PDA

View Full Version : Is a name property ??



shikamaru
05-13-12, 09:14 PM
Is a name, an appellation property?

David Merrill
05-14-12, 12:11 AM
Is a name, an appellation property?


Where did you put those two words together?

Appellation definition (http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2747/appellationdefinition.jpg).

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2747/appellationdefinition.jpg

shikamaru
05-14-12, 01:55 PM
Interesting.
I'm glad you dug that up.

Don't go with the term appellation :).

David Merrill
05-15-12, 12:24 AM
That is interesting all right.

shikamaru
05-15-12, 09:37 PM
That is interesting all right.

I wondering about a policy enforcement officer demanding your name essentially.

I wonder if the demand is for the record and not the name so much?

The name is merely the keyword.

The policy enforcement officer is demanding your assistance in managing his principal's records.

shikamaru
05-15-12, 11:11 PM
I love Google Books :)

A Treatise on the Law of Names and the Changes of Names (http://books.google.com/books?id=sYkwAQAAMAAJ&dq=name%20of%20law&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q=name%20of%20law&f=false)

David Merrill
05-16-12, 03:34 PM
I love Google Books :)

A Treatise on the Law of Names and the Changes of Names (http://books.google.com/books?id=sYkwAQAAMAAJ&dq=name%20of%20law&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q=name%20of%20law&f=false)

Great Find Shikamaru!

shikamaru
05-16-12, 08:26 PM
Great Find Shikamaru!

I want to get down to the theory of why a person detained on the street "must" identify themselves to law enforcement.

David Merrill
05-16-12, 09:47 PM
I want to get down to the theory of why a person detained on the street "must" identify themselves to law enforcement.

I believe the basis of being detained on the street is probable cause.

martin earl
05-17-12, 03:06 AM
I believe the basis of being detained on the street is probable cause.

Actually, if an officer does not have probable cause to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed, a person cannot be legally detained. Sadly, the definition of probable cause is whatever the officer is smart enough to articulate it is. In other words, an officer can create probable cause out of nothing.

Their SCOTUS has pronounced that all one is required to give an officer who has probable cause is "a name". Notice it is singular "a" name. The officer will then press for "full name" or "last name" or "date of birth" but there is no legal requirement for anything but "a" name.

Without probable cause, there is no requirement for anyone to even utter a word nor provide any information to a cop during a "field interview". Nor is there any requirement for anyone to have a legal name or last name.

Several times when I was an officer, I attempted to talk to persons in the street and the smart ones simply walked away from me, which was fine, since if I had PC, I usually just placed them under arrest without trying to bait them into a conversation to get it.

shikamaru
05-17-12, 10:31 PM
I believe the basis of being detained on the street is probable cause.

Reasonable suspicion is the reason for detention.
Probable cause is the criteria for an arrest.

The provision of a name upon inquiry by a policy enforcement officer is something different.

Detention is civil arrest.
An apprehension is criminal arrest.

David Merrill
05-18-12, 12:30 AM
Reasonable suspicion is the reason for detention.
Probable cause is the criteria for an arrest.

The provision of a name upon inquiry by a policy enforcement officer is something different.

Detention is civil arrest.
An apprehension is criminal arrest.

Thank you for clarifying that!

martin earl
05-18-12, 02:12 AM
Thank you for clarifying that!

I can assure you, there is no difference in the terms at street level. If an officer uses any force or threatens force to stop you, it is an arrest, try resisting a 'civil detention' and you will be charged with 'resisting arrest' or 'aggravated assault on a police officer', the officer on the scene has nearly total discretion in such matters.

In the vast majority of cases, if an officer can articulate a reason for whatever he/she does or has done, it is supported by the department, that is how I was trained and I know it is the same today.

My point is, standing face to face with an armed and usually ignorant policy officer is NOT the time nor place to be discussing the finer points of legal terms. Give them a name if requested. You have done everything required of you, proceed then according to your own knowledge and skill from there.

As for the main question of this thread, it is pretty clear to me, they consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property.

Anthony Joseph
05-18-12, 03:04 AM
I can assure you, there is no difference in the terms at street level. If an officer uses any force or threatens force to stop you, it is an arrest, try resisting a 'civil detention' and you will be charged with 'resisting arrest' or 'aggravated assault on a police officer', the officer on the scene has nearly total discretion in such matters.

In the vast majority of cases, if an officer can articulate a reason for whatever he/she does or has done, it is supported by the department, that is how I was trained and I know it is the same today.

My point is, standing face to face with an armed and usually ignorant policy officer is NOT the time nor place to be discussing the finer points of legal terms. Give them a name if requested. You have done everything required of you, proceed then according to your own knowledge and skill from there.

As for the main question of this thread, it is pretty clear to me, they consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property.

They may consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property until they are properly informed that the FIRST MIDDLE LAST has been redeemed and claimed by the proper heir (True Name) as a landed estate of inheritance.

Provide the True Name, in my case it is Anthony Joseph, and no other information whatsoever.

"I do not understand the legal nature of your questions or requests."

"I am absent your claimed jurisdiction."

"I am absent your claimed controversy."

If they present you with a "Commercial Instrument", do not argue; you have 72 hours to timely and honorably exercise your inherent right of refusal to contract. Form and keep the proper and lawful record of your refusal. Be sure to send copies of your lawful clerical process to the clerk of court where the "Commercial Instrument" will be entered as a "case".

836

Page 4 and page 9 of the attached file shows the result of my latest encounter. I was impeded on the right of ways by a county deputy sheriff. I was presented a commercial instrument claiming "DRIVER NOT BELTED". I refused for cause timely, also furnishing the attached MEMORANDUM (page 4), and sent this evidence to my evidence repository (LoR case jacket) in the US District Court near my area. Page 9 shows the result - NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME.

martin earl
05-18-12, 01:23 PM
They may consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property until they are properly informed that the FIRST MIDDLE LAST has been redeemed and claimed by the proper heir (True Name) as a landed estate of inheritance.

Provide the True Name, in my case it is Anthony Joseph, and no other information whatsoever.

"I do not understand the legal nature of your questions or requests."

"I am absent your claimed jurisdiction."

"I am absent your claimed controversy."

If they present you with a "Commercial Instrument", do not argue; you have 72 hours to timely and honorably exercise your inherent right of refusal to contract. Form and keep the proper and lawful record of your refusal. Be sure to send copies of your lawful clerical process to the clerk of court where the "Commercial Instrument" will be entered as a "case".

836

Page 4 and page 9 of the attached file shows the result of my latest encounter. I was impeded on the right of ways by a county deputy sheriff. I was presented a commercial instrument claiming "DRIVER NOT BELTED". I refused for cause timely, also furnishing the attached MEMORANDUM (page 4), and sent this evidence to my evidence repository (LoR case jacket) in the US District Court near my area. Page 9 shows the result - NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME.

THAT is Knowledge and skill right there! What amazing break throughs have been made with the redemption of lawful money! Thank for the excellent write up Anthony!

David Merrill
05-18-12, 01:38 PM
THAT is Knowledge and skill right there! What amazing break throughs have been made with the redemption of lawful money! Thank for the excellent write up Anthony!

Thank you AJ!

Here is another example of redemption with a used car purchase (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYTEwZTk4NWQtZGFjNC00NjVkLWE5MjItYWNjZ DA3NGI5MGRm/edit?authkey=CKqok6oO&authkey=CKqok6oO&pli=1).

Anthony Joseph
05-19-12, 03:42 AM
THAT is Knowledge and skill right there! What amazing break throughs have been made with the redemption of lawful money! Thank for the excellent write up Anthony!

Thank you martin earl. Your commentary, coming from a former law enforcement officer, is not only appreciated but lends some credence and jusification to the stance and approach I utilized during my latest encounter.

I have already acknowledged how much of an asset it is to have you here among our cyberspace gathering and I wish to further thank you for your insight and contributions as a former "insider" who can provide us with knowledge into the psyche of the roving law enforcement officer's "mentality" we may encounter in our daily lives.

I again wish to give proper credit where it is due and it always starts with David Merrill as he is the one who cured me of my "schitzophrenia" or "psuedonomania" as he calls it. I have expressed that in the past many times and I thank him again for being God's "conduit of truth" regarding one's "True Name", redeeming lawful money and proper record forming.

