PDA

View Full Version : The Name thing.



JHV
04-12-12, 05:03 PM
Obviously I am not yet ready to snatch the pebble from Master Merrill's hand.

While I am trying to make heads or tails of the LoR I find that I don't yet speak fluent Merrillian. Apparently I need to start using my "True Name", as opposed to what I have always considered to be my Real Name since the Eisenhower administration. This is causing me cosiderable cognitive dissonance.

So, accepting my fair share of abuse, what disadvantage is there in using my Real Name, and what advantage is to be gained by using my "True Name"? I understand my Real Name to be spelled First Last, or First M Last, or even on rare occasions First Middle Last. But now I am told that I should tell the world that I am First Middle, and that I should hit cap lock when I spell my LAST name, only to leave it unused in my every day affairs.

Honestly, this new "True Name" sounds a little dishonest, as though I am trying to hide something. All of my previous business dealings and all of my troubles with the powers that be are in my Real Name, and now I am supposed to overcome all my previous mistakes by using this new "True Name". My family thinks I wear a tin-foil hat as it is.

Alrighty then, bring it on.

David Merrill
04-12-12, 06:39 PM
Obviously I am not yet ready to snatch the pebble from Master Merrill's hand.

While I am trying to make heads or tails of the LoR I find that I don't yet speak fluent Merrillian. Apparently I need to start using my "True Name", as opposed to what I have always considered to be my Real Name since the Eisenhower administration. This is causing me cosiderable cognitive dissonance.

So, accepting my fair share of abuse, what disadvantage is there in using my Real Name, and what advantage is to be gained by using my "True Name"? I understand my Real Name to be spelled First Last, or First M Last, or even on rare occasions First Middle Last. But now I am told that I should tell the world that I am First Middle, and that I should hit cap lock when I spell my LAST name, only to leave it unused in my every day affairs.

Honestly, this new "True Name" sounds a little dishonest, as though I am trying to hide something. All of my previous business dealings and all of my troubles with the powers that be are in my Real Name, and now I am supposed to overcome all my previous mistakes by using this new "True Name". My family thinks I wear a tin-foil hat as it is.

Alrighty then, bring it on.

Welcome JHV!


When you make your breakthrough, you will read that my name is David Merrill, and that Van Pelt is my family's name.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification.jpg

Backside (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification2.jpg).

David Merrill Van Pelt is the name for forming constructive trusts and when I was twelve that is what I did with the Social Security Administration six months after I began working as maintenance man at an apartment complex.

After registration with SSA. (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification3.jpg).

However a lot of people misread my name so I formed a quorum while my parents were still alive to fortify the truth:


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification4.jpg

See how they verified my name is David Merrill?


The all upper case LAST NAME is a way of distinguishing it as codified, encrypted or a Title - like SMITH, MILLER, COOPER are more obvious titles of occupation. This comes from when a father traditionally taught his son the family trade. The title is a constructive trust. Interestingly the mainstream usage of this is French, the same language as the term nom de guerre - name of war; which is spelled on the default will of a soldier in all upper case - underneath is Nom de Guerre.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier qua-mathematica.jpg

Suppose the peaceful inhabitant is forced to joinder (engage) in trial by fire in the actual theater of war - suspension of the constitution?


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier-mathematical.jpg

Another concept about this is civil death.

Rather than to confuse you further though let me explain that once you are aware of the trusts that are contracted around you under the penumbra of "law" you might gain a lot more wiggle room to quit signing on as trustee, fiduciary responsible for settling the charges.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I do not have a birth certificate.

JHV
04-13-12, 01:24 PM
I am who I am, a living soul created in the image of the Almighty YHVH Elohim, and my name is First Middle, LAST. I have been told that there may be a constructive trust in my name, or one similar, and if such a trust exists it is fraudulent and thus void ab initio, any claims against me arising out of said fraudulent trust are refused for cause.

Adequate?

David Merrill
04-13-12, 01:49 PM
I am who I am, a living soul created in the image of the Almighty YHVH Elohim, and my name is First Middle, LAST. I have been told that there may be a constructive trust in my name, or one similar, and if such a trust exists it is fraudulent and thus void ab initio, any claims against me arising out of said fraudulent trust are refused for cause.

Adequate?

Yes. You are getting along alright.

Then let me suppose that you are stopped while driving and you pull out a government-issued ID card called Driver License. To get where you are going you should renew it now, and sign First Middle only.


"I am not showing you this card for identification purposes. My name is First Middle. I am showing you the card for competency purposes only so that you know I passed the tests and can make a valid claim with an insurance company to cover costs in case of an accident."

Something along those lines.

We have several instances of the police officer going to his car and coming back in a few minutes with nothing but to hand the card back, You are free to go.

But as things develop the officers are completely ignoring anything you say as if to say, I will not remember your incoherent babbling on the witness stand.

Which is of course perjury.

JHV
04-14-12, 03:36 PM
I do not have a birth certificate.

I resisted the temptation to shout the new F word, "frivolous". But wait, I do not have a birth certificate, no, the constructive trust does. I do not have a social security number, the trust does. Now how do I prove that I am allowed to work in the united States of America?

martin earl
04-14-12, 10:58 PM
I resisted the temptation to shout the new F word, "frivolous". But wait, I do not have a birth certificate, no, the constructive trust does. I do not have a social security number, the trust does. Now how do I prove that I am allowed to work in the united States of America?

How, exactly, can you prove you are "in" the united States of America?

The Law is clear 'thou shalt not bear false witness.'

You have been told you are in the united States of America, but hearsay is not even evidence when objected to.

And as for the 'frivolous' nature of me demanding proper upper and lower case spelling on documents, my question has been and is "If it truly does not mean anything to have my name written in ALL CAPS, then you will have no problem changing it, correct? As I REFUSE and OBJECT to it being spelled in all CAPS."

There is a reason for every jot and tittle in the law and they would correct their errors if they did not mean anything.

Personally, I think capitis deminutio maxima is at least as important as true name vs first last. Try getting a court or clerk to use proper upper and lower case spelling and then tell me it does not have legal meaning when they flatly refuse.

David Merrill
04-15-12, 12:34 AM
I resisted the temptation to shout the new F word, "frivolous". But wait, I do not have a birth certificate, no, the constructive trust does. I do not have a social security number, the trust does. Now how do I prove that I am allowed to work in the united States of America?

Martin Earl is making some points but I think they are weak to argue in court. My take is more that if you are a responsible trustee (fiduciary) then you will have a SSN or Birth Certificate when it is appropriate and beneficial to use it. This is something it may take keys you have not found to decrypt (yet).

Have you ever noticed that your post is conditioned?

What I mean is say you start to come out of the conditioning and you use (have) a birth certificate and use it to get a job in the USA or uSA or wherever it is that you spend time for pay to buy groceries - reality check there. Now think about it for a moment. Whenever somebody wants to say, Well you have a birth certificate for that, so therefore you have a birth certificate for this too (assumpsit). - Whenever that happens, assumpsit, they have to verify that you have a birth certificate don't they? And in that verification process if you cave, and say, Well, I guess you have me there, use my birth certificate for that too...

If they assume that you have a birth certificate that is forgery or identity theft. If you do not want the birth certificate to be used for that tangential or related contract then they may ask for verification and if you are silent then they assume that acquiescence as consent and use it anyway. That is when it is appropriate to say timely:

I do not have a birth certificate.


Thank you for picking that up. I was hoping for a chance to explain in answer.

martin earl
04-15-12, 02:08 AM
David, my points, though not obvious, were about 'mindset'. It was for me a major breakout from their 'spells' when I realized there is no proof of anything.

To quote a pirate "There are no rules, there is only what a man can do and what a man can't do."

To my mind, if I 'identify' my 'self' as the ALL CAPS Title, I cannot very well then identify my 'self' as the usufruct of that Trust. It is therefore of upmost importance that I have a True Name (and use) as opposed to using the FIRST M. LAST as being me.

Not sure if that helps or not?!?!

David Merrill
04-15-12, 02:25 AM
David, my points, though not obvious, were about 'mindset'. It was for me a major breakout from their 'spells' when I realized there is no proof of anything.

To quote a pirate "There are no rules, there is only what a man can do and what a man can't do."

To my mind, if I 'identify' my 'self' as the ALL CAPS Title, I cannot very well then identify my 'self' as the usufruct of that Trust. It is therefore of upmost importance that I have a True Name (and use) as opposed to using the FIRST M. LAST as being me.

Not sure if that helps or not?!?!

I am pleased you appreciate the distinctions that knowing your true name can make for you, Martin Earl.

Freed Gerdes
04-25-12, 05:46 AM
First post here, but I am catching up fast, and I have lots of questions, mostly concerning the unseen consequences of becoming a suitor. First, if I create a fictitious entity which is my true name, should I then change other documents, such as driver's license? I don't see how it would help to change the title on my home, because I began the purchase process with private money (I found this site about two months too late). But in essence I would then become this new entity (or more specifically renounce the bonded entity the state set up to account for me as inventory). This new entity does not use private money, ever. Then I should set up a bank account which has instructions on the signing card that all deposits into the account are lawful money. Could I then spend this lawful money by writing checks on this public money account? How would I demonstrate that the funds being tendered were lawful money? I am thinking here of perhaps buying a car, and will need to demonstrate that the funds are lawful, public money, not private money.

Treefarmer
04-27-12, 05:25 PM
First post here, but I am catching up fast, and I have lots of questions, mostly concerning the unseen consequences of becoming a suitor. First, if I create a fictitious entity which is my true name, should I then change other documents, such as driver's license? I don't see how it would help to change the title on my home, because I began the purchase process with private money (I found this site about two months too late). But in essence I would then become this new entity (or more specifically renounce the bonded entity the state set up to account for me as inventory). This new entity does not use private money, ever. Then I should set up a bank account which has instructions on the signing card that all deposits into the account are lawful money. Could I then spend this lawful money by writing checks on this public money account? How would I demonstrate that the funds being tendered were lawful money? I am thinking here of perhaps buying a car, and will need to demonstrate that the funds are lawful, public money, not private money.

Hello Freed Gerdes

Welcome to the forum.
I sincerely hope that you do not have to "create a fictitious entity that is" your true name. Presumably you already have a true name, which your parents should have created for you around the time of your nativity. Keep it and cherish it. It's a sound which may identify you in the minds of other people.

More than likely you also already have a fictitious entity created around your true name, which involves your family's name, and perhaps some suffix, which is spelled in all caps and tends to be used as "state inventory" like you said. It's a numbered account which you would use to obtain "privileges", which are far less useful to you than they are to government employees who are glad that they don't have to get real jobs in the productive sector.
The less you can use that fictitious entity, the more you will probably enjoy yourself.

As far as buying a car with lawful money is concerned, David Merrill has some examples somewhere on the forum, but I can't remember where he posted them.
Perhaps he can provide the link if he sees this post.

Where to stamp a FRN (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?120-Where-to-stamp-a-FRN&highlight=lawful+money+registration) is a nice thread about lawful money, which you may enjoy participating in.

John Howard
04-27-12, 06:38 PM
I am the poster previously known as JHV.

Treefarmer
04-28-12, 02:19 AM
I am the poster previously known as JHV.

