

So it gets more interesting, I thereafter found that another financial institution was doing similar things. They were WITHOUT REQUEST FROM THE CUSTOMER printing out documents that weren't related to the counter transaction and which contained sensitive information and then asking saying they would shred the items. The lady I spoke with said when she insisted that she would take the documents herself they got quite pushy about allowing them to shred the documents INSTEAD. Why?

Is it that they want you to abandon something? To abandon a claim?

David Merrill

06-13-11, 09:31 PM

I believe you are exactly correct. Entering the new baby on the state registry is abandoning claim. Keeping that claim while going to the hospital at all though, may be bad for the family's future.

Michael Joseph has been introducing us to a new line of thought. Redeeming lawful money is the remedy written for elastic currency only.

On earth as in heaven...

With the state insisting on being trustee, one might trust in Paul's formation of the Roman Welfare State (spending his last years in protective custody and in Rome on the taxpayer's dole). What I mean is that we become conduits between - the Bride if you run to the Blood Sacrifices and relate your identity to Israel - or just being in that relationship of being in the world but not of it. You become the conduit between heaven and earth.

You submit the baby into the state's entitlement but maintain the beneficial use of the baby. If the trustee is doing its job, then this is for the baby's good. If not, then you move into the position of trustee (resulting trust).

One thing for sure though; if you have the beneficial use of the baby 24/7 you have 18 years or so to teach him or her about this trust relationship and prepare the child for responsible parenting too.

Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial

06-14-11, 01:24 AM

What is interesting is that all along... the birth certificate says:

"CHILD"

even when you are 50 years old.

***

Enough experience, testimony and evidence shows that the entity created is a legal entity and that it has little or nothing to do with a baby coming out of its mom womb--that maybe its an office (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=office) created..a container (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=orofice&searchmode=none) for ..something or someone perhaps. Isn't it interesting how the word person is similar to the word 'prison'. I did a trace of legislation of one "country's" birth certificate laws and found a correlation to an act that gave what one might call "legal entities" the ability to perform "natural person acts". These acts originated around the 1930s from what I recall.

The key IMHO is for John Henry to take the right kind of perspective on, JOHN HENRY DOE, for example.

I believe you are exactly correct. Entering the new baby on the state registry is abandoning claim. Keeping that claim while going to the hospital at all though, may be bad for the family's future.
Could that be first blank endorsement done by power of attorney exercised by the parents (or rather entities --or perhaps the trustees or fiduciaries for the entity?)?

You submit the baby into the state's entitlement but maintain the beneficial use of the baby.
If you look at most birth certificates FATHER is usually the third "underwriter"/"endorser"/"surety". When THE CHILD reaches the age of 18 or 21 its perhaps presumed that the fiduciary is also 18 or 21 and an now sign for himself/herself and for THE CHILD? Contracts with infants can include contracts with those under 21 years old btw.

Some time ago I pointed out to someone that the child support laws might be a lot more telling than they might at first seem. Might John Henry might be responsible for supporting child JOHN HENRY DOE? Paying CHILD's traffic tickets? Showing up to court for CHILD? Filing CHILD's taxes, etc? {Who doesn't get it?}

If the trustee is doing its job, then this is for the baby's good. If not, then you move into the position of trustee (resulting trust).
Isn't that that what they do when YOU don't pay CHILD's traffic tickets? They start doing the trustee work for you? Oh and that taking over the trustee's role when the trustee is incompetent or acting in bad faith and that whole resulting/constructive trust thing--that might apply with regard to gold, lawful money or even the right to travel.

One thing for sure though; if you have the beneficial use of the baby 24/7 you have 18 years or so to teach him or her about this trust relationship and prepare the child for responsible parenting too.
And/or perhaps time to teach the baby the difference between a legal entity and himself/herself. Now hypothetically what if one were to enter the baby's name on the register in exchange for lawful money?

****

That said... the old tales about the Kracken was that it fed pretty leisurely just lying at the bottom at the sea easily sucking up fish. Many small fish would feed off of its excrement so larger fish were plentiful in the area. Who figures that the Kracken (http://www.tommullen.net/featured/release-the-kraken/) was after the taste of wood when it devoured vessels? Or was it perhaps the cargo, owner or ...fiduciary...it was after?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb2zIR2rvRQ

http://www.benbarren.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/picture-12.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/United_States_long_form_birth_certificate.gif

David Merrill

06-14-11, 01:36 PM

It is an intense argument indeed.

I think one might consider Colorado's New Cash Cow - at least I do because I know him. He showed a current Proof of Insurance card at a traffic stop and was jailed a week for No Proof of Insurance. - Because the police officer made a legal decision for the entire Insurance Industry, from the witness stand!

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/7382/insurancechargemandator.jpg

He identified himself correctly to the Stopping Officer, a woman officer and they were bold enough to bring one of the subsequent officers, a man to the trial to testify.

Likewise with me, the DA gambles on statistics that people will plea-bargain down the charges (fines and charges). Which has a way of backfiring when somebody has a good dose of:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/3554/sinderesis.jpg

We are watching the same drama build for Anthony Joseph (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?146-DL-was-NOT-provided-or-used-as-ID&p=3143&viewfull=1#post3143)- showing us that his driver license has been revoked on the other thread. From the looks of it, the DA has no intention of pursuing the initial charge that he Failed to Appear about. His bond, the Trustee Card, has been determined of no value to AJ ($250 bail value to the average Trustee). So they will hit him, next time he is stopped with $250+ out-of-pocket - no cash accepted! Check only...

That way they get that legal or full name from him by signature bond.

I have been told, at 1:00 am in jail to sign the Bond Agreement exactly as it appears on the Form.

RThomas

07-01-11, 04:40 AM

Thank you for the Ashwander Rule.

HER''ESY, n. [Gr. to take, to hold; L. haeresis.]

1. A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy, when it differs from that of the church. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians,may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage,heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach.

2. Heresy, in law, is an offense against christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained.

3. An untenable or unsound opinion or doctrine in politics.