I am in the midst of redeeming and claiming my inheritance and naming the chief judicial probate officer as my "master of the bench" and "privy counsellor" regarding any attempted claims against my declared private estate property (FIRST MIDDLE LAST).

So far, it seems to be working in my favor; why else would a desperate court system starving for revenue decide to "TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME" just because some "joe schmoe" decided to send a MEMORANDUM along with his timely Refusal for Cause of their "Commercial Instrument Traffic Ticket"? There is revenue there waiting to be collected and yet they decide to "TAKE NO ACTION..."???

David Merrill
05-19-12, 07:34 AM
When I was in a Messianic Jewish congregation I began to study the Jewish tradition of Bible Study down at the federal repository, as I call it. Which is to say rather than Government Documents being a part of the campus library, I think of it as a Government Document library with a whole slew of tangential material, so much so that the campus utilizes it to teach a wider curriculum.

One thing I recall encountering was that the Talmud is Oral Law. That confused me at first because the Talmud is in book form. For a long time though, the teachings found in the Talmud were passed down from generation to generation orally. This was Jewish Bible Study and around the time of CHRIST the rabbis felt this tradition was in danger so they began to immortalize it by putting it to book form.

This is what common law has become - case law. Stare decisis. In some discussions and conversation this is becoming more clear to me. The action of drawing upon the written law (Laws of Moses) through a written constitution (Nehemiah 10) was an oral tradition - the constitution-forming itself, put into written form, like the Talmud that followed.

Legislation follows the same form. The 'saving to suitors' clause is the reason that redemption had to be written into the elastic currency of 1913. The 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 follows written tradition:

A false balance is an abomination to the LORD but a just weight is His delight. Proverbs 11:1

That is what the 'saving to suitors' clause says. Whenever men on the land can form jural society enough to run self-government, that self-government prevails and brings them (home rule) out of the laws of the sea. When men are incompetent to do so, then the law of the sea shall govern.


The first consitution in America is recognized as the Fundamental Orders of 1639:

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5069/capitallaws.jpg

osbogosley
06-02-12, 04:24 PM
When providing identity information and other personal and private information to organizations and entities, it is done contingent upon certain expectations about how that information will be used. It is generally taken completely for granted that the basic rights and guaranteed protections of law afforded to individuals and their identity information will be respected by credible organizations.
The NCIDP has found that this trust is misplaced more often than not.
The Identity Information User License Agreement (IIULA), as the NCIDP has standardized it, puts into legal terms and written legal contract those expectations. It also serves formal notice of the laws to anyone handling the identity information, depriving them of claims of ignorance of those laws and the protections that those laws guarantee.
The IIULA gives notices of the rule of law as applicable across the entire United States, dealing with Federal court case law and other nationally applicable law. State laws may vary and may offer additional protections (which are generically invoked by the IIULA wherever they exist and offer such additional protections), but State laws cannot contravene any of the nationally applicable legal standards noticed in the IIULA. Moreover, the relevant case law is largely well-settled Constitutional law establishing rights that cannot be infringed even by acts of the Federal Congress, and that are significantly protected against all but amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

http://ncidpolicy.org/iiula.html I haven't had the need to use this but it makes sense to me. It might be the right thing to take to the locals and have them sign one before any other chance encounters.

shikamaru
09-16-12, 11:45 AM
I can assure you, there is no difference in the terms at street level. If an officer uses any force or threatens force to stop you, it is an arrest, try resisting a 'civil detention' and you will be charged with 'resisting arrest' or 'aggravated assault on a police officer', the officer on the scene has nearly total discretion in such matters.

In the vast majority of cases, if an officer can articulate a reason for whatever he/she does or has done, it is supported by the department, that is how I was trained and I know it is the same today.

My point is, standing face to face with an armed and usually ignorant policy officer is NOT the time nor place to be discussing the finer points of legal terms. Give them a name if requested. You have done everything required of you, proceed then according to your own knowledge and skill from there.

As for the main question of this thread, it is pretty clear to me, they consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property.

Curbstone court ??

Chex
09-16-12, 12:52 PM
Q. Is a name property ?

A. You bet it is, if you claim it, otherwise who else does it belong to?

shikamaru
09-16-12, 01:04 PM
Q. Is a name property ?

A. You bet it is, if you claim it, otherwise who else does it belong to?

Holy crap. You are right ...LOL.
Claim and declaration.

martin earl
10-07-12, 07:18 PM
Their name is their property. My name is my property. I only give my name as a matter of trust.

no trust, no name. And no, they have no right to give me a trust named JOHN DOE, either.

By the way, what happens in their courts, with their name (whatever that is, has NOTHING to do with me) simply put, they have proven they are not worthy of my tust.

Alberta Rose
10-14-12, 04:55 AM
Thank you AJ!

Here is another example of redemption with a used car purchase (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYTEwZTk4NWQtZGFjNC00NjVkLWE5MjItYWNjZ DA3NGI5MGRm/edit?authkey=CKqok6oO&authkey=CKqok6oO&pli=1).

Used car link is not working :(

David Merrill
10-15-12, 02:56 AM
Used car link is not working :(

I checked and that Google Doc is still there. I have it on the openly shared setting too. There are pulldown arrows on the right side as I view the documents indexed.

I believe this is the same demonstration (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/914/ownyourcarlawfultitletr.pdf).

I am thinking that the problem is that you are in Canada? There might be some Google restrictions in Canada, I don't know.


P.S. Thank you for mentioning it!

EZrhythm
10-15-12, 04:37 AM
YES, excellent! Their name, their account. "This name and account number are the property of the United States - Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States"

David Merrill
10-15-12, 08:36 AM
Thank you EZ;


That is redemption of lawful money on demand. There is a whole mythology built around there being an account at the Treasury. Money belongs to government. That is why they claim to be able to fine and imprison you for destroying their property.

However you have the right to redeem the note. Further than that, you have the right to make the demand and expect that the government will comply as this is your WORD - your DEMAND. You connect to your heritage by your word.


Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Isa 58:14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Make your demand. That is really where the Lesson Plan begins. From there things begin to fall into place.

walter
11-13-12, 10:01 PM
YES, excellent! Their name, their account. "This name and account number are the property of the United States - Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States"


yes as long as you notice them,

my person had amount a few thousand in fines for no dl, no car insurance from the insurance company of British Columbia (icbc)
a couple of times a year my person would get a statement from icbc saying the account (which just happened to be the same number as the dl number) was over due,
after a couple years of this going on and i doing nothing about it is when i decided to do something about it,
so i covered the name and address on the envelope and replaced it with a new one, it said,

"Forward to creator and owner of the name"

then i put vital statistics address on it from the province in which i was born,

its been 7 months and i have not had another statement sent to me...crossing fingers still and hoping for the best,
but it looks like i hit a nerve,

EZrhythm
11-14-12, 09:38 AM
FABULOUS and CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Seosaidh
11-14-12, 11:19 PM
I was reading here http://books.google.com/books?id=sYkwAQAAMAAJ&dq=name%20of%20law&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q=name%20of%20law&f=false and found out that in the common law of England, subjects' names can belong to the Crown.

Some but not all names can be inherited. Names are established by custom and usage. Baptismal names are regarded the highest form of names.

walter
11-15-12, 05:44 AM
Baptismal names are regarded the highest form of names.

I baptize 985 in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

David Merrill
11-15-12, 07:10 AM
I baptize 985 in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I hope your post and link do not get YOU into any trouble!

Seosaidh
11-15-12, 01:38 PM
I baptize 985 in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The baptismal name, ie christened or Christian name, is sanctioned by the Church. I'm going on memory now, but a strong case was made here - http://books.google.com/books?id=sYkwAQAAMAAJ&dq=name%20of%20law&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q=name%20of%20law&f=false - that name changes without authority are without legal effect.

I find that very interesting. It appears that a Christian name is sanctioned by the Church and its authority, while the surname is today sanctioned by the State. A person's front name is also sanctioned by the State, in lieu of being sanctioned by the Church. The idea that a man can adopt a new name at will - and without legal repercussion - appears to be spurious, at least according to that treatise. This explains why courts continue referring to people as AKA or alias, even after they begin using their Christian name only.