Hello John Howard
Welcome to the forum.

I look forward to learning from you and with you.
Jump in anywhere and enjoy yourself here.

Shabbat Shalom

David Merrill
04-29-12, 12:43 AM
I am the poster previously known as JHV.




Hi JHV!

You left a good impression. Welcome back as John Howard!

John Howard
04-29-12, 03:15 AM
Now I need to adjust to my new identity. Apparently, 'I' can not get a job, since 'I' can not be identified in any system of records, no birth certificate, driver's license, SS#. But at least they can't get any money from me for traffic tickets.

Freed Gerdes
04-29-12, 07:25 AM
Treefarmer - thanks for your thoughtful reply. I realized how dumb the suggestion was (about creating a ficticious entity that was my real name) right after I posted it; got confused because somewhat earlier I had written down the suggested format for making the 12USC 411 demand when cashing/depositing checks, and it showed the true name in all caps. Later DM provided a quick explanation of the capitis diminutio maxima, and I realized that the true name would be True Name. But good catch. Yes, I have a true name, and I am wondering what the unseen consequences would be of switching to its exclusive use. And also how much grief the Drivers License Bureau clerks will try to lay on me if I demand that they put it on my license. Apparently there is some benefit of keeping it in the capitas dim max format, at least in terms of R4C, but I don't really see much tendency for me to appear in military court for the remainder of my life, so that does not bother me. But having my house title registered to my corporate entity (federal inventory number) is more worrisome. Since FRN's don't discharge debt, and the Fed keeps a first lien on my house while it is titled thus, in that condition it gets taxed, for which True Name gets to pay and pay. I am wondering how to pay it off in lawful money and get the title changed.
I have been trolling over at http://usa-the-republic.com, and my take on their story is that signing up for Social Security as a US Citizen on SS-5 is what commits you to the corporate inventory condition of having surrendered your inalienable rights. So it would appear that opting out of SS by changing your status to Resident Alien (American Citizen) takes you out of the federal government hell and restores your Constitutional rights (and eliminates your need to voluntarily pay income taxes). Then if you also file a Notice & Demand form at the county clerk, and deliver notice of same to your (Federal Reserve) bank, and change your account signature card, you could demonstrate making payment in lawful dollars, and get the deed reassigned to True Name. Is this correct, and do we know of anyone who has done this? For American Citizens, who still operate under the Constitution, income and property cannot be taxed, except constitutionally, which would be apportioned, and the tax would be applied to the states.

“Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.” Robert LeFevre

David Merrill
04-29-12, 11:09 AM
Treefarmer - thanks for your thoughtful reply. I realized how dumb the suggestion was (about creating a ficticious entity that was my real name) right after I posted it; got confused because somewhat earlier I had written down the suggested format for making the 12USC 411 demand when cashing/depositing checks, and it showed the true name in all caps. Later DM provided a quick explanation of the capitis diminutio maxima, and I realized that the true name would be True Name. But good catch. Yes, I have a true name, and I am wondering what the unseen consequences would be of switching to its exclusive use. And also how much grief the Drivers License Bureau clerks will try to lay on me if I demand that they put it on my license. Apparently there is some benefit of keeping it in the capitas dim max format, at least in terms of R4C, but I don't really see much tendency for me to appear in military court for the remainder of my life, so that does not bother me. But having my house title registered to my corporate entity (federal inventory number) is more worrisome. Since FRN's don't discharge debt, and the Fed keeps a first lien on my house while it is titled thus, in that condition it gets taxed, for which True Name gets to pay and pay. I am wondering how to pay it off in lawful money and get the title changed.
I have been trolling over at http://usa-the-republic.com, and my take on their story is that signing up for Social Security as a US Citizen on SS-5 is what commits you to the corporate inventory condition of having surrendered your inalienable rights. So it would appear that opting out of SS by changing your status to Resident Alien (American Citizen) takes you out of the federal government hell and restores your Constitutional rights (and eliminates your need to voluntarily pay income taxes). Then if you also file a Notice & Demand form at the county clerk, and deliver notice of same to your (Federal Reserve) bank, and change your account signature card, you could demonstrate making payment in lawful dollars, and get the deed reassigned to True Name. Is this correct, and do we know of anyone who has done this? For American Citizens, who still operate under the Constitution, income and property cannot be taxed, except constitutionally, which would be apportioned, and the tax would be applied to the states.

?Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.? Robert LeFevre

Thank you for that amazing communication. Very constructive (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImcXdxZEJMVnhwbGc/view?usp=sharing).

We have a suitor with an accountant/consultant business for telecommunications companies living in contrast out on the plain with an amazing small farm and ranch. He grows prodigious amounts of beautiful flowers and vegetables that he just gives away! This man insists on his true name, consistently to the point that police have approached him at his business looking for it, equipped with mug shots and full knowledge that this is the same man standing in front of the camera at Booking and he has told them quite honestly that nobody by that name is there. There is still a warrant out on it I imagine...

In other words he cannot go back to it.

I suspect that he converts all distributions to the man on the land to lawful money and enjoys what it can buy. His property is likely in a simple Massachusetts Trust structure with True Name as the beneficiary. This is an example (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImLUM4SG5VdHI4bnM/view?usp=sharing) where I CONSTRUCT THE TRUST for the full and legal name; which is what you bring to mind in the earlier part of your post.

I want to focus on a single thought given by Jesus (allegedly) in A Course in Miracles linked above in "Very Constructive". I listen to BBC World News when it is mid-morning in London and in that state of mind certain concepts seem very clear to me.



Creation and Communication are synonymous. God created every mind by communicating His mind to it, thus creating it forever as a channel for the reception of His Mind and Will. Since only beings of a like order can truly communicate, His creations naturally communicate with Him and like Him.


It is only through communication that things come into creation. We often isolate this from us as God's Word - the dabar by which He creates by Speaking the Universe (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImVnI5aEZsZEQ2ZUE/view?usp=sharing) into creation.

Now I want to convey the mechanism that diverts that power of creation to a select few masters or kings - the accountants who lay claim to the title Heirs Apparent (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml).



Energy

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?


They are the Order of Secular Humanism and have usurped the mantle of the Levites (http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/540/kiCSdV.jpg). It behooves anybody interested in your post to read Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph VINING.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/661/BnskVx.jpg

This office might be MILLER, or SMITH...

Without the office though, you have no standing individually - only as a class action. In your True Name you become of an order called Humanity, and in communication with all humanity. You become a co-creator as communication and creation are synonymous. So stand in the city and a pair of sunglasses is freely available to you. Stand in the wilderness and getting your hands on a pair is quite baffling. Look at all the miraculous creation at your fingertips, all the various materials and microchips that communication (creation) has brought to your fingertips in the notebook before you!

And look at what takes it away.

You remove yourself from the Order by thinking that TITLE is part of your name. It gives you something you allegedly want called individuality; isolationism from the Brotherhood of Man. You can become a BROKAW for example, a broker/retailer of motorcycles with that standing in society by TITLE. Or you might be a VAN PELT, with that DISTINCTION a Patroon - son=byn - pallet= patron. It is not you but if you think it is your name then it becomes you nicely. [Nice = ignorant.]

You can be an individual outside the order. And in doing so you control energy and become wealthy. Do not be afraid of that. That is what becoming a suitor is all about. We prosper and recover our sanity together. We know each other by true name; or if you prefer proper English - True Name. We become an order referred to as the brain trust. Together we create something better than the Federal Reserve System of false balances, elastic currency by Redemption.

Yes! It's the exact same model. Remedy is synonymous with Redemption.


I AM THAT I AM.

I AM THAT I AM. God pointing His Finger at You this time.

ARYEH ASHER ARYEH.

Relax your eyes on this (http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/913/3rixnY.jpg) and let them cross a little bit. Do you see the Burning Bush or do you see the inverted image? If you see it from inside the Bush is not that what God taking the form of the Burning Bush sees?

Moses wanted more. So God put him in the cleft of the rock (a cave) and passed quickly in his view. The experience nearly abolished Moses and when he returned to the Israelites they were frightened because his face glowed so brightly.



P.S. Now you might understand better:


CASTLE CHURCH - For the Redemption of the Office BISHOP (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1309-Gospel-of-Pragmatism&p=15354&viewfull=1#post15354).

allodial
04-29-12, 08:15 PM
In other words he cannot go back to it.


"When he reached the new world, Cortez burned his ships. As a result, his men were well motivated." Captain Ramius from the movie Hunt For Red October.

Audio here (http://www.hark.com/clips/yzvqvjjwyg-cortez-burned-his-ships).

David Merrill
04-29-12, 10:35 PM
Thank you for that emphasis. This fellow can actually go back to it, in vinculus. [Handcuffs.]

allodial
04-30-12, 12:38 AM
He could take actions to ... clarify ... matters pertaining to perceived fiduciary relationships. ;)

John Howard
05-30-12, 07:38 PM
He could take actions to ... clarify ... matters pertaining to perceived fiduciary relationships. ;)

And how would he do that?

David Merrill
05-30-12, 09:31 PM
Now I need to adjust to my new identity. Apparently, 'I' can not get a job, since 'I' can not be identified in any system of records, no birth certificate, driver's license, SS#. But at least they can't get any money from me for traffic tickets.

Look at the true name as the identity you have always had. You have been distracted by imposed trust relationships. Now that you understand the trust relationships better you can still utilize them for employent etc.

gdude
07-17-12, 05:24 PM
Hello everyone, I have been reading this forum with great interest.

I am trying to wrap my head around the true name ( First Middle) vs the Legal name ( FIRST M. LAST... at least that is how auntie iris does it). From what I gather, you are embracing the legal name, but making your true name the beneficiary?
ie.. First Middle dba FIRST M. LAST... is this correct?

You also refile your DL to match the true name, is it still attached to a SS#?

What about the paychecks issued to you? Mine are still in FIRST M. LAST, do I change it to true name or does it matter since I am still dba LEGAL NAME? Sorry , confused.

Also, David, What is the second document posted under the birth certificate?

Sorry for so many questions!

BrianJ
07-27-12, 03:30 AM
Did Adam (KJV Genesis) have a name and if so who named him such? My wife and I had a discussion about that this evening when I finally noted he was never assigned or given a name...it is assumed he was according to my reading. Eve on the other hand was "called" Eve by Adam. The earth and seas where called (labeled?) such by God. Why didn't God name or call Adam?

This is not to be contentious by any means, just inquisitive.

:)

gdude
07-30-12, 01:39 AM
Hello everyone, I have been reading this forum with great interest.

I am trying to wrap my head around the true name ( First Middle) vs the Legal name ( FIRST M. LAST... at least that is how auntie iris does it). From what I gather, you are embracing the legal name, but making your true name the beneficiary?
ie.. First Middle dba FIRST M. LAST... is this correct?

You also refile your DL to match the true name, is it still attached to a SS#?

What about the paychecks issued to you? Mine are still in FIRST M. LAST, do I change it to true name or does it matter since I am still dba LEGAL NAME? Sorry , confused.

Also, David, What is the second document posted under the birth certificate?

Sorry for so many questions!

Ok, Maybe I should try to simplify my question... Do you have to change your bank account, DL, Passport, etc.. to the First Middle DBA FIRST MIDDLE LAST? BTW, I made my way here from CTC.

Chex
07-30-12, 04:33 AM
Did Jesus have a last name? It?s a book not a question. Do what you feel is right, your already a dba, take it over.

David Merrill
07-31-12, 01:20 PM
Jesus had a title. CHRIST. Not unlike COBBLER, BLACK, SMITH, TAILOR...

There will be no more use for an illusion called time when all our last names are CHRIST. [No more Separation.]

I enjoy playing with the names Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. Do you remember them? MISHACH, SHADRACH and ABEDNIGO. What about BELTESHAZZAR? That was Daniel's title once he became the chieftain of the sorcerers and astrologers of Babylon. Mainly I like to formulate why we all know Daniel by his Hebrew name while we all know the three boys in the furnace by TITLE only.

David Merrill
07-31-12, 01:27 PM
Jesus had a title. CHRIST. Not unlike COBBLER, BLACK, SMITH, TAILOR...

There will be no more use for an illusion called time when all our last names are CHRIST. [No more Separation.]

I enjoy playing with the names Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. Do you remember them? MISHACH, SHADRACH and ABEDNIGO. What about BELTESHAZZAR? That was Daniel's title once he became the chieftain of the sorcerers and astrologers of Babylon. Mainly I like to formulate why we all know Daniel by his Hebrew name while we all know the three boys in the furnace by TITLE only.


There is evidence (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImZTJkMjVjNTYtNDE5OS00YjI4LWJhMjItZmRhZ jM0NDcwY2M4/edit) that Jesus may have born some form of TITLE in the Order of Archelaus. This tomb was of a sort only to be had by the Israeli royalty. (Perhaps purchased with the gold brought by the Magi? Frankincense and Myrrh were to make the year-later disassembly of the body for the ossuary tolerable for family.) Perhaps this was the more political and practical side. The Magi were staging a coup at Jesus' birth, to replace Archelaus on the throne.

gdude
08-01-12, 02:21 AM
Do what you feel is right, your already a dba, take it over.

Thanks Chex, that is what my understanding is, just wanted confirmation.

I have been non-endorsing checks for the past 6 months....the tellers asked me a couple of questions at first, but accepted it and do not question anymore...unless I go to a different branch or bank.

I still have not tackled the direct deposit/signature card yet. If I decide to sign it as First Middle DBA FIRST MIDDLE LAST, I would think that I would have to have my DL match the account id at the bank...correct? Also, wouldn't be easier to open a new account rather than try to amend the old one?

What damage would it do to sign the signature card as First Middle Last....the name that is originally on the account? Then you wouldn't have to change the DL.

Thanks in advance.

David Merrill
08-01-12, 04:52 AM
Thanks Chex, that is what my understanding is, just wanted confirmation.

I have been non-endorsing checks for the past 6 months....the tellers asked me a couple of questions at first, but accepted it and do not question anymore...unless I go to a different branch or bank.

I still have not tackled the direct deposit/signature card yet. If I decide to sign it as First Middle DBA FIRST MIDDLE LAST, I would think that I would have to have my DL match the account id at the bank...correct? Also, wouldn't be easier to open a new account rather than try to amend the old one?

What damage would it do to sign the signature card as First Middle Last....the name that is originally on the account? Then you wouldn't have to change the DL.

Thanks in advance.

The remedy is for everybody. So you sign how you like. If you want to sign truthfully you will sign for LAST, FIRST M on your driver license First Middle, legibly. Then sign the Signature Card First Middle dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST like on your account. Now your driver license will support that your true name is First Middle.

Chex
08-01-12, 04:51 PM
I have not gone to the bank to get the signature card changed. What is the highest form of evidence you can present when you non-endorsed? Mine is the check.

It?s the chain of command of the check, made out to legal name (http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/legal-name.html), accepted and signed by authorized representative, cashed and handed back federal debt notes from the treasury (borrowed money on the full faith and credit of United States) to the true name who just un-issued more credit.

I sign for the legal name By: the authorized representative (http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=chr-greentree_ie&ei=utf-8&ilc=12&type=827316&p=authorized+representative+definition), already been non-endorsed with 411USC12 on both half?s of the check stub and voucher, scan the back and front, save it on a flash drive, then print it, file it, cash it.

I had direct deposit is the past, don?t like it, can?t touch it, especially when you can take a picture of it and deposit it. I guess that's the contract between the camera, signature card and the bank and you. The contract has the details and i'm not interested in it.

Places I go to cash a personal check has the same non-endorsement By: the authorized representative, tellers don?t understand, they ask for approval from the bank manager, it gets approved with no problems, because it the Law.

I have no problems with the banks.

kind of like this (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1551):we are considered enemies of the state, Lol?..

I really like this post Axe posted from part 4 down, if the glove fits wear it, don't and won't use any of their forms i.e. W-8BEN in #56 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?241-Business-Owners-and-Lawful-Money-Tax-Returns/page6):

Whenever a national bank fails to redeem in lawful money any of its circulating notes, upon demand of payment duly made at its place of business during the usual business hours, the holder may cause the notes placed in one package to be protested by a notary public, unless the president or cashier of the bank waives demand and notice of protest and makes, signs, and delivers to the holder making the demand an admission in writing stating the time of the demand, the amount demanded, and the fact of non-payment thereof. The notary public forwards such protest or admission to the Comptroller, who with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury may then appoint a special agent, of whose appointment immediate notice is given to the bank, and who proceeds at once to ascertain and report whether the bank has refused to pay its notes in lawful money when demanded. If, from such protest and the report of this agent, the Comptroller is satisfied that the bank has refused to redeem its notes and is in default, he declares, within 30 days, the deposited bonds forfeited to the United States. After notice has been sent to the defaulting bank it becomes unlawful for the bank to do any business except receive and safely keep money belonging to it and to deliver special deposits.

John Howard
08-02-12, 01:30 AM
I have been signing First Middle at the bank, they have never questioned it.

David Merrill
08-02-12, 01:08 PM
I have been signing First Middle at the bank, they have never questioned it.


When I am asked to sign for cash refunds I sign Lawful Money.

John Howard
08-03-12, 12:19 AM
When I am asked to sign for cash refunds I sign Lawful Money.

They probably don't want to seem ignorant by questioning what that means.

David Merrill
08-03-12, 04:24 PM
They probably don't want to seem ignorant by questioning what that means.

Exactly. And usually there is a line behind me.

I particularly enjoy when they hand me a clipboard of signatures. I pull out my camera and photograph the "contract" they want me to sign and that usually puts them off a bit. I sign "Lawful Money" and take a second photograph; if they have not requested the clipboard back yet.

John Howard
09-21-12, 05:37 PM
I just got some love letters from our favorite agency addressed to JHV, AKA JOHN HOWARD. Do they not know the difference between DBA and AKA?

David Merrill
09-21-12, 07:47 PM
I just got some love letters from our favorite agency addressed to JHV, AKA JOHN HOWARD. Do they not know the difference between DBA and AKA?


You have an evidence repository in your true name?

I have not seen the legal name in ititials.

John Howard
09-21-12, 08:11 PM
Evidence repository in True Name DBA Legal. I just used initials because that's how I introduced myself to the suitors.

tommyf350
10-02-12, 08:03 PM
hello,ive just joined this site (thank you David Merrill) and i have to renew my drivers license in 11 days, i just thought it would help if i got this out of the way,but i have not really had a chance to gain my bearings reguarding this redemption process. i just have 2 questions, what does DBA stand for? and as far as the name appearing on my license,would the following be correct ?,

Thomas Richard DBA THOMAS RICHARD MARTIN

it reads currently,

MARTIN
THOMAS R

Thanks in adavance.

EZrhythm
10-03-12, 06:22 AM
DBA = Doing Business As

I prefer and have written/signed, "Without Prejudice" <---and nothing else. This has been quite effective. It can assist in officers walking away with doing nothing more than saying, "Have a nice day." or it may get you nothing more than a single word of, "DISMISSED" in their fanatical ship layout of a court room.

For a reference to that phrase check out UCC 1-308 Uniform Commercial Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html) In fact I recommend to bookmark that site if you plan to continue to do business in this world. Read it. Learn it. Know it. But that's just my experienced formed opinion.

David Merrill
10-03-12, 02:05 PM
Print clearly "Thomas Richard" only. I am entertaining the notion that there is something wrong with cursive writing too. So just write the letters out straight neatly. That is all.

Myself, if I was getting a driver license would sign neatly "Lawful Money". Since I would be at the Department of Revenue applying, I think that might just go over fine.



http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5426/departmentofrevenue.jpg

tommyf350
10-03-12, 04:10 PM
Thanks for the speedy replies.i will just use Thomas Richard.

i have come across 1-308 before watching a video series from a man called carl miller,on youtube.i'll get familiar with its application.

Seosaidh
11-01-12, 05:38 PM
It seems signatures are probably the most basic component for competent record forming. I'll be renewing my driver license in a few weeks, and I want to begin forming the record with my signature on the renewal form.

Now, years ago I had a friend who changed his signature with the DMV. To the best of my recollection, he didn't understand the difference between the true and legal names. I do remember though that he made his signature, "First M Last without prejudice." The DMV then cropped his signature to include only , First M Last.

Since I intend to sign my application, "True Name dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST," my concern is they will crop my signature as well.

My question then is: if DMV crops my signature in the same way they cropped my friend's, what affect, if any, will this have? Or, in the alternative, if I sign, "True Name," only, wouldn't that automatically make the license appear as me (True Name) doing business as, "FIRST MIDDLE LAST?"

I hope that's clear. Also, I want to take a moment to thank the people who post here. I can't begin to express my gratitude for the wealth of information presented on the site. Thank you all so much!

[Edit] I found this, which I thought was interesting http://books.google.com/books?id=fjI9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&ots=ajKgq7zNlP&dq=treatise+legal+signatures&output=html_text

EZrhythm
11-01-12, 06:41 PM
Another option is to merely place "Without Prejudice" on the signature line and nothing else. I have done this in the past using cursive to deter any uncooperativeness a clerk might express.

Brian
11-01-12, 08:14 PM
I tried adding a qualifier to my DL last time I renewed it. They would not accept it and said I had to redo the signature card. Whatever. Just because I have a DL does not mean I am operating through it. Much like having a hunting or fishing license. I can't be ticketed for drinking a beer under the fishing license in my driveway. I may be driving down the road (held in trust by the gov) but I am not engaged in a commercial activity or performing the functions of a public office so what does it matter. I keep the DL (contract) valid because I might someday need it...but not today.

Seosaidh
11-01-12, 08:21 PM
I tried adding a qualifier to my DL last time I renewed it. They would not accept it and said I had to redo the signature card. Whatever. Just because I have a DL does not mean I am operating through it. Much like having a hunting or fishing license. I can't be ticketed for drinking a beer under the fishing license in my driveway. I may be driving down the road (held in trust by the gov) but I am not engaged in a commercial activity or performing the functions of a public office so what does it matter. I keep the DL (contract) valid because I might someday need it...but not today.

That's how I see it, but I intend to use the DL as identification for a new bank account.