Now, connecting this with the idea that the NAME is subject to a trust, is another interesting exercise. I think the way to look at the NAME, rather than it being property, it is instead the authority the NAME re-presents to society that is subject to the trust. If someone assigns himself a new name, and begins using it according to an unrecognized authority, he is acting outside the bounds of civil society, and automatically is regarded with suspicion.

By itself, a name may indeed by property, but unless there is some kind of acting authority sanctioning its use, one is using it unlawfully in matters concerning Church and State. I am reminded of Moses' question to the Lord, where in response permission was given to refer to God as: I Am Who I Am. The Lord did not submit by providing a NAME. Moses and the people were given a license to use that appelation in place of a name.

It appears to me that defining what a NAME is makes for a very difficult proposition. I would say that a NAME is a symbol of authority (or lack of authority) to act in society. So in court, when a NAME is called to appear, what really is being asked is for the man to declare (by his appearance) the authority to whom he submits.

The question about whether a NAME is subject to a trust, then, seems to be entirely on the shoulders of the one bearing it. I suppose one could call that role an executor, unless the actor is incompetent. The man is free to choose unto whom he places his trust, and call on that authority to act in his stead.

walter
11-15-12, 04:15 PM
JULIET

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

ROMEO

[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

JULIET

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

shikamaru
11-15-12, 09:35 PM
I was reading here http://books.google.com/books?id=sYkwAQAAMAAJ&dq=name%20of%20law&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q=name%20of%20law&f=false and found out that in the common law of England, subjects' names can belong to the Crown.

Some but not all names can be inherited. Names are established by custom and usage. Baptismal names are regarded the highest form of names.

Good catch :).
How much do we wish to bet that these customs and usages persist to the present day?

shikamaru
11-15-12, 09:41 PM
The idea that a man can adopt a new name at will - and without legal repercussion - appears to be spurious, at least according to that treatise. This explains why courts continue referring to people as AKA or alias, even after they begin using their Christian name only.

Not true :).

Check this link for more info: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_marriage.html

That treatise was probably written concerning the laws and custom of England rather than of the United States as well.



Now, connecting this with the idea that the NAME is subject to a trust, is another interesting exercise. I think the way to look at the NAME, rather than it being property, it is instead the authority the NAME re-presents to society that is subject to the trust. If someone assigns himself a new name, and begins using it according to an unrecognized authority, he is acting outside the bounds of civil society, and automatically is regarded with suspicion.

Too bad. Custom is custom.
Declaration is what is used by most even today as far as name goes.



By itself, a name may indeed by property, but unless there is some kind of acting authority sanctioning its use, one is using it unlawfully in matters concerning Church and State. I am reminded of Moses' question to the Lord, where in response permission was given to refer to God as: I Am Who I Am. The Lord did not submit by providing a NAME. Moses and the people were given a license to use that appelation in place of a name.

Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?
A family Bible was all the authority for many years.
If someone else can name you, they have power over you.



It appears to me that defining what a NAME is makes for a very difficult proposition. I would say that a NAME is a symbol of authority (or lack of authority) to act in society. So in court, when a NAME is called to appear, what really is being asked is for the man to declare (by his appearance) the authority to whom he submits.

The question about whether a NAME is subject to a trust, then, seems to be entirely on the shoulders of the one bearing it. I suppose one could call that role an executor, unless the actor is incompetent. The man is free to choose unto whom he places his trust, and call on that authority to act in his stead.

A name is also an account particularly upon registration.
An account is a chose in action.

walter
11-15-12, 10:17 PM
Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?


:D
i know someone who has done it,

if you want to make it rock solid then Authentic or legalize it,

http://www.redsealnotary.com/apostille-canada.html

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/authentication/index.htm

"Governments and organizations sometimes require that documents for use in foreign countries be authenticated in order to be accepted. Authentication, for purposes in British Columbia, means the signature of the B.C. official who signed the document has been authenticated (sometimes called legalized) by the Government of British Columbia."

Seosaidh
11-15-12, 10:31 PM
Not true :).

Check this link for more info: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_marriage.html

That treatise was probably written concerning the laws and custom of England rather than of the United States as well.

Yes, exactly.


Declaration is what is used by most even today as far as name goes.

Yeah, I'm still learning.


Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?
A family Bible was all the authority for many years.
If someone else can name you, they have power over you.

I want to do that. I'll get there.


A name is also an account particularly upon registration.
An account is a chose in action.

I'll need to look that up. I'm not sure what that means.

shikamaru
11-15-12, 10:54 PM
I'll need to look that up. I'm not sure what that means.

An account is a chose in action.

Chose is French ... meaning thing.
An action is a suit or lawsuit.

Lawsuits at common law were called actions for the actions were considered more important than the claim.
Doesn't do much good being a creditor if the debtor doesn't act to repay, does it?

A chose in action is a type of right.
A chose in action is also a right to sue for recovery.

Taxes due to the English King were a chose in action.
Once paid, the payment become a chose in possession.

An account is a type of chose in action giving the grantor the right to sue the grantee for failure to satisfy the account.
If there is a balance outstanding on an account that hasn't been paid in awhile, the grantor or creditor will go to court for recovery of monies owed.

THIS ... is why you want to be careful which accounts you open.

A name creates an account for administering credits and debits upon you. In this case, the credit and debits are charges, reputation, etc.

If you need citations for anything I've said, let me know. I have them for everything except the last sentence. It is conjecture.

walter
01-30-13, 08:14 PM
STATISTICS CANADA
Statistics bureau

3. There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are

(a) to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistical information relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people;

Coding system for goods

22.1 (1) The Chief Statistician shall establish a coding system for goods imported into and exported from Canada to enable the Chief Statistician to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to those goods.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm

this is what happens with the birth of a name,
collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish,

publish = publishing rights, publishing rights = copyrights

the name is "statistical" by publication,
records a form,
analyse must be codifying,
it has to be codified before it can become an abstract,

this is why the arts play such a huge role in government,
publication,
they collected a name and published it,
we use the name and now are infringing on their publication rights,

so if thats the case we need to claim the information they collected before it was analysed, codified and published,

walter
04-08-13, 06:35 PM
www.policeone.com/investigations/article...-Sovereign-Citizens/

"4.) Watch for Fraudulent Documents
Sovereign Citizens can be an investigative challenge. Much of their personal identification information, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, or vehicle tags are fraudulent documents. When asked to provide a name, they may respond that they don’t have a name.

They may identify themselves as “the representative of…(their legal name).”

If you do receive a name, it may be a “sovereign” name, compounded with “El” or “Bey” and intended to denounce their association with the name provided them by a government entity.

Be sure to document all known aliases."


This line says it all:

"the name provided them by a government entity."


Merriam-Webster
Definition of PROVIDED
: on condition that : with the understanding : if

Definition of IF
1
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

So there are assumptions and conditions associated with using the provided government issued NAME.

shikamaru
04-08-13, 07:25 PM
www.policeone.com/investigations/article...-Sovereign-Citizens/

"4.) Watch for Fraudulent Documents
Sovereign Citizens can be an investigative challenge. Much of their personal identification information, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, or vehicle tags are fraudulent documents. When asked to provide a name, they may respond that they don’t have a name.

They may identify themselves as “the representative of…(their legal name).”

If you do receive a name, it may be a “sovereign” name, compounded with “El” or “Bey” and intended to denounce their association with the name provided them by a government entity.

Be sure to document all known aliases."


This line says it all:

"the name provided them by a government entity."


Merriam-Webster
Definition of PROVIDED
: on condition that : with the understanding : if

Definition of IF
1
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

So there are assumptions and conditions associated with using the provided government issued NAME.

The thing is, I don't think government can force you to use any given identification or name.

They merely rely on declaration of one form or another.
They certainly look for your confirmation of a specific legal record to begin assessment of charges.

I still contend that a name is an account (Common Law: chose in action).

Michael Joseph
04-25-13, 10:40 PM
Is a name, an appellation property?

thank you for the enlightenment. I appreciate your comments. I shall respond to say that, I believe that, what is being protected within State is the Usufruct - which as you know is just the RIGHT [Property] to Enjoy [Property] held by another.

So then, consider that Usufruct is a Right which can be the Corpus of a Trust. Or if you like, the Res. So then, the Usufruct can be held in Abeyance. So then, if the Usufructuary is holding the Usufruct in Abeyance, then I am only left as a naked user.