David Merrill
11-01-12, 08:29 PM
First post here, but I am catching up fast, and I have lots of questions, mostly concerning the unseen consequences of becoming a suitor. First, if I create a fictitious entity which is my true name, should I then change other documents, such as driver's license? I don't see how it would help to change the title on my home, because I began the purchase process with private money (I found this site about two months too late). But in essence I would then become this new entity (or more specifically renounce the bonded entity the state set up to account for me as inventory). This new entity does not use private money, ever. Then I should set up a bank account which has instructions on the signing card that all deposits into the account are lawful money. Could I then spend this lawful money by writing checks on this public money account? How would I demonstrate that the funds being tendered were lawful money? I am thinking here of perhaps buying a car, and will need to demonstrate that the funds are lawful, public money, not private money.

Here is an example (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/914/ownyourcarlawfultitletr.pdf).

It is great to see your excitement.

I think your view of the true name as an artificial entity is delightful. It is refreshing anyway. New.

It is a sound with a specific spelling but I find whenever I plug it as an entity "Merrill" becomes my last name. So I do not think it really qualifies as an entity at all. It has no capacity except maybe to you. We suitors know each other by our true names - even so much that when discussing the full or legal name pertaining to ourselves we usually don't even use our family or surnames - like David Merrill XXXXX for example. Or David Merrill DOE. This is so that some folks will not coerce the legal entity out of us or even our conversations by forming the full or legal name.

Of course in the real world with legal boundaries anybody doing so without our consent or express construction criminal charges of criminal impersonation or identity theft. Maybe now you are starting to see where I am coming from. Accessing a certain account with a series of digits formed by you (SSN or bank account) without verifying your express consent is illegal too.

So the true name is more a learning tool while you realize the entity John Henry DOE (JOHN H. DOE) is a tool for you to use to your benefit John Henry. What you get out of wrapping your mind around that is control of whether you accept the position of trustee for IT or not. That is handled - a refusal to be trustee - by Refusal for Cause. If you are entrenched in a contract R4C may not work but just the same you get your R4C on the Record. Maybe it can pay off later. Knowing how is always good and so practicing now is better than trying to perfect process later.

A very graceful thing about R4C is how it (Naked) showed up above Name in Black's Fifth. I think a suitor or two thought I had spotted that from the time I took the photo, many years ago! I marvel that it was right in front of me all that time. If there was no consideration or even if the consideration was unclear (benefits of FDIC and fractional lending as a state bank) then your R4C should hold up if you can wrap your mind around it.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_legal.jpg

EZrhythm
11-01-12, 09:38 PM
I tried adding a qualifier to my DL last time I renewed it. They would not accept it and said I had to redo the signature card. That's why I use "Without Prejudice" by itself in cursive. Always accepted!
Whatever. Just because I have a DL does not mean I am operating through it. Much like having a hunting or fishing license. I can't be ticketed for drinking a beer under the fishing license in my driveway. I may be driving down the road (held in trust by the gov) but I am not engaged in a commercial activity or performing the functions of a public office so what does it matter. I keep the DL (contract) valid because I might someday need it...but not today. True, doesn't mean one is operating through it but it is evidence of being the surety for it. ...As long as one knows how to deflect this position. Regarding "commercial activity"- The common theory behind this term is actually moot because of their system of fictions, one could still engage in commercial activity without being required to have a license since they can only bring an action against another fiction. Another point- The license IS commerce. If one allows the presumption that they are a "resident" then that by default puts them in "commercial activity" status, even if merely walking down the street. If stopped and then presenting the license one has just given evidence of the presumption of being a resident AND that they are "in commerce". By the way, these presumption are always rebuttable.

Seosaidh
11-01-12, 09:43 PM
That's why I use "Without Prejudice" by itself in cursive. Always accepted! True, doesn't mean one is operating through it but it is evidence of being the surety for it. ...As long as one knows how to deflect this position. Regarding "commercial activity"- The common theory behind this term is actually moot because of their system of fictions, one could still engage in commercial activity without being required to have a license since they can only bring an action against another fiction. Another point- The license IS commerce. If one allows the presumption that they are a "resident" then that by default puts them in "commercial activity" status, even if merely walking down the street. If stopped and then presenting the license one has just given evidence of the presumption of being a resident AND that they are "in commerce". By the way, these presumption are always rebuttable.

For some reason, your post switched a light on for me, and now I have to rethink everything. :-)

shikamaru
11-02-12, 10:08 AM
That's why I use "Without Prejudice" by itself in cursive. Always accepted! True, doesn't mean one is operating through it but it is evidence of being the surety for it. ...As long as one knows how to deflect this position. Regarding "commercial activity"- The common theory behind this term is actually moot because of their system of fictions, one could still engage in commercial activity without being required to have a license since they can only bring an action against another fiction. Another point- The license IS commerce. If one allows the presumption that they are a "resident" then that by default puts them in "commercial activity" status, even if merely walking down the street. If stopped and then presenting the license one has just given evidence of the presumption of being a resident AND that they are "in commerce". By the way, these presumption are always rebuttable.

Also remember that a license is a servitude. This is something from Roman Civil Law.

A servitude is distinct from a contract. This is where attorners get all bent out of shape saying a license is not a contract without revealing the true nature of what a license is....

Chex
11-02-12, 11:40 AM
Abstract:
The assertion that a ?license? is simply a ?contract not to sue? has become a commonplace in both copyright and patent law.

I argue that this notion is conceptually flawed, and has become a straightjacket channeling juristic reasoning into unproductive channels. At root, a license is not a contract, but a form of property interest.

It may be closely intertwined with a set of contractual relationships, but its nature and consequences cannot be satisfactorily explained from within the world of contract doctrine alone.

In this article, I seek to explain the complementary but parallel roles played by property and contract doctrine in creation of the various forms of legal interests we refer to as ?licenses.?

Each doctrine has its own set of governing formalities that afford titleholders various means through which to create and protect use privileges granted to others, while still retaining residual title for themselves.

I argue that clarifying the extent to which licenses are exercises of powers conferred by property rather than contract law provides a key to proper application of Section 204 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which has been (erroneously) construed as a statute of frauds governing contract formation, as opposed to one governing a specific form of property conveyance. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2010853

And

Rather, a license is a permission granted by one party to another allowing use of a property without fear of lawsuit brought by the granting party. A license does not include a return promise (i.e., consideration) from the licensee. So, as we all learned in law school, a license cannot be a contract under law. This is not to say that a license cannot be an element of a contract under which two parties trade promises, one of such promises being a license. This is commonly known as a "license agreement." But a bald license, a one-way promise, is enforceable outside of contract law. It is something apart. It exists and is enforceable under property law doctrine. http://softwarelawyer.blogspot.com/2008/01/jacobsen-v-katzer.html

shikamaru
11-02-12, 07:49 PM
Try Black's Law Dictionary under license which you will note: see servitude.

Then grab a copy of Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 to get the historical rundown on this practice.

Other terms of interest will be munera and tenancy at will.

A license is a form and type of grant.

Interesting we run full circle and encounter estates again ....

David Merrill
11-02-12, 09:06 PM
Abstract:

Rather, a license is a permission granted by one party to another allowing use of a property without fear of lawsuit brought by the granting party. A license does not include a return promise (i.e., consideration) from the licensee. So, as we all learned in law school, a license cannot be a contract under law. This is not to say that a license cannot be an element of a contract under which two parties trade promises, one of such promises being a license. This is commonly known as a "license agreement." But a bald license, a one-way promise, is enforceable outside of contract law. It is something apart. It exists and is enforceable under property law doctrine. http://softwarelawyer.blogspot.com/2008/01/jacobsen-v-katzer.html

Thank you for that explanation!


I think you may be saying social contract?

Chex
11-03-12, 11:59 AM
Try Black's Law Dictionary under license which you will note: see servitude.

Then grab a copy of Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 to get the historical rundown on this practice.

Other terms of interest will be munera and tenancy at will.

A license is a form and type of grant.

Interesting we run full circle and encounter estates again ....

Will you post Black's Law and Bouvier's Law Dictionary definition of license?

I think you may be saying social contract?

munera (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/ssact-toc.htm) and grants but "This table of contents does not appear in the law"

and i want a refund (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1817.htm#act-1817-f-1)

Free air travel (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1817.htm#act-1817-f-1), first-class accommodations is required in (i) for me: There are authorized to be made available for expenditure out of the Trust Fund such amounts as are required to pay travel expenses, either on an actual cost or commuted basis, to parties, their representatives, and all reasonably necessary witnesses for travel within the United States (as defined in section 210(i)) (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0210.htm#act-210-i)to attend reconsideration interviews and proceedings before administrative law judges with respect to any determination under this title.

shikamaru
11-03-12, 01:01 PM
Will you post Black's Law and Bouvier's Law Dictionary definition of license?

Here is Bouvier's 1856 (http://constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm).



I think you may be saying social contract?

A license is a SERVITUDE at least according to legal sources.
Contracts and servitudes are not synonymous at least according to legal sources.



munera (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/ssact-toc.htm) and grants but "This table of contents does not appear in the law"

and i want a refund (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1817.htm#act-1817-f-1)

Free air travel (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1817.htm#act-1817-f-1), first-class accommodations is required in (i) for me: There are authorized to be made available for expenditure out of the Trust Fund such amounts as are required to pay travel expenses, either on an actual cost or commuted basis, to parties, their representatives, and all reasonably necessary witnesses for travel within the United States (as defined in section 210(i)) (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0210.htm#act-210-i)to attend reconsideration interviews and proceedings before administrative law judges with respect to any determination under this title.

You will find the definitions for munera, tenancy, and tenancy at wills in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856).

walter
11-04-12, 06:34 AM
the first and middle name were given to you from parents,
statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact,
since it was given to you then they are your property,
those given names hold a claim to the land and assets,

the last name was never given to you,
it was assigned to you, not your property,
you must be holding it in trust then,

the BC only states name,
name of what?
property of whom?
who signed the BC?
who holds liability?

what we got going here is a Usufruct,
government does not like you using that word with them,
reveals the true story of the name and title,

Seosaidh
11-05-12, 12:17 AM
the first and middle name were given to you from parents,
statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact,
since it was given to you then they are your property,
those given names hold a claim to the land and assets,

the last name was never given to you,
it was assigned to you, not your property,
you must be holding it in trust then,

the BC only states name,
name of what?
property of whom?
who signed the BC?
who holds liability?

what we got going here is a Usufruct,
government does not like you using that word with them,
reveals the true story of the name and title,

I'm glad you responded to the thread. I've spent the better part of today trying to figure out exactly what goes on when the birth registry occurs. In light of what you posted, who (in your mind) is exercising usufructuary powers?

Chex
11-05-12, 05:11 AM
the first and middle name were given to you from parents, statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact, since it was given to you then they are your property, those given names hold a claim to the land and assets, what we got going here is a Usufruct, the true story of title,

Of beneficiary: Nothing more needed to be said.

"Is Social Security a contract? A private insurance policy is clearly a contract because the policyholder (them) makes a promise to pay money to the insurance company,(SSA) which in turn agrees to likewise pay the policyholder (beneficiary you). Who paid my premiums LOL since I was fourteen?

(c) No other property exempt
Notwithstanding any other law of the United States (including section 207 of the Social Security Act), no property or rights to property shall be exempt from levy other than the property specifically made exempt by subsection (a).