I understand what that means! It means that I do not have an ability to contract lawfully because the Usufructuary is holding the Usufruct in Trust. This means that the ONLY weapon that can be used against me is me. My words incriminate me, when I say the Property is MINE.

When that happens, then a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST forms in Law because I have just Torted the Trustee. And since I have torted the Trustee in Construction, I am given the Liability! Therefore, the ABSOLUTE WORST THING I can do is to make a Claim in the Title because that would be a Tort. So then what is my duty to my brethren? Is it not to discharge my service? I mean if a court case is started where someone is complaining about something regarding the NAME, isn't this a claim in the Usufruct?

I mean it is clear to this writer that the NAME is Res of the State - a more perfect Union - begs the General Government. So then, if a court makes a claim in the NAME - Plaintiff is Beneficiary and what is lacking is a Trustee! So am I to argue?

To argue ANYTHING is the act of foolishness. One who argues is either insane or has something to argue about. So then if one defends, Defendant, then, in argument one becomes a Trustee in Tort. Therefore the only option is to ask for the accounting so that the "minus charge" might be returned to the Treasury as a "positive charge" to zero the books. See that this must happen, ELSE the case MUST go into Limbo.

I say Limbo, because the term CHARGE reveals all:


CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.

Since the Estate is the Usufruct - then the Usufruct would have to be used to settle the Charge. But the Person issuing the Charge is responsible for the Charge. As it should be! Because one in liability is responsible for his issue. Therefore, please with specificity show me where my name appears on the Federal Reserve Note? I'll wait. So then we deal in Honor! I didn't make the system, but I can already see why this is such a huge risk. A criminal could have his way with the Court if he understood how it works.

My case was indefinitely deferred - Limbo:

Notice is hereby given to the designated transfer agent that I, michael-joseph make claim to the escrow, as it pertains to escrow account numbers 10CR123456 and 10CR123457 in the amount of $1,000.00, in the escrow account name MICHAEL JOSEPH NAME. You are hereby given notice to transfer the funds to the injured party, and

Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and

I, michael-joseph, further claim the original organic depository trust number incun.1454.b5 and I claim assurance under said original organic trust agreement in the name of Yehoshuah, by electronic routing to claimed escrow account, MICHAEL JOSEPH NAME, escrow account numbers; 10CR123456 and 10CR123457 paid in advance by the United States Treasury, and


And I did not have a problem feeling I was being heard, because I was speaking from the only place I could without causing a Tort - End User. My claim was IN the Usufruct. I do not claim Titles or for that matter Property. Only that I have the Use by Agreement. So then, my duty is to Administrate my domain in Law and in Equity.

I don't believe that mankind has gotten to a point where the collective consciousness is all gone astray - so I don't see the cause as lost. In the end, I am a king on this earth and a priest. Which makes me a servant.

Thank you for your response, you offer meat at the table. By the way, why is it paid in advance by the U.S. Treasury? Because the U.S. has the Liability as the Usufructuary!

Would you like to press charges against me? If so, I shall be glad to receive the accounting so that I can review the books and help you settle the matter upon your own estate! Therefore, I agree that man does form a State unto himself; however, it is not good for man to be alone - therefore I agree that man unites in Trust.

Now we seek a level playing field, yes? Placing the Usuruct in Trust is at great risk, because now I have no way to pay. I can only make a demand and hope the Clerk performs - Redemption is not up to me. I am without that Right as IT IS NOT MY ESTATE.



Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
04-25-13, 10:44 PM
It is a simple matter in my opinion: if I will not be the Usufructuary in Tort, then my accuser must pay the charges. That ain't gonna happen thus the case goes off in Limbo land. What is left is the accounting. Since the Judge/DA ain't gonna give that to me, then a resulting trust forms and I will take the reigns and drive this buggy:

"Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and"


Again, I take the liability for myself, I am not recommending anybody do the foregoing. You understand of course that I am telling whoever is reading these words that if they go down this path, to take full liability because it is only in full liability that you will find your remedy. Apostle Paul wrote [paraphrasing] "we are set at liberty but we are not to flaunt our liberty in front of those who would stumble in its application".

Now then anyone who would make a claim in that Name must have the Titles or the License to make such claim. Since attorney's are Licensed they can operate in that Name according to Law, but if I will not argue, then what is left is settlement. Therefore, recognizing that my name is not on the Note and that my Image is not on the coins be it silver, gold or just plain old copper [don't forget the quarters, dimes and nickels], then I am making a use of property that belongs to another. I believe you would call that a RIGHT and specifically that Right is called USUFRUCT.

And since a Right = Property and property can be held in Trust. I BELIEVE the Usufruct is currently being held in Abeyance. Therefore, the only thing left is to settle the books. I can't claim Rights or Property. BECAUSE THE ESTATE IS NOT MINE. I can only help to settle the books.

In operation of law, I have an access easement into the State called Legal Name. True Name is an illegal alien - therefore, in my opinion - signing anything in True Name within the United States boundaries and borders is an illegal act - making said act illegal or frivolous.

I am NOT a name. A name is a tool, a convenience that I am called. Therefore if I got up in front of the court and said my name is michael joseph WELL they would just Re-Style the case - STATE vs. MICHAEL JOSEPH.

Why? Because they are forming a Constructive Trust in my Tort. Therefore they don't give a crap what I think my name is or what I am called today or tomorrow. They have a living being standing before them arguing therefore said living being is in Tort and therefore since he thinks he is the Trustee - well then let him pay the bill. I witnessed a case once where the DA told the Judge .....well shoot I have that transcript.....


5 MR. BOWMAN: Judge, the state is contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer.

You comprehend now? They don't give two cents , what you think your name is, the Court is there to hear a matter in FIRST MIDDLE LAST - and you can argue till your hearts content that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter - but the Court does have the Right because the State CREATED that Numbered Name. Ref. seal atop of Birth Cert and Seal atop of DL, etc. So then if you make any argument - it wasn't me - etc. Then you are just wasting your time. I grant mistakes happen and technical aspects do occur - people make mistakes - however I am concerned with Law and Equity.

My concern is such that I only need to help to settle the account. I model the NAME in two ways:

1. A trust vessel
2. An account

You might say an accounting of the Trust Corpus. Since I am only concerned with the Use - I have no other rights as I do not have standing. As such, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CHARGE THE ESTATE - then let them! This in psychology is sometimes called "Fogging".

Think of a tennis match. You serve to me. If I argue [return volley] then we have a game. There will be a winner and a loser. If however I let the ball sail past me "into the fog" - well then there is no game. In fact seeing that I am in the fog, you don't even know I am there. As such, call me whatever you want to call me - I don't give two cents.

I am a child of Elohim. Even my body. What does it say Gen 2:7. And Yehovah Elohim formed man with the "adamah" dust of the earth. Ref. Gen 1:1 - In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. So then, the body that I make a use of is not mine. Said body is a temple but it does not belong to me. I have the Use and I steward said body, but it is not my body! I did not make it!

My mom and dad did not make it. My body is subject to the FIRST GRANT from the King. Such that Yehovah Elohim formed The Man - Flesh. Therefore FLESH is subject to that First Feudal Clog and all other estates in Usufruct are subject to the First Grant in Flesh. Therefore my flesh is not granted to me by mom and dad- but subject to the Creator - therefore even my flesh forms a QUALIFIED ESTATE - subject to the Original Grant from the Creator/Settlor.

So, then while I may have the Use to Occupy, the Temple called the flesh body, is not my own. Simple, yes? You may call me michael joseph, I may or may not answer; however, in my purest essence, I am a child of El Elyon. I was before I am now. I now only occupy a pot fashioned for me by another. Therefore I am with the Usufruct = The Right to Enjoy Property vested in Another. Now then: read and understand why I bow my knee to Yehoshauh:

[I]Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)

Joh 1:2 This Word was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him came into being not even one thing that hath come into being.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being by Him, and the world knew Him not.

Joh 1:11 He came unto His own [possessions = all the worlds peoples], and His own people Israel received [to themselves] Him not.


Do you now understand the beginning such that you comprehend the end? - paraphrasing from Book of Thomas

Shall we now setup a level playing field? A man who does not work shall not eat.

Why does man seek to cast off the bands of Yehovah and Yehoshauh? This creates a false balance. There is an illusion that this makes a peace.

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations tumultuously assemble, And the peoples meditate on vain things ?