Sec. 207. [42 U.S.C. 407] (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.

furnish his/hers employer with Form W-4 (or its equivalent) for withholding.

Okay since I paid the premiums whats my return?

Lets see in the year 1973 I was 14 and retired after age 52 that means I paid premiums for 39 years of a A private insurance policy and I don?t have nothing?

shikamaru
11-05-12, 10:55 AM
I will post the definition from Black's Law Dictionary concerning license when I get time.

David Merrill
11-05-12, 11:44 AM
I am sure I have mentioned this before. I was saving this fellow's castle (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2047) when the US clerk of court was insisting on falsifying his name:


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_falsified.jpg

I wrote to Congress and paid them $350 to hear about this falsification of fact and the clerk immediately got in line (and was soon replaced:


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_corrected.jpg

walter
11-06-12, 05:26 AM
I'm glad you responded to the thread. I've spent the better part of today trying to figure out exactly what goes on when the birth registry occurs. In light of what you posted, who (in your mind) is exercising usufructuary powers?


sorry for taking so long to get back but the last couple of days have been bizarre, i am exhausted right now so tomorrow i will try to find time to give a proper response,

in short i have been searching for a year or more now looking at the solb and bc with a fine tooth comb and came up with some interesting observations,

there is a lot going on and to explain it fully would most likely be no smaller then a chapter in a book,
so i will have to ponder and think of a way i can explain most of it with out writing a chapter in a book,
today i can barely write this,

nobody owns tomorrow so until then,

shikamaru
11-06-12, 01:22 PM
sorry for taking so long to get back but the last couple of days have been bizarre, i am exhausted right now so tomorrow i will try to find time to give a proper response,

in short i have been searching for a year or more now looking at the solb and bc with a fine tooth comb and came up with some interesting observations,

there is a lot going on and to explain it fully would most likely be no smaller then a chapter in a book,
so i will have to ponder and think of a way i can explain most of it with out writing a chapter in a book,
today i can barely write this,

nobody owns tomorrow so until then,

Does this include the history of those documents along with sources?

David Merrill
11-06-12, 01:57 PM
I have a feeling that mental models in action are more the mechanism. I certainly do not disqualify them. But it is like NYGman coming and demanding proof of success and then going back and reporting that there is nothing here. There is plenty here.

I am sure that Walter's observations are valid. Observations need a scientifically controlled control system though to culminate in a reproducible conclusion. - For a theory to become law.

I like one of the best examples around. Many cancer tumors exhibit a very similar complex waveform to a central South American intestinal fluke. Hulda Rutger CLARK stumbled across this fact and without a scientific control system in place assumed that the flukes are somehow the cause of all cancerous tumors. Kill the fluke and you will kill the tumor. She thought this was true because the process was curing cancer - rather than thinking in the realm of vibration and complex waveforms. Look at the Way Circuit - it is nothing more than an elegantly simple PNP comparator and when you put a sample of the fluke, and compare it to a tumor it makes a static noise on the speaker. You then use your complex waveform generator (sympathetic nervous system/abdominal brain) to soften and quiet the noise. Biofeedback teaches your liver and other chemical (vibration) generators to kill the cancer tumor. - To devitalize the cancer cells by cancelling the frequencies:



http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Circuits.gif


Hulda was laughed out of Americam medical practice because a fluke in South America cannot possibly be the cause of all cancer. She was basing a faulty conclusion on observations without a proper scientifically controlled environment. She collected reams of testimony for cancer cures in Mexico and by a lot of Americans who could not much care about flukes; they just wanted to feel good again and to live life healthy.

In other words I am very interested in Walter's observations but do not believe that the registration of the birth certificate is any kind of monetary instrument in itself. The closest that I have found is that it is instrumental in the formation of Identification and that is almost always essential for Credit. Of course! If somebody is going to lend you money (credit) then how in the world is he going to get paid back if he does not know your name or where to find you? Well, I suppose he could just trust you but that flies in the face of risk management...

The birth certificate is a fundamental component of Security. It secures the man or woman in a legal entity (name) through that little footprint. That little foot came firmly down in the survey of corporate fictions before it came in contact with the ground suae potestate esse - Lord of the Soil. Literally - moving in the power of the original estate.

Thank you in advance Walter. I understand it is a task to redact large amounts of observations into common threads and more difficult yet to organize those concepts into written posts so that they can be understood.


Regards,

David Merrill.

shikamaru
11-06-12, 02:24 PM
Will you post Black's Law .....


From Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.



license, n. 1. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting to a lease or profit a prendre) that it will be lawful for the licensee to enter the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be illegal, such as hunting game. See SERVITUDE. 2. The certificate or document evidencing such permission.

Seosaidh
11-06-12, 03:21 PM
sorry for taking so long to get back but the last couple of days have been bizarre, i am exhausted right now so tomorrow i will try to find time to give a proper response,

in short i have been searching for a year or more now looking at the solb and bc with a fine tooth comb and came up with some interesting observations,

there is a lot going on and to explain it fully would most likely be no smaller then a chapter in a book,
so i will have to ponder and think of a way i can explain most of it with out writing a chapter in a book,
today i can barely write this,

nobody owns tomorrow so until then,

Thank you for your consideration of my question. These kinds of things are very difficult to grasp completely. I'm only now learning about usufruct. It's a concept that makes sense on the surface, but when you begin applying it to a set of circumstances, it becomes more difficult.

It appears to me that birth regitration and certification creates a constructive trust, or in another way, an implied trust. So, in order to prove there is a trust, one has to identify the property subject to the trust, and the roles of the various actors within the trust.

If I re-framed my question, it might make it easier to answer. What is the property subject to the trust? My reasoning tells me it's the information contained on the registration. Now if that's the case, it leads one to conclude that the right to use that information is also passed into trust, which means the grantor (the mother) had that right, since she was the primary creator of the information.

Now we have identified the property, the grantor, and by implication the trustee: the state, and again by implication, the beneficiary. Usufruct appears to be divided, or rather, allocated by the grantor among all parties of the trust, since all parties use the information. I suppose it looks like this: the mother invites the state into the trust by allowing it to use, among other things, the NAME.

Regarding usufruct and my original question, it appears to me that all the parties are usufructs, including the infant. Remembering that the goal is to prove an implied trust exists, my original question would be better asked in theis way: does usufruct carry an obligation to exercise its power for the benefit of the beneficiary? It would seem that it does, but I can't find anything concrete anywhere to say that it does.

It could be my understanding of usufruct is flawed. At any rate, discussing the various aspects of this situation might help to clear this up for me, which is why I asked you the question. I want to thank you for your willingness to dive in completely, since I know that thinking through these concepts can be time consuming.

Cheers

David Merrill
11-06-12, 03:53 PM
It is amazing how many of these mental models in action will fly!

Reading your post I believe that the birth certificate and registration is more of a potential for a trust. Like voltage is potential current. But that is just today, my mental model. It fits with this construction (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7013/generalpublictrust.pdf) that has had some applications and functions as well as anybody who just believes that the legal or full name is actually their name. That general public trust is just describing the potential trust in terms of a Massachusetts (common law) Trust.

Seosaidh
11-06-12, 04:17 PM
Now that trust indenture is a fun "mental model" to contemplate!

Cheers

BONMAN
11-06-12, 06:16 PM
THE NAME THING

?Opinions are valueless as evidence without exploration of the underlying facts and rational showing the path from the facts to the opinion.?
U.S. v. R.J. Reynolds, 416 F. Supp. 316, 325.

Question ; where is it found within any ?LAWS? that the government or any agency may create a ?CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST? ????? I can?t find any.
Apparently our ?SOCIETY? is based upon ?CONSENT?, either you ?CONSENT? to do ?Business? with the ?Government? through the application of a ?LICENSE? (see RCW43.24.030
"License" defined, below), or you do not ?CONSENT? to do ?Business? with the ?Government? (?Government? AKA a CORPORATION, most likely a Private Corporation)

I have only found authority to issue ?LICENSES? ; Not authority to issue or enact a ?CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST? See---RCW 43.24.020 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSE, and RCW43.24.030 "License" defined
"We have said, and we reiterate, that a license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the grantee, nor is it a property right. See syllabus by the court, No. 4, Prettyman Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442." Mayo et al. v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc. (1949) 40 So.2d 555.

Also questions of interest; Did the Government HIDE OR CONCEAL the definitions relative to the Federal Government in the ?CODES? of the ?STATES? seeing that the ?STATE? was or still is operating as a territory or possession of the ?UNITED STATES? and all ?LAWS? within the ?CODE? must be approved by the ?CONGRESS?
Based on the Revised Code of Washington I have come to the following conclusions, I think this may shed some light on this subject of the National ID and Driver License issue.
The Washington Dept. of License is only granted authority to issue Licenses, (see definition of ?License? below). A license grants authority to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions. A ?License? is a ?Certificate? that ; include license, certificate of registration, certificate of qualification, certificate of competency, certificate of authority, and any other instrument, by whatever name designated, authorizing the practice of a profession or calling, the carrying on of a business or occupation

STATEMENT OF FACT:
1. A DRIVER LICENSE IS A BUSINESS LICENSE
2. A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IS A BUSINESS LICENSE (license tabs, license plates, land registration -- torren act)
3. A ?CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE? IS A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE,( a ?certified birth certificate? is requested or required to obtain a ?Driver License?, in effect a business license requesting a business license)
4. The term TRADE OR BUSINESS, at (26 USC 7701 (a) (26), relates to, RCW 43.24.020
Powers and duties ? Licensing, the director of licensing shall administer all laws with respect to the examination of applicants for, and the issuance of, licenses to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions. (does all laws refer to all State and Federal Laws ???? probably so )
5. My copy of birth record given to my parents at the hospital that I was born at clearly shows my true name written in proper grammar, signed by the M.D. and head Nurse, as well as by my parents, (the form of an affidavit), the ?certified birth certificate? issued by the ?State dept. of Health? indicates my ?Name? in ALL CAPITAL letters, that is not proper grammar for a real life man or woman. This fact seems to indicate some type of change occurred after the STATE got a hold of the birth record, hence the STATE turned it, the birth record, into a CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE, apparently a license to engage in a TRADE OR BUSINESS ???????
6. So if the Driver License is a business license the name on the license is the business name ( all capitals) and not the name of the man or woman as is usually given in proper grammar at the time they came into the world.
7. RCW Chapter 46.21 Driver license compact assures all ?States? and Federal Government are addressing the same subjects as related to ?Driver Licenses? ; and also ; RCW 70.58.055, VITAL STATISTICS, Certificates generally; assures that ?this State? comply with the Federal Government ?recommendations? for ?UNIFORMITY? so that all are addressing the same subjects as related to ?Certificates?(Business or Professional License, or, TRADE OR BUSINESS, at (26 USC 7701 (a) (26)

8. It seems that the National I.D. is only applying to Businesses since the National I.D. is based on the ?Driver License?.

9. Interesting also, my daughter seemed to think she needed a STATE I.D. for her 1 year old son, the I.D. has prominently emblazoned on the face the following , LICENSE # xxxxxxxxx. Signifying that the I.D. card is merely a ?BUSINESS LICENSE?. By the way Name spelled in all Capitals

10. Social Security Number is an application to do Business with the with the ?Government?, it is a ?LICENSE?. The application for a ?LICENSE? gives your ?CONSENT? to do ?Business? with the ?Government? through said "License" , (?Government? AKA a CORPORATION, most likely a Private Corporation), if this is in doubt try to conduct ?Business? with the ?Government? WITHOUT a ?LICENSE?, aka, Social Security Number, or any other document tied to the Social Security Number, Driver License, etc.,etc., or having to declare under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. Person, or U.S. Citizen, either of which have been granted permission, (a License), to do ?Business? with the ?Government? through said "License", or as an ?Employee? of the Government
Confirmation of this is found on the Social Security Application form SS-5 (1-76) edition, where it states at line 1, and line 2;
Line 1; Full name you will use in work or business.
Line 2; Full name given you at birth.
See newer SS-5 editions for similar statements.
These are or could be 2 separate things or entities, see RCW 19.80.005
Definitions, below for more detailed explanation.


"We have said, and we reiterate, that a license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the grantee, nor is it a property right. See syllabus by the court, No. 4, Prettyman Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442." Mayo et al. v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc. (1949) 40 So.2d 555.

walter
11-06-12, 08:14 PM
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl81.php

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison Paris, Sep. 6, 1789

That letter says a lot about usufract,


i will try to hit the key points of interest with out sounding long winded,
remember my research is from canada's acts and statutes,

The solb and bc are based on the Torrens title system which was created in Australia over a hundred years ago,
i believe that it was so successful that they expanded it to cars and people,
remember that they don't register people only events,
also remember that we must consent to servitude other wise its slavery,

the is no law that says you need a bc, we apply for that benefit,
but there is a law that says we must register a live birth,

the government created one (bc) but not the other (solb), but both are on their forms, what form do you want to be seen as?
one remains in the shadows while the other is all they see, (sea)

i read this book that the US government printed and gave out to Dr.s in the 30's about how and why to register birth, deaths,
the book says that the census groups were the ones pushing for registration yet the census is not the main reason for it,
the census is the number two reason, so whats the number one reason of registration?

Edward Mandell House explains it best,
'[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.

http://9-11themotherofallblackoperations.blogspot.ca/2011/06/in-1913-colonel-edward-mandell-house.html

the first form that the government gets from the event of a birth is from the Dr. or midwife,
its a NOTICE, if they don't comply they will be fined, in some provinces the fine is 1k,

the second form is the STATEMENT that ma & pa fill UP, (not fill IN, big difference)
solb is ON file, the bc is IN file,

they have a one year limit to file the solb, if not done by then ANYONE with info on the birth can file the solb,
who is anyone and how did they come across that info?
well the office clerks at vital stats have the info on their desk from the NOTICE the Dr. had to filed,
so with that being said does an office clerk that has never met you or your ma & pa hand you over for servitude?
i think not, that would be slavery also they don't register people only events,

so the solb does not place you in that venue, (jurisdiction)

then the State says to ma and pa, hey ... would you like some benefits? (baby bonus, medicare, tax exemption, etc)

along comes form three, which once sent off we never ever see again, there is no application that i have seen yet to ask for a copy of it, and that is the application for the bc,
i feel this application is what is sent to the internationals and is being used as the servitude deed for owning an allegiance,
the ancient art of pledge, (I pledge allegiance)

only then one is delivered the bc, (certificate)
the bc is an extract,
extract of what?
extract of an abstract,

Torrents title,
the pink slip for the car was given for the mso of the car,
perfect title (allodial) for equity title (fee simple)

a TRUST is born, possession is 9/10ths of the law,
equity is 9/10ths of the law,
the holder of the perfected title holds 1/10ths,
that's why babies, cars and land titles can be RE-posed (re = "back to the original place, again,")

abstract
"abridgement or summary of a document," mid-15c., from abstract (adj.). The general sense of "a smaller quantity containing the virtue or power of a greater"

a-bridge was created between the three forms,
the bc comes from a greater power,
the bc was created from info the government FOUND,
found? was it lost? no it was abandon on their door steps,

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
what happened in London on this year after that act was created?
the great fire, earlier 911(false flag)
lost at sea,


on the solb there is no mention of the word "canada",
canada first appears on the bc,

the solb is first registered in the municipality with its own separate number, (first jurisdiction)
it is my be leave (can not prove it yet) that the number is an annuity compiled of each date and year added to the next,
then there is a departmental use only number in the upper right hand side,
this number appears again after the abridgement has been made,

the bc reg. number IN file consists of the year you were born (four digits) - the province the birth was reg. in ( two digits) - and then the departmental use only number that appears in the top right hand side of the solb,
abridgement between the documents, jurisdiction transfer,
the birth of a person, to use only, you did not create the person so its not your, you were granted signing power,

three jurisdiction were involved before the bc was handed out, municipal first, provincial second, federal third,

usufruct is happening here,
the government holds all the originals and would only give you copies of them,
they are en-trusted with them to SECURE there safe keeping,

they own the form of the solb but not own the "filled up" words on it,
they will not give them back,
so they are claiming ownership of the originals,

who then hold liability?
who then is EN-TRUSTED to act?

i asked vital stats if i can come in off the streets to view the original documents, i wanted to do this because there were notations written on the right hand side of the solb that my ma and pa did not place on it, someone tampered with a verified signed true document and i wanted to see the original,

she responded with NO, the public can not do this, i responded with what if i don't come in as a member of the public in person, but on the private as a man? this is when she stopped corresponding with me, even after a follow up request,

what i have found out is that insurance companies use marginal notations as a code to determine the sea worthiness of vessels sent to sea to determine premiums,

is this why a solb has a section for occupations?
is this why a solb has a section for number of births from the mother?
why would these things be listed on a birth registration form?
who put these notations there?
when were they put there?
and of course why?

these are some of my finding i have come across,
and i am not finished with them yet,

Seosaidh
11-06-12, 10:18 PM
Jefferson's letter is a great find! It gives a good springboard from which to further our understanding about usufruct, and trust in general. But I think the particular language we use is more important because, since these concepts are so ethereal - some even sublime - the more precise our language is, the better prepared we become for understanding.

It appears to me that usufruct is the right to use a thing, nothing more or less. A trustee is one who has a fiduciary responsibility to exercise his usufruct for the benefit of another - beneficiary. That being stated, in the case of the birth registration and certification, the usufruct is only one aspect of the property subject to the trust. No one can rightfully dispute that the parents of an infant are the creators of the infant in a temporal sense, for without either one, the infant would not come into being.

Therefore it follows that, when the mother (or, as you mentioned, another person having been notified a birth has occurred) causes the birth to be registered, it is she who is voluntarily consenting the infant's information to be recorded, ostensibly for the benefit of the infant. But what if the information (and the right to use it) are granted to the state for the state's benefit? Wouldn't this preclude a trust existing, and render the transaction as a mere contract? And that the infant, while still in the mother's care, in reality remains the subject of a different trust - the express trust created by nature (Providence)?

While all this is interesting to contemplate, it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. In the end, we are still trying to understand what the real relationship is between individual beings and government. If indeed our information is the property subject to a trust, and nowhere is the trust expressed plainly, it behooves us to construct - as best we are able - a trust that will withstand even the most careful scrutiny of reason and the courts.

At the base of the problem is the reality that we are unaware of an express trust being created anywhere having to do with registration of birth. At least, that's the problem I have. All I find is the possibility of an implied trust.

walter
11-06-12, 11:23 PM
as david merrill has said:
"The magic of law is how you cast the spell - it is in the spelling."

i like that line,

everyone is born free,
to re-gain that position again we must reverse what we did,
walk backwards to the beginning,

if you get lost in a field full of snow the easiest way to get back is follow your foot steps,
eventually you will get back to the start, where you came from,

the bc was never meant to be used as id,
yet what did we do?
we went ahead and used it,
departmental use only,
we use it, we become part of the department,

if a trust was created for you as a beneficiary does the trustee or any party to the trust have to inform you that there was a trust created for you?

eg.
a rich auntie that you never seen or even knew off has no other living relatives but you, so she puts your name you use on a trust so when she dies you inherit her estate, does she have an obligation to inform you that she has done this?

usufract,
if we are using the government NAME, then what are they using that belongs to us?

would you be a witness to this usufract?
witness protection = immunity

David Merrill
11-06-12, 11:36 PM
At the base of the problem is the reality that we are unaware of an express trust being created anywhere having to do with registration of birth. At least, that's the problem I have. All I find is the possibility of an implied trust.

That goes to my point!

I have given up beating around the bush. The kingdom is within me and without. I learn by teaching that and teach by learning it too. There is peace in that. I detect that others are finding peace too.

Something Walter said I believe, maybe you. There is the authority to issue a license but no authority to authorize any trust indenture. That comes from a wet ink sign of life.


P.S.


the bc was never meant to be used as id,
yet what did we do?
we went ahead and used it,
departmental use only,
we use it, we become part of the department,


We depart, from the original estate!

I lost my wallet and my WSA Passport and World ID Card (http://www.worldservice.org/visas.html). I called and they have my order for replacement and will be expediting no charge because I am already a "client". Nice people!

Chex
11-07-12, 12:34 AM
does usufruct carry an obligation to exercise its power for the benefit of the beneficiary?

Latin: the beneficiary of a trust.

Modern trust law prefers the word beneficiary but the older cases refer to the older Latin term of cestui que trust.

"A trust is an equitable obligation binding a person (who is called a trustee) to deal with property over which he has control (which is called the trust property) for the benefit of persons (who are called beneficiaries or cestui que trust) of whom he may himself be one, and anyone of whom may enforce the obligation. Any act or neglect on the part of a trustee which is not authorised or excused by the terms of the trust instrument, or by law, is a breach of trust."

Six pages here (http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3201&context=lalrev&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt %26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520usufruct%2520carry%2520a n%2520obligation%2520to%2520exercise%2520its%2520p ower%2520for%2520the%2520benefit%2520of%2520the%25 20beneficiary%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26cad%3Drja% 26ved%3D0CCYQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigit alcommons.law.lsu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi% 253Farticle%253D3201%2526context%253Dlalrev%26ei%3 DM6uZUOuFHKWP0QGWk4CoDw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHUquW3WyTbcX JsOe7HXumMnkZoFw#search=%22does%20usufruct%20carry %20an%20obligation%20exercise%20its%20power%20bene fit%20beneficiary%22)

http://www.cfhlaw.com/attorneys/anthony_j_correro.htm :

He has advised clients in an immense variety of securities, mergers and acquisitions and corporate finance deals, ranging in size from $3.1 billion to $100,000, including the $3.1 billion sale of First Commerce Corporation to Bank One; the purchase of Sugarland Bank by MidSouth Bancorp for $1.2 million; the $500 million purchase of Zapata Corporation by Tidewater, Inc.; the sale of VitaRx to McKesson Corporation for $62 million; Amedisys's acquisition of HMR Acquisition, Inc.; public offerings of oil and gas interests for a single client aggregating $1 billion and the private offering of oil and gas interests for a single client of $100,000; as well as initial public stock offerings for several companies.

Andy wrote the Louisiana Bank Holding Company Law, which ushered statewide banking into Louisiana, and since then has handled over 30 bank mergers in the state, representing both buyers and sellers.