Psa 2:2 Why do the kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers have gathered by appointment, Against Yehovah, and against His Messiah? saying,

Psa 2:3 "Let us break Yehovah's and Messiah's bands asunder, And cast away Their cords from us."

Peace comes from a People who agree to obey a given set of laws - if you want to call them Norms of Society - I don't care. But said Norms must be equitable to all and must be fair. So with a common law - we shall all agree to contract. But is there a common law? I THINK NOT. There is this state and that state and this state and the other state......and the heads in trustee in Administration - apply in immunity - with rights at the table - but is there peace? HARDLY. Can there be a common law between parties where one refuses to take full liability? - NO.


Shalom,
MJ

Keith Alan
04-26-13, 12:21 PM
It is a simple matter in my opinion: if I will not be the Usufructuary in Tort, then my accuser must pay the charges. That ain't gonna happen thus the case goes off in Limbo land. What is left is the accounting. Since the Judge/DA ain't gonna give that to me, then a resulting trust forms and I will take the reigns and drive this buggy:

"Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and"


Again, I take the liability for myself, I am not recommending anybody do the foregoing. You understand of course that I am telling whoever is reading these words that if they go down this path, to take full liability because it is only in full liability that you will find your remedy. Apostle Paul wrote [paraphrasing] "we are set at liberty but we are not to flaunt our liberty in front of those who would stumble in its application".

Now then anyone who would make a claim in that Name must have the Titles or the License to make such claim. Since attorney's are Licensed they can operate in that Name according to Law, but if I will not argue, then what is left is settlement. Therefore, recognizing that my name is not on the Note and that my Image is not on the coins be it silver, gold or just plain old copper [don't forget the quarters, dimes and nickels], then I am making a use of property that belongs to another. I believe you would call that a RIGHT and specifically that Right is called USUFRUCT.

And since a Right = Property and property can be held in Trust. I BELIEVE the Usufruct is currently being held in Abeyance. Therefore, the only thing left is to settle the books. I can't claim Rights or Property. BECAUSE THE ESTATE IS NOT MINE. I can only help to settle the books.

In operation of law, I have an access easement into the State called Legal Name. True Name is an illegal alien - therefore, in my opinion - signing anything in True Name within the United States boundaries and borders is an illegal act - making said act illegal or frivolous.

I am NOT a name. A name is a tool, a convenience that I am called. Therefore if I got up in front of the court and said my name is michael joseph WELL they would just Re-Style the case - STATE vs. MICHAEL JOSEPH.

Why? Because they are forming a Constructive Trust in my Tort. Therefore they don't give a crap what I think my name is or what I am called today or tomorrow. They have a living being standing before them arguing therefore said living being is in Tort and therefore since he thinks he is the Trustee - well then let him pay the bill. I witnessed a case once where the DA told the Judge .....well shoot I have that transcript.....


5 MR. BOWMAN: Judge, the state is contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer.

You comprehend now? They don't give two cents , what you think your name is, the Court is there to hear a matter in FIRST MIDDLE LAST - and you can argue till your hearts content that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter - but the Court does have the Right because the State CREATED that Numbered Name. Ref. seal atop of Birth Cert and Seal atop of DL, etc. So then if you make any argument - it wasn't me - etc. Then you are just wasting your time. I grant mistakes happen and technical aspects do occur - people make mistakes - however I am concerned with Law and Equity.

My concern is such that I only need to help to settle the account. I model the NAME in two ways:

1. A trust vessel
2. An account

You might say an accounting of the Trust Corpus. Since I am only concerned with the Use - I have no other rights as I do not have standing. As such, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CHARGE THE ESTATE - then let them! This in psychology is sometimes called "Fogging".

Think of a tennis match. You serve to me. If I argue [return volley] then we have a game. There will be a winner and a loser. If however I let the ball sail past me "into the fog" - well then there is no game. In fact seeing that I am in the fog, you don't even know I am there. As such, call me whatever you want to call me - I don't give two cents.

I am a child of Elohim. Even my body. What does it say Gen 2:7. And Yehovah Elohim formed man with the "adamah" dust of the earth. Ref. Gen 1:1 - In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. So then, the body that I make a use of is not mine. Said body is a temple but it does not belong to me. I have the Use and I steward said body, but it is not my body! I did not make it!

My mom and dad did not make it. My body is subject to the FIRST GRANT from the King. Such that Yehovah Elohim formed The Man - Flesh. Therefore FLESH is subject to that First Feudal Clog and all other estates in Usufruct are subject to the First Grant in Flesh. Therefore my flesh is not granted to me by mom and dad- but subject to the Creator - therefore even my flesh forms a QUALIFIED ESTATE - subject to the Original Grant from the Creator/Settlor.

So, then while I may have the Use to Occupy, the Temple called the flesh body, is not my own. Simple, yes? You may call me michael joseph, I may or may not answer; however, in my purest essence, I am a child of El Elyon. I was before I am now. I now only occupy a pot fashioned for me by another. Therefore I am with the Usufruct = The Right to Enjoy Property vested in Another. Now then: read and understand why I bow my knee to Yehoshauh:

[I]Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)

Joh 1:2 This Word was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him came into being not even one thing that hath come into being.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being by Him, and the world knew Him not.

Joh 1:11 He came unto His own [possessions = all the worlds peoples], and His own people Israel received [to themselves] Him not.


Do you now understand the beginning such that you comprehend the end? - paraphrasing from Book of Thomas

Shall we now setup a level playing field? A man who does not work shall not eat.

Why does man seek to cast off the bands of Yehovah and Yehoshauh? This creates a false balance. There is an illusion that this makes a peace.

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations tumultuously assemble, And the peoples meditate on vain things ?

Psa 2:2 Why do the kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers have gathered by appointment, Against Yehovah, and against His Messiah? saying,

Psa 2:3 "Let us break Yehovah's and Messiah's bands asunder, And cast away Their cords from us."

Peace comes from a People who agree to obey a given set of laws - if you want to call them Norms of Society - I don't care. But said Norms must be equitable to all and must be fair. So with a common law - we shall all agree to contract. But is there a common law? I THINK NOT. There is this state and that state and this state and the other state......and the heads in trustee in Administration - apply in immunity - with rights at the table - but is there peace? HARDLY. Can there be a common law between parties where one refuses to take full liability? - NO.


Shalom,
MJ
I'm reminded of this, Matthew 5:25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

There are the directions on how to handle controversy - don't have one. Reach agreement before it goes into the public.

walter
04-26-13, 05:01 PM
5 MR. BOWMAN: Judge, the state is contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer.



Why don't you have to show ID in court?

walter
04-26-13, 05:19 PM
http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/CCQ_1991/CCQ1991_A.html
Civil Code of Québec


TITLE FIVE
LEGAL PERSONS

CHAPTER I
JURIDICAL PERSONALITY

DIVISION I
CONSTITUTION AND KINDS OF LEGAL PERSONS

298. Legal persons are endowed with juridical personality.

Legal persons are established in the public interest or for a private interest.

1991, c. 64, a. 298.

299. Legal persons are constituted in accordance with the juridical forms provided by law, and sometimes directly by law.

Legal persons exist from the coming into force of the Act or from the time prescribed therein if they are established in the public interest or if they are constituted directly by law or through the effect of law; otherwise, they exist from the time provided for in the Acts that are applicable to them.

1991, c. 64, a. 299.

300. Legal persons established in the public interest are primarily governed by the special Acts by which they are constituted and by those which are applicable to them; legal persons established for a private interest are primarily governed by the Acts applicable to their particular type.

Both kinds of legal persons are also governed by this Code where the provisions of such Acts require to be complemented, particularly with regard to their status as legal persons, their property or their relations with other persons.

1991, c. 64, a. 300.

DIVISION II
EFFECTS OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY

301. Legal persons have full enjoyment of civil rights.

1991, c. 64, a. 301.

302. Every legal person has a patrimony which may, to the extent provided by law, be divided or appropriated to a purpose. It also has the extra-patrimonial rights and obligations flowing from its nature.

1991, c. 64, a. 302.

303. Legal persons have capacity to exercise all their rights, and the provisions of this Code respecting the exercise of civil rights by natural persons are applicable to them, adapted as required.

They have no incapacities other than those which may result from their nature or from an express provision of law.

1991, c. 64, a. 303.