Seosaidh
11-07-12, 12:39 AM
Six pages here (http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3201&context=lalrev&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt %26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoes%2520usufruct%2520carry%2520a n%2520obligation%2520to%2520exercise%2520its%2520p ower%2520for%2520the%2520benefit%2520of%2520the%25 20beneficiary%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26cad%3Drja% 26ved%3D0CCYQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigit alcommons.law.lsu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi% 253Farticle%253D3201%2526context%253Dlalrev%26ei%3 DM6uZUOuFHKWP0QGWk4CoDw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHUquW3WyTbcX JsOe7HXumMnkZoFw#search=%22does%20usufruct%20carry %20an%20obligation%20exercise%20its%20power%20bene fit%20beneficiary%22)

For some reason, that link isn't working for me.

Chex
11-07-12, 01:17 AM
Naked ownership is a term used in Louisiana, roughly analogous to the "reversionary interest" in common-law jurisdictions.

Reversion, in the context of real property, means the return to the grantor or his/her heirs of real property after all interests in the property given to others have terminated.

Reversion occurs when the property owner transfers a vested estate of lesser quantum than he started with. Reversion is also called "reverter."

For example, if A grants land ?to B until he marries Y? or ?to Z so long as the land is used for church purposes?, then there is a possibility that the land will revert to A if B marries Y, or if the land is no longer used for a church. http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/naked-ownership/

Definition of 'Naked Trust'

A straightforward type of trust into which a trustor transfers assets (money or property) in order to pass them on to beneficiaries. The initial owner of the assets (the trustor) loses all control over them once they are placed in the trust. The trustee has only nominal control of the assets in the trust. The trust's beneficiary has absolute entitlement to the assets once he or she turns 18. Also known as a "bare trust," "dry trust" or "passive trust."

Investopedia explains 'Naked Trust'
This estate-planning tool is commonly used by parents or grandparents to transfer assets to children or grandchildren. The college financial-aid implications of putting money into a naked trust for children should be considered before establishing the trust.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/naked-trust.asp#ixzz2BUjsI2Kc

Definition of 'Named Beneficiary'

This term refers to any beneficiary named in a will, a trust, an insurance policy, pension plan accounts, IRAs , or any other instrument, to whom benefits are paid. Named beneficiaries are the beneficial owners of the property and will share in the proceeds at the time of disposition. In an annuity policy, for example, the policyholder and the named beneficiary may be the same person.

Investopedia explains 'Named Beneficiary'

Beneficiary designations can be complex. For example, by naming a specific beneficiary in a life insurance policy, the proceeds of the insurance policy will not be subject to the will or to probate and will pass directly to the named beneficiary. There are many different kinds of beneficiaries, such as primary or contingent beneficiaries, and the named beneficiary need not be an individual. A named beneficiary of an insurance policy, for example, can be the estate of the deceased, in which case the actual beneficiaries will be designated in the will.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/named-beneficiary.asp#ixzz2BUkBs1nm

walter
11-07-12, 06:06 AM
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition

LEGAL ESTATE. One, the right to which may be enforced in a court of law. It is distinguished from an equitable estate, the rights to which can be established only in a court of equity. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1688.

Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

legal title
Ownership of property that is cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one that is complete and perfect in terms of the apparent right of ownership and possession, but that, unlike equitable title, carries no beneficial interest in the property.

proof of two titles existing,
(torrents title system)

so legal title trumps equitable titles,

what titles are we holding?
equitable, beneficiary,
its the lowest form of titles,

we apply to have benefits,
we asked to be beneficiary,
we put our self in the role of the lowest title holder,
we deserve what we get,


Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition

TITLE estates. A title is defined by Lord Coke to be the means whereby the owner of lands hath the just possession of his property. Co. Lit. 345; 2 Bl. Com. 195. Vide 1 Ohio Rep. 349. This is the definition of title to lands only.

2. There are several stages or degrees requisite to form a complete title to lands and tenements. 1st. The lowest and most imperfect degree of title is the mere possession, or actual occupation of the estate, without any apparent right to hold or continue such possession; this happens when one man disseises another. 2 Bl. Com. 195. 2dly. The next step to a good and perfect title is the right of possession, which may reside in one man, while the actual possession is not in himself, but in another. This right of possession is of two sorts; an apparent right of possession, which may be defeated by proving a better; and an actual right of possession, which will stand the test against all opponents. Idem. 196. 3dly. The mere right of property, the jus proprietatis without either possession or the right of possession. Id. 197.

3. A title is either good, marketable, doubtful, or bad.

4. A good title is that which entitles a man by right to a property or estate, and to the lawful possession of the same.

5. A marketable title is one which a court of equity considers to be so clear that it will enforce its acceptance by a purchaser. The ordinary acceptation of the term marketable title, would convey but a very imperfect notion of its legal and technical import.


i won't post the whole definition because its goes to 20 and has a few more after that but you can read the rest here:
http://constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_t.htm


"actual right of possession" is the strongest title one can have,


what is the most official document one can possess as to evidence of our title?
with out a doubt solb is,

does the solb show any evidence of a government title?
no

who holds the evidence to our title?
government does,

is the legal title holder (government) liable?
no

why?
the government is representing the queen, and no one can tell the queen what to do,

who has the right to request the title to property that the government is holding as evidence of your title?
you,

government is holding the evidence of our legal title to the name but we have not claimed it or acknowledged it as the evidence of our title they are holding,

as holder of our legal title the government recognizes we are the kings, queens,

David Merill wrote:
"I have given up beating around the bush. The kingdom is within me and without. I learn by teaching that and teach by learning it too. There is peace in that. I detect that others are finding peace too. "

i see david knows it,

we are (can be if done right) the legal title owner of the name that property can be obtained in,
government holds it as evidence,

that puts one in control of the holder of the solb,
if we held the solb we would have to pay, but we would also have absolute ownership of the property and no other could reposes it,

the holder (government) refuses (can not by mandate) to give it (original solb) to us when requested,
once noticed of this situation as explained above we re-venue back to kings and queens,
so they accept by default liability and become the ones that have to pay,

remember the government is en-trusted with the security of the safe keeping of evidence,
even when they refuse to give the original that does not mean they own it,
the form yes, but not the information on the form, the information is intellectual property

since the government holds the solb the public, province, country, would be the beneficiary.
lowest form of title holders, servants,

because we don't act like the solb is our title, and never have, the government uses that title to acquire control over us and our silence or ignorance is allowing it to continue,

the BC is evidence that the government holds the evidence of your title,
its an extract from the foundation document,

we own the rights in the foundation document being the solb so what ever is built on it should be controlled by us,

all we need to do is step up to the plate and claim our birth right,

remember that one should fully understand this before trying to accomplish it,

i will put this to the test soon this winter when i have more time,

i hope this post clears up the points i am trying to make about the name game,

if i don't respond to any new posts about what i wrote its because i have gone moose hunting for a week and tomorrow i have a lot to do before i leave,

happy trails campers,

David Merrill
11-07-12, 08:02 AM
What is "solb"?

walter
11-07-12, 08:24 AM
What is "solb"?

sorry,

statement of live birth,

they could be slightly different from province to province,
some might be: "official notice of live birth" or "statement of birth" etc,

also they are on legal size paper,

some look nice with colour and nice paper and some provinces are a crappy black and white plain copy,

David Merrill
11-07-12, 01:41 PM
sorry,

statement of live birth,

they could be slightly different from province to province,
some might be: "official notice of live birth" or "statement of birth" etc,

also they are on legal size paper,

some look nice with colour and nice paper and some provinces are a crappy black and white plain copy,


Thanks! I was trying to fit it into Certificate of Live Birth (COLB).


P.S. Can you please describe where the COLB/SOLB is tied into a Torrens - based system of registration and publication? I am also supposing that this paper (http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2981/chattelmortgages.pdf) describes the Torrens system fairly accurately.

walter
11-08-12, 05:58 AM
Thanks! I was trying to fit it into Certificate of Live Birth (COLB).


P.S. Can you please describe where the COLB/SOLB is tied into a Torrens - based system of registration and publication? I am also supposing that this paper (http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2981/chattelmortgages.pdf) describes the Torrens system fairly accurately.

sorry, i am out of time to review "this paper"
will check it out when i get back,

but if you check my last post on the "A Brief History on Birth certificates" thread,
i think it will answer your question,

should be back around monday or so,

yee haa
of hunting moose for a week,
happy trails campers,

David Merrill
11-08-12, 02:46 PM
sorry, i am out of time to review "this paper"
will check it out when i get back,

but if you check my last post on the "A Brief History on Birth certificates" thread,
i think it will answer your question,

should be back around monday or so,

yee haa
of hunting moose for a week,
happy trails campers,



Thank you Walter. I hope you have a clean kill and a freezer-full!

LearnTheLaw
12-28-12, 02:00 AM
Thank you Walter. I hope you have a clean kill and a freezer-full!

I certainly hope the Moose did not get Walter.

David Merrill
12-28-12, 09:55 AM
Me too! Walter?

Could somebody please PM Mr. MOOSE?

LearnTheLaw
12-28-12, 02:53 PM
Me too! Walter?

Could somebody please PM Mr. MOOSE?

Mr. Moose claims he has not seen Mr. Walter.

Mr. Moose has reserved all unalienable rights and refuses to consent to a search of his freezer.

Hopefully Mr. Walter will return and finish this discussion.

walter
12-28-12, 05:31 PM
No moose got me yet.
And I hope they never do.
What part do you want to discuss LearnTheLaw?
Who would have thought that a NAME could get so complicated in red tap?

LearnTheLaw
12-30-12, 01:58 AM
No moose got me yet.
And I hope they never do.
What part do you want to discuss LearnTheLaw?
Who would have thought that a NAME could get so complicated in red tap?

Glad to hear that you're not hanging out in some moose's freezer, can't say the same for the moose though...LOL

I was curious about the answers to the questions below when I posted earlier [still am if you can].

the holder (government) refuses (can not by mandate) to give it (original solb) to us when requested,

i will put this to the test soon this winter when i have more time,



But then I re-read your post and I saw this

but if you check my last post on the "A Brief History on Birth certificates" thread,
i think it will answer your question,

so off I go to read that thread.

Thanks

LearnTheLaw
12-30-12, 01:59 AM
Thanks! I was trying to fit it into Certificate of Live Birth (COLB).


P.S. Can you please describe where the COLB/SOLB is tied into a Torrens - based system of registration and publication? I am also supposing that this paper (http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2981/chattelmortgages.pdf) describes the Torrens system fairly accurately.


I tried the link, but it doesn't seem to be working

walter
12-30-12, 06:45 PM
I was curious about the answers to the questions below when I posted earlier [still am if you can].

the holder (government) refuses (can not by mandate) to give it (original solb) to us when requested,

i will put this to the test soon this winter when i have more time,



Only originals can be recorded.
That's why a cop will never give you the original ticket to you when you ask for it, he gives you a carbon copy.

Same as courts. They only record original documents.

The SOLB is ON file. Not IN file.

One mandate of vital stats agents is to file and secure the originals.
So they can only issue and delivery certified copies.

The SOLB is a "certified true copy of a registration document".

The BC is a "certified extract from the registration of birth".

So with out the registration document (SOLB) there can be no BC.