304. Legal persons may not exercise tutorship or curatorship to the person.

They may, however, to the extent that they are authorized by law to act as such, hold office as tutor or curator to property, liquidator of a succession, sequestrator, trustee or administrator of another legal person.

1991, c. 64, a. 304.

305. Every legal person has a name which is assigned to it when it is constituted, and under which it exercises its rights and performs its obligations.

It shall be assigned a name which conforms to law and which includes, where required by law, an expression that clearly indicates the juridical form assumed by the legal person.

1991, c. 64, a. 305.

306. A legal person may engage in an activity or identify itself under a name other than its own name. It shall give notice to the enterprise registrar by filing a declaration to that effect in accordance with the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises (chapter P-44.1) and, if the legal person is a syndicate of co-owners, apply for the registration of such a notice in the land register.

1991, c. 64, a. 306; 2000, c. 42, s. 1; 2002, c. 45, s. 157; 2010, c. 7, s. 164.

307. The domicile of a legal person is at the place and address of its head office.

1991, c. 64, a. 307.

308. A legal person may change its name or its domicile by following the procedure established by law.

1991, c. 64, a. 308.

309. Legal persons are distinct from their members. Their acts bind none but themselves, except as provided by law.

1991, c. 64, a. 309.

310. The functioning, the administration of the patrimony and the activities of a legal person are regulated by law, the constituting act and the by-laws; to the extent permitted by law, they may also be regulated by a unanimous agreement of the members.

In case of inconsistency between the constituting act and the by-laws, the constituting act prevails.

1991, c. 64, a. 310.

311. Legal persons act through their organs, such as the board of directors and the general meeting of the members.

1991, c. 64, a. 311.

312. A legal person is represented by its senior officers, who bind it to the extent of the powers vested in them by law, the constituting act or the by-laws.

1991, c. 64, a. 312.

313. The by-laws of a legal person set out the contractual relations existing between the legal person and its members.

1991, c. 64, a. 313.

314. A legal person exists in perpetuity unless otherwise provided by law or its constituting act.

1991, c. 64, a. 314.

315. The members of a legal person are liable toward the legal person for anything they have promised to contribute to it, unless otherwise provided by law.

1991, c. 64, a. 315.

316. In case of fraud with regard to the legal person, the court may, on the application of an interested person, hold the founders, directors, other senior officers or members of the legal person who have participated in the alleged act or derived personal profit therefrom liable, to the extent it indicates, for any damage suffered by the legal person.

1991, c. 64, a. 316.

317. In no case may a legal person set up juridical personality against a person in good faith if it is set up to dissemble fraud, abuse of right or contravention of a rule of public order.

1991, c. 64, a. 317.

318. The court, in deciding an action by a third person in good faith, may rule that a person or group not having status as a legal person has the same obligations as a legal person if the person or group acted as such in respect of the third person.

1991, c. 64, a. 318.

319. A legal person may ratify an act performed for it before it was constituted; it is then substituted for the person who acted for it.

The ratification does not effect novation; the person who acted has thenceforth the same rights and is subject to the same obligations as a mandatary in respect of the legal person.

1991, c. 64, a. 319.

320. A person who acts for a legal person before it is constituted is bound by the obligations so contracted, unless the contract stipulates otherwise and includes a statement to the effect that the legal person might not be constituted or might not assume the obligations subscribed in the contract.

1991, c. 64, a. 320.

shikamaru
04-26-13, 10:26 PM
Why don't you have to show ID in court?

Because declaration works just as good, if not, better ....

Michael Joseph
04-26-13, 10:27 PM
Why don't you have to show ID in court?

Open says me. I have never seen a man in a North Carolina courtroom be compelled to show cause in regard to identity. It is impossible for a man to identify himself - impossible. But I have already been down this road - in these forums. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?150-can-you-prove-your-identity)

Michael Joseph
04-26-13, 10:29 PM
Because declaration works just as good, if not, better ....

Yes, even better than KNOW Thyself is DECLARE Thyself. Therefore we ALWAYS do a "Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement".

Shalom,
MJ

Freed Gerdes
04-30-13, 04:51 AM
I am confused by too many trusts. The PERSON named on the complaint which brings a case to court is the cestui que vie trust granted by the state at the live person's birth. The live person is in fact the decedent whose death gives rise to the trust, which holds title to the assets in the trust for the benefit of the decedent's estate. Now, you come to court as a live person, you make a special limited appearance by absolute ministerial right under the First Judicial Act of 1789 Rule E(8), declaring that you are in fact alive, and sui juris, and you are claiming your estate, as the natural Executor of your estate. Whether the estate contains legal title or equitable title is not relevant; whatever it contains is yours, as, according to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, the 'dead' could reappear and claim their estate, collapsing the trust. Now, as executor, you would be willing to assign the judge as trustee temporarily, so he can handle the presentment. The court, being an Article I court, and a corporation, cannot contract with you, the live person (which is why you must make a ministerial appearance - you have no standing in an Article I court, only the NAME does).

No fictional entity can have judicial authority over a live person; the Article I court is an administrative agency for a corporation (the state or the federal government), and it can only contract with and administer contracts between corporations. This is why it only administers municipal law which, the SC has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not for humans/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... Rodriques vs. Ray Donovan (US Department of Labor) 769 F 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). You as a live person have a right to trial in an Article III court, where the Constitution still matters, you have common law rights, and the judge swears an oath to God (and the case is decided by a jury of live people). For most of these administrative presentments (speeding, running red lights, etc) you could not be brought before an Article III court, because there must be a cause of action, and these 'violations' of municipal codes do not qualify as causes in an Article III court, where for instance you have an inalienable right to travel freely in the country of your birth. And no state may pass a law that makes the pursuit of an inalienable right into a crime.

I understand the concept of God granting the usufruct of his Creation, which supercedes the state's claim that they granted the usufruct. Isn't the better path to simply take the live person out of the jurisdiction of the court, and take the NAME with you? ie, deny them the right to contract with your trust. This is the path to re-establish common law, which is critical to the prosperity of civilization. We must resist political law, which is contrary to God's law. You can still take full liability for your actions; who brings this claim that they have been damaged? How has the King's peace been harmed if I stop for a red light, then drive carefully through it, not impeding the flow of traffic? (happens all the time: I ride a 500cc bike, and it does not weigh enough to trigger those automatic light changers). The state intended to make you a slave, administered by Roman courts through contracts, so they can apply all their trivial and invasive political law to you, when they granted the CQVtrust. This plan is wrecked if you claim your estate and take your rightful place as Executor of the estate identified by NAME, thus taking yourself out of their jurisdiction and re-establishing your common law rights.

walter
04-30-13, 05:23 PM
I am confused by too many trusts.

You got that right, placed on top of each other to hide and confuse.

The "Criminal Code of Canada", has some interesting definitions in it.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-1.html

“trustee” means a person who is declared by any Act to be a trustee or is, by the law of a province, a trustee, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a trustee on an express trust created by deed, will or instrument in writing, or by parol;

Michael Joseph
05-01-13, 11:51 PM
I am confused by too many trusts. The PERSON named on the complaint which brings a case to court is the cestui que vie trust granted by the state at the live person's birth. The live person is in fact the decedent whose death gives rise to the trust, which holds title to the assets in the trust for the benefit of the decedent's estate. Now, you come to court as a live person, you make a special limited appearance by absolute ministerial right under the First Judicial Act of 1789 Rule E(8), declaring that you are in fact alive, and sui juris, and you are claiming your estate, as the natural Executor of your estate. Whether the estate contains legal title or equitable title is not relevant; whatever it contains is yours, as, according to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, the 'dead' could reappear and claim their estate, collapsing the trust. Now, as executor, you would be willing to assign the judge as trustee temporarily, so he can handle the presentment. The court, being an Article I court, and a corporation, cannot contract with you, the live person (which is why you must make a ministerial appearance - you have no standing in an Article I court, only the NAME does).

No fictional entity can have judicial authority over a live person; the Article I court is an administrative agency for a corporation (the state or the federal government), and it can only contract with and administer contracts between corporations. This is why it only administers municipal law which, the SC has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not for humans/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... Rodriques vs. Ray Donovan (US Department of Labor) 769 F 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). You as a live person have a right to trial in an Article III court, where the Constitution still matters, you have common law rights, and the judge swears an oath to God (and the case is decided by a jury of live people). For most of these administrative presentments (speeding, running red lights, etc) you could not be brought before an Article III court, because there must be a cause of action, and these 'violations' of municipal codes do not qualify as causes in an Article III court, where for instance you have an inalienable right to travel freely in the country of your birth. And no state may pass a law that makes the pursuit of an inalienable right into a crime.