Do you see why they can never give you the original SOLB?

It is the foundation document. All government documents like the BC, DL, passport, etc is built on the SOLB foundation.
If the foundation is removed the house falls down.

The SOLB is not a registration of the NAME or PERSON. It is a registration of the event of the birth.

It is the closest document we have that can be used to identify our body's deed.
It is the closest document we have that says we are alive.

BUT have we claimed it as such?

On New Year day I remember that the tv would always show the movie Ben Hur.
Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is an 1880 novel by American general and author Lew Wallace.

What sticks in my head is the 1959 version when Charlton Heston is going to commit suicide but first frees his slaves.
He has them all lined up and one after the other they come to him and he hands each one a scroll of paper and says "your free".

What did he hand them that can do that?

shikamaru
12-30-12, 10:06 PM
The SOLB is not a registration of the NAME or PERSON. It is a registration of the event of the birth.


It doesn't even really register the event of the birth.
It is the date the registration was made which may be different than one's true date of birth.

To register, according to William Thornton, is to bring something foreign into a jurisdiction.
If someone or something is internal to the jurisdiction, enrollment is what is requested.

Furthermore, no one alive knows their date of birth. Only third parties could testify to such an event.
When you give a data of birth, you are giving a confession or declaration, not first hand knowledge.

David Merrill
12-31-12, 08:30 AM
It doesn't even really register the event of the birth.
It is the date the registration was made which may be different than one's true date of birth.

To register, according to William Thornton, is to bring something foreign into a jurisdiction.
If someone or something is internal to the jurisdiction, enrollment is what is requested.

Furthermore, no one alive knows their date of birth. Only third parties could testify to such an event.
When you give a data of birth, you are giving a confession or declaration, not first hand knowledge.

Interesting application of a mental model.

Keith Alan
01-01-13, 10:53 PM
On New Year day I remember that the tv would always show the movie Ben Hur.
Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is an 1880 novel by American general and author Lew Wallace.

What sticks in my head is the 1959 version when Charlton Heston is going to commit suicide but first frees his slaves.
He has them all lined up and one after the other they come to him and he hands each one a scroll of paper and says "your free".

What did he hand them that can do that?

Wow, interesting question. I think it might depend on what kind of servant the man is. If indentured, then his bond. If a slave by conquest, then I don't know.

Chex
01-01-13, 11:36 PM
You are sprung from Hur, the associate of Joshua. You may study for yourself--take the Torah, and search the Book of Numbers, and of the seventy-two generations after Adam, you can find the very father of your house.

Keith Alan
01-01-13, 11:43 PM
You are sprung from Hur, the associate of Joshua. You may study for yourself--take the Torah, and search the Book of Numbers, and of the seventy-two generations after Adam, you can find the very father of your house.

How does someone do that?

David Merrill
01-02-13, 03:52 PM
You are sprung from Hur, the associate of Joshua. You may study for yourself--take the Torah, and search the Book of Numbers, and of the seventy-two generations after Adam, you can find the very father of your house.


The key of 72 is prolific in application. I am interested in this finding too!

LearnTheLaw
01-04-13, 04:05 AM
Only originals can be recorded.
That's why a cop will never give you the original ticket to you when you ask for it, he gives you a carbon copy.

Same as courts. They only record original documents.

The SOLB is ON file. Not IN file.

One mandate of vital stats agents is to file and secure the originals.
So they can only issue and delivery certified copies.

The SOLB is a "certified true copy of a registration document".

The BC is a "certified extract from the registration of birth".

So with out the registration document (SOLB) there can be no BC.

Do you see why they can never give you the original SOLB?

It is the foundation document. All government documents like the BC, DL, passport, etc is built on the SOLB foundation.
If the foundation is removed the house falls down.

The SOLB is not a registration of the NAME or PERSON. It is a registration of the event of the birth.

It is the closest document we have that can be used to identify our body's deed.
It is the closest document we have that says we are alive.

BUT have we claimed it as such?

On New Year day I remember that the tv would always show the movie Ben Hur.
Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is an 1880 novel by American general and author Lew Wallace.

What sticks in my head is the 1959 version when Charlton Heston is going to commit suicide but first frees his slaves.
He has them all lined up and one after the other they come to him and he hands each one a scroll of paper and says "your free".

What did he hand them that can do that?



Obviously their certificate of chattel status.:D

Thanks

looking for truth
07-11-13, 07:38 AM
Hello all, I am wondering if anybody might explain how to collapse a trust?

Winston Shrout mentions that by removal of the value in the trust, it collapses? I struggle to see how that might be done with the initial trust? also I 'think' he mentions that if the trustee is assigned to become also the beneficiary it collapses?

It occurred to me while reading this thread, that another approach might be to get "your mother" (grantor) to affirm an affidavit stating additional (or maybe existing and previously unstated?) rules to the trust that limit the trustees capability to make adhesion contracts for the beneficiary? I am sure there must a heap of subtle changes that could be made in this regard that would change the whole ball game for us all?

looking for truth
07-15-13, 09:00 AM
Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone could comment on how to collapse a trust? I believe I remember Winston Shrout speaking of making the trustee the beneficiary in one approach, and in another, removing the corpus of the trust. With this in mind, can anyone comment on how this might be applied to the original trust?

Another thing which only now occurs to me is, the birth certificate trust is effectively from the mother as grantor. Soooooo, what about getting your mother to write up an affidavit that redefines the way that the trustee runs that trust? Effectively it could be a "good faith adhesion contract from the its inception, nunc pro tunc", or maybe 'only' a 'further stipulation' from this point as to the rules of the constructive trust?

best of luck to all.

Treefarmer
07-21-13, 03:25 AM
Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone could comment on how to collapse a trust? I believe I remember Winston Shrout speaking of making the trustee the beneficiary in one approach, and in another, removing the corpus of the trust. With this in mind, can anyone comment on how this might be applied to the original trust?

Another thing which only now occurs to me is, the birth certificate trust is effectively from the mother as grantor. Soooooo, what about getting your mother to write up an affidavit that redefines the way that the trustee runs that trust? Effectively it could be a "good faith adhesion contract from the its inception, nunc pro tunc", or maybe 'only' a 'further stipulation' from this point as to the rules of the constructive trust?

best of luck to all.

Hello lft, welcome to the forum.

Not sure what kind of trust you have in mind exactly, but as far as the BC is concerned, I've noticed that it loses its significance if you don't use it.
Without a currently valid DL, residential address, voter registration, passport, bank account, car insurance, etc, the BC loses its significance and cannot be used by government agencies to "identify" a wo/man, AFAIK.

xparte
09-18-14, 01:05 AM
Style of NAME /Name ALL CAPS or John James its never a stretch for the Justice of Peace send a NAMED Summons and Warrants in upper lower case for Common Law trick for Speeding trial or hybrid indictments for more serious fines and penalty 60 miles per hr daytime 55 at night that 5 or 30 per hr over is STYLED NEVER UPPER LOWER a Re-venue unless a injured party suffers the Style and Case will be painfully as HYBRID NIGHT HYBRID DAY IF Named causing bodily harm or fraud Lawfully Judge will add this to any Lawful Name guilty or innocent regardless my point is offers are offences needing payment.Lawful Verdicts will be Sentenced Warrants and Writs. True Name goes to true court a Suitor defends his reputation as the Man and his Name is. Not your NAME is that you.

ProfessorPhi
03-10-15, 01:55 AM
Thank you for that amazing communication. Very constructive (http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1461/creationandcommunicatio.pdf).

We have a suitor with an accountant/consultant business for telecommunications companies living in contrast out on the plain with an amazing small farm and ranch. He grows prodigious amounts of beautiful flowers and vegetables that he just gives away! This man insists on his true name, consistently to the point that police have approached him at his business looking for it, equipped with mug shots and full knowledge that this is the same man standing in front of the camera at Booking and he has told them quite honestly that nobody by that name is there. There is still a warrant out on it I imagine...

In other words he cannot go back to it.

I suspect that he converts all distributions to the man on the land to lawful money and enjoys what it can buy. His property is likely in a simple Massachusetts Trust structure with True Name as the beneficiary. This is an example (http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7013/generalpublictrust.pdf) where I CONSTRUCT THE TRUST for the full and legal name; which is what you bring to mind in the earlier part of your post.

I want to focus on a single thought given by Jesus (allegedly) in A Course in Miracles linked above in "Very Constructive". I listen to BBC World News when it is mid-morning in London and in that state of mind certain concepts seem very clear to me.



Creation and Communication are synonymous. God created every mind by communicating His mind to it, thus creating it forever as a channel for the reception of His Mind and Will. Since only beings of a like order can truly communicate, His creations naturally communicate with Him and like Him.


It is only through communication that things come into creation. We often isolate this from us as God's Word - the dabar by which He creates by Speaking the Universe (http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6653/statecourtprayer.pdf) into creation.

Now I want to convey the mechanism that diverts that power of creation to a select few masters or kings - the accountants who lay claim to the title Heirs Apparent (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/).



Energy

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?


They are the Order of Secular Humanism and have usurped the mantle of the Levites (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9579/templestonesmogandavid.jpg). It behooves anybody interested in your post to read Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph VINING.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2162/viningontitle.jpg

This title might be MILLER, or SMITH...

Without the title though, you have no standing individually - only as a class action. In your True Name you become of an order called Humanity, and in communication with all humanity. You become a co-creator as communication and creation are synonymous. So stand in the city and a pair of sunglasses is freely available to you. Stand in the wilderness and getting your hands on a pair is quite baffling. Look at all the miraculous creation at your fingertips, all the various materials and microchips that communication (creation) has brought to your fingertips in the notebook before you!

And look at what takes it away.

You remove yourself from the Order by thinking that TITLE is part of your name. It gives you something you allegedly want called individuality; isolationism from the Brotherhood of Man. You can become a BROKAW for example, a broker/retailer of motorcycles with that standing in society by TITLE. Or you might be a VAN PELT, with that DISTINCTION a Patroon - son=byn - pallet= patron. It is not you but if you think it is your name then it becomes you nicely. [Nice = ignorant.]

You can be an individual outside the order. And in doing so you control energy and become wealthy. Do not be afraid of that. That is what becoming a suitor is all about. We prosper and recover our sanity together. We know each other by true name; or if you prefer proper English - True Name. We become an order referred to as the brain trust. Together we create something better than the Federal Reserve System of false balances, elastic currency by Redemption.

Yes! It's the exact same model. Remedy is synonymous with Redemption.


I AM THAT I AM.

I AM THAT I AM. God pointing His Finger at You this time.

ARYEH ASHER ARYEH.

Relax your eyes on this (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2104/burningbush.jpg) and let them cross a little bit. Do you see the Burning Bush or do you see the inverted image? If you see it from inside the Bush is not that what God taking the form of the Burning Bush sees?

Moses wanted more. So God put him in the cleft of the rock (a cave) and passed quickly in his view. The experience nearly abolished Moses and when he returned to the Israelites they were frightened because his face glowed so brightly.


Could you be so kind as to update the url-links in "Speaking the Universe", "Heirs Apparent" and "on this" (Post #17), David?

David Merrill
03-10-15, 06:42 AM
Thank you! I repaired Post 17 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?594-The-Name-thing&p=6983&viewfull=1#post6983).