I understand the concept of God granting the usufruct of his Creation, which supercedes the state's claim that they granted the usufruct. Isn't the better path to simply take the live person out of the jurisdiction of the court, and take the NAME with you? ie, deny them the right to contract with your trust. This is the path to re-establish common law, which is critical to the prosperity of civilization. We must resist political law, which is contrary to God's law. You can still take full liability for your actions; who brings this claim that they have been damaged? How has the King's peace been harmed if I stop for a red light, then drive carefully through it, not impeding the flow of traffic? (happens all the time: I ride a 500cc bike, and it does not weigh enough to trigger those automatic light changers). The state intended to make you a slave, administered by Roman courts through contracts, so they can apply all their trivial and invasive political law to you, when they granted the CQVtrust. This plan is wrecked if you claim your estate and take your rightful place as Executor of the estate identified by NAME, thus taking yourself out of their jurisdiction and re-establishing your common law rights.


If the money is "minus money" which is not money at all, but a KIND OF substitute for money for exchange - then only you can curse you. Therefore, you cannot be compelled to accept Notes. Therefore you give notes value in your acceptance. Therefore the curse is brought VOLUNTARILY.

Freed Gerdes
05-02-13, 06:05 PM
I understand that debt is the money of slaves, and have taken steps to redeem all FRN's tendered to me, thus I do not participate in the fraud of fractional reserve banking. My objective is to take control of my corporate identity, so I can protect in from further intrusion by political law. I do not need or want the Fed/Treasury nexus to be a party to all my contracts. I am not bankrupt, and am not responsible for the Federal (corporate) government's bankruptcy. Thus I do not intend to tolerate the state's lien on all my property, so they can pledge me, my assets, and my future earning power to their debts. I seek legal title as well as equitable title to my estate. Moreover, I seek to establish that I control my corporate PERSON, it does not control me, and may not be used by others to control me; the only authority I accept is common law.

The corporate trust granted by the state is intended to hold title to assets in my estate until such time as I can 'return from the missing/dead' and reclaim my estate. According to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, upon my return the assets in the trust revert back to me, and I take my natural place as Executor of my estate. From that point on I can control with whom the trust contracts, and can Refuse for Cause any contracts which are not in my interest. The political/bankster cartel which has captured the US government machinery is in the late stages of empire, and is using Roman law (contracts) to control the economy and limit the liberties of the citizenry. Thus the switch from common law to Roman law in the Article I court system in 1933. These courts, which operate outside the Constitution, now rely on the contemporary definition of 'for the common good,' rather than the thousands of years of common law precedents. We now have a nation of men, rather than a nation of laws. We call this tyranny by the majority (democracy) as a marketing meme, but it is really tyranny by the insiders, ie, those who control the money supply.

For the first two hundred years Rome enjoyed the benefits of common law, and became the most prosperous city/nation in the world. But by the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, common law had been replaced by Roman law, that is, laws made by men, not the laws of God. As a result, the nation turned to empire, conquest, slavery, onerous taxes, and greatly reduced liberties for the citizens. Those who could fled, the rest were bankrupted, their estates confiscated by the state, and they were bonded (enslaved) to what had once been their own estates. Moral of the story: the application of common law results in prosperity for citizens and the state, but when men presume that they can write laws to suit temporal preferences, the social contract fails and civilization loses the benefits of peaceful cooperative endeavor. Thus we have a duty to ourselves and our progeny to resist Roman law, and to work tirelessly to restore the common law.

By your strategy of remaining 'in the fog,' and working from within the usufruct, accepting the status of user but not owner, you are confirming the Roman law and accepting the state's claim that they own 'you,' the corporate PERSON established by the trust granted by the state. These trusts were used extensively by the (empire) Romans; they would create a trust in the name of the slave, and put title to the slave's physical body into the trust, then buy and sell these trusts, illegally trafficking in living parts of God's creation, which they clearly did not own, but which laws made by men allowed. The Federal Reserve, through the 1933 bankruptcy action, seeks to re-establish that legal framework. I am merely searching for the best strategy to resist this effort by the cartel to eliminate common law and replace it with corporate law.

Since you have been at this a lot longer than I have, please note that I greatly appreciate your insights, and enjoy exploring these complex issues with knowledgeable others. The users of this site are performing a valuable service in making such a forum available; I don't find people ready to discuss these issues amongst my usual social contacts.

Michael Joseph
05-03-13, 12:30 AM
By your strategy of remaining 'in the fog,' and working from within the usufruct, accepting the status of user but not owner, you are confirming the Roman law and accepting the state's claim that they own 'you,' the corporate PERSON established by the trust granted by the state.

Babylon bores me - I care not for her riches or her thrones - she cannot allure me with her stuff - be it whatever - incorporeal or corporeal. She has nothing to give me and I am at liberty in Yehoshuah my Redeemer, my Savior in whom I trust. I shall only now elaborate as follows:

I am owned by noone. I am a child of El Elyon - The Most High God. However, the Persons of State are the creations of State. I am not a State Person. There is nothing inherently evil concerning Trust. A trust is just a confidence placed in another. I place my Trust in my Elohim [God]. There are two trusts - you can find them at Jeremiah 17:5 and 17:7.

I cannot tell you what to do in regard to your interests. I found my way but only thru great struggle. So now I see the matter as simple I am careful to give my word. I would rather eat my bread in peace than have all that Babylon might offer in strife.

Common Law is nothing but law common to a particular venue. You claim God's Law. Lets see now, God's Law speaks of Trusts.....lets explore an example, shall we?

Lev 6:2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;

Comment: If I deliver property to you to keep for me whilst I am about some other business, that is called a Trust. You are the Trustee, I am the Beneficiary and the Trust Corpus is the property delivered to your possession [keep].

Lev 6:3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:

Comment: If you do not take special care to protect said property and harm comes to the beneficial interest placed in your keep, then you are in breach of trust.

Lev 6:4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,


Comment: Here is God's Judgment for Breach of Trust.


Lev 6:5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.


Comment: Here is God's Judgment for Breach of Trust


Now consider if I deliver five cows to you to keep whilst I go to Hawaii with my wife. You say you will take the cows and put them in your keep for ten ounces of silver. So then we establish a Trust - you Possess the cows as Trustee for my benefit. One night a wolf comes into your field and eats one of the cows. I am now with a lost of the beneficial interest that I once had. And since you agreed to take care the interest I enjoyed in the cows, we are now going to go to God's Law and see that you owe me the cow that was lost and 20%. Since there were five cows - that means you owe me another cow. So now do I own the cows? NO. The cows are God's. I only had the right to use and enjoy the use of those cows and we - you and I - had an agreement in trust that you failed to perform. You argue, but the wolf is out of my control. I return, you should have been more vigilant. You took the consideration and you took the trust. You should have posted a watch.

The lesson I take from the foregoing is BE CAREFUL where I place my Trust. Also, if I take property in Trust as Trustee, then I am duty bound to protect said property for the benefit of the enjoyment of the Beneficiary[ies].


I hope you find your way.


Shalom,
MJ

shikamaru
05-05-13, 12:25 PM
I am confused by too many trusts. The PERSON named on the complaint which brings a case to court is the cestui que vie trust granted by the state at the live person's birth. The live person is in fact the decedent whose death gives rise to the trust, which holds title to the assets in the trust for the benefit of the decedent's estate. Now, you come to court as a live person, you make a special limited appearance by absolute ministerial right under the First Judicial Act of 1789 Rule E(8), declaring that you are in fact alive, and sui juris, and you are claiming your estate, as the natural Executor of your estate. Whether the estate contains legal title or equitable title is not relevant; whatever it contains is yours, as, according to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, the 'dead' could reappear and claim their estate, collapsing the trust. Now, as executor, you would be willing to assign the judge as trustee temporarily, so he can handle the presentment. The court, being an Article I court, and a corporation, cannot contract with you, the live person (which is why you must make a ministerial appearance - you have no standing in an Article I court, only the NAME does).

No fictional entity can have judicial authority over a live person; the Article I court is an administrative agency for a corporation (the state or the federal government), and it can only contract with and administer contracts between corporations. This is why it only administers municipal law which, the SC has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not for humans/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... Rodriques vs. Ray Donovan (US Department of Labor) 769 F 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). You as a live person have a right to trial in an Article III court, where the Constitution still matters, you have common law rights, and the judge swears an oath to God (and the case is decided by a jury of live people). For most of these administrative presentments (speeding, running red lights, etc) you could not be brought before an Article III court, because there must be a cause of action, and these 'violations' of municipal codes do not qualify as causes in an Article III court, where for instance you have an inalienable right to travel freely in the country of your birth. And no state may pass a law that makes the pursuit of an inalienable right into a crime.

I understand the concept of God granting the usufruct of his Creation, which supercedes the state's claim that they granted the usufruct. Isn't the better path to simply take the live person out of the jurisdiction of the court, and take the NAME with you? ie, deny them the right to contract with your trust. This is the path to re-establish common law, which is critical to the prosperity of civilization. We must resist political law, which is contrary to God's law. You can still take full liability for your actions; who brings this claim that they have been damaged? How has the King's peace been harmed if I stop for a red light, then drive carefully through it, not impeding the flow of traffic? (happens all the time: I ride a 500cc bike, and it does not weigh enough to trigger those automatic light changers). The state intended to make you a slave, administered by Roman courts through contracts, so they can apply all their trivial and invasive political law to you, when they granted the CQVtrust. This plan is wrecked if you claim your estate and take your rightful place as Executor of the estate identified by NAME, thus taking yourself out of their jurisdiction and re-establishing your common law rights.


My interpretation of your writings and the interpretations therein:

Aside from any court case, a trust is ultimately about property and who has what interests therein. The name of the trust is less important.
The remainder of your post mixes estate law, the birth record, and appearances where it should not be mixed.
Again, I contend the name is an account (Common Law: chose in action). An executor is the nominee for the administration of an estate upon death of the elector.
Now if you are speaking in the context of executor as person authorized to act on behalf of another, that context may work.

shikamaru
05-05-13, 12:28 PM
For the first two hundred years Rome enjoyed the benefits of common law, and became the most prosperous city/nation in the world. But by the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, common law had been replaced by Roman law, that is, laws made by men, not the laws of God. As a result, the nation turned to empire, conquest, slavery, onerous taxes, and greatly reduced liberties for the citizens. Those who could fled, the rest were bankrupted, their estates confiscated by the state, and they were bonded (enslaved) to what had once been their own estates. Moral of the story: the application of common law results in prosperity for citizens and the state, but when men presume that they can write laws to suit temporal preferences, the social contract fails and civilization loses the benefits of peaceful cooperative endeavor. Thus we have a duty to ourselves and our progeny to resist Roman law, and to work tirelessly to restore the common law.


Rome never had Common Law.
Common Law was the law system of England that came to be about 400 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The word common can also mean uniform. Common Law = Uniform Law .... throughout a territory.
It could also mean uniformity of application of the law.

Michael Joseph
05-08-13, 02:05 PM
Trust and Property - The TERMS are Connected:

Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. - Look for CEASAR's IMAGE.

Clearly United States Notes belong to the United States. Meaning it is the United States Treasury that is insuring those Notes in Circulation. So then making a demand for lawful money is in a sense a way of giving unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

Notes are used for INTERNAL circulation. Gold can be used for external payment. So then making a demand for lawful money IN ACCORD WITH AND PER 12USC411 conforms perfectly with 12USC95a(2). The property remains in the United States.

Now recently I had to negotiate the sale of an easement. And in doing so, I came to see the simplicity of Trust. The USE in the LAND is what is sold. The land will never be sold and cannot be sold - else that would be a violation of The Word of God and that ain't gonna happen.

Now then if the Use in the Land is being sold, then the Uses must be bounded by Survey to describe the Land but the Survey only describes the Land and NOT the Uses in the Land. Does not my argument hinge on what the term Land means? So what is Land and what is Earth?

Lev 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.


LAND. This term comprehends any found, soil or earth whatsoever, as meadows, pastures, woods, waters, marshes, furze and heath. It has an indefinite extent upwards as well as downwards; therefore land, legally includes all houses and other buildings standing or built on it; and whatever is in a direct line between the surface and the centre of the earth, such as mines of metals and fossils. 1 Inst. 4 a; Wood's Inst. 120; 2 B1. Com. 18; 1 Cruise on Real Prop. 58. In a more confined sense, the word land is said to denote "frank tenement at the least." Shepp. Touch. 92. In this sense, then, leaseholds cannot be said to be included under the word lands. 8 Madd. Rep. 635. The technical sense of the word land is farther explained by Sheppard, in his Touch. p. 88, thus: "if one be seised of some lands in fee, and possessed of other lands for years, all in one parish, and he grant all his lands in that parish (without naming them) in fee simple or for life; by this grant shall pass no, more but the lands he hath in fee simple." It is also said that land in its legal acceptation means arable land. 11 Co. 55 a. See also Cro. Car. 293; 2 P. Wms. 458, n.; 5 Ves. 476; 20 Vin. Ab. 203.

2. Land, as above observed, includes in general all the buildings erected upon it; 9 Day, R. 374; but to this general rule there are some exceptions. It is true, that if a stranger voluntarily erect buildings on another's land, they will belong to the owner of the land, and will become a part of it; 16 Mass. R. 449; yet cases are, not wanting where it has been decided that such an erection, under peculiar circumstances, would be considered as personal property. 4 Mass. R. 514; 8 Pick. R. 283, 402; 5 Pick, R. 487; 6 N. H. Rep. 555; 2 Fairf. R. 371; 1 Dana, R. 591; 1 Burr. 144.

Comment: Wow, look at that Land means the USES in or on the Earth. If the Earth is Surveyed, then the USES can be claimed and placed into Trust. If the inhabitants are made to submit by force of military rule, then those uses might be placed in Abeyance until the Military Occupation is completed.

So then making a demand for lawful money is in fact, returning by express deed, property to its rightful owner - the United States Treasury. If one claims ownership, then that one is in Tort and a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST issues upon the Trustee de son Tort.

So then what is Property? Because we are talking about property being held in Trust. Breaking it down -

PROPERTY. The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. 6 Binn. 98; 4 Pet. 511; 17 Johns. 283; 14 East, 370; 11 East, 290, 518. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law. See Things.

Comment: Wow property is a RIGHT or INTEREST in a Thing. Go check out THING.

2. All things are not the subject of property the sea, the air, and the like, cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any, claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as, he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away. Rutherf. Inst. 20; Domat, liv. prel. tit. 3; Poth. Des Choses; 18 Vin. Ab. 63; 7 Com. Dig. 175; Com. Dig. Biens. See also 2 B. & C. 281; S. C. 9 E. C. L. R. 87; 3 D. & R. 394; 9 B. & C. 396; S. C. 17 E. C. L. R. 404; 1 C. & M. 39; 4 Call, 472; 18 Ves. 193; 6 Bing. 630.

Comment: Wow, the proprietor has the Rights IN property. And property is a Right or Interest IN a Thing. So then who, pray tell was the Proprietor of The United States of America? That would be in a King. Look to Ephraim - a Commonwealth of Nations.


3. Property is divided into real property, (q. v.) and personal property. (q. v.) Vide Estate; Things.

Comment: interesting.

4. Property is also divided, when it consists of goods and chattels, into absolute and qualified. Absolute property is that which is our own, without any qualification whatever; as when a man is the owner of a watch, a book, or other inanimate thing: or of a horse, a sheep, or other animal, which never had its natural liberty in a wild state.

Comment: Is a Fee Simple Estate property? YES it is. It is a Qualified Estate too. Only the King can hold an Absolute Title, or Right or Interest in Property.

5. Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have reduced to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi. 2 Bl. Com. 396; 3 Binn. 546.

Comment: Are you a wild animal? Are you possessed by another - rather said - are you a slave? No but you can submit yourself to slavery in your ignorance. Trustee de son Tort. Remember Balaam? Israel must curse Israel. No outside curses.

6. But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without any relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply because more persons than one have an interest in it, or because the right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner, has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property. Vide, Bailee; Bailment.

Comment: Are you the Owner? Do you have your own Treasury? Answer the latter and you will have your answer for the former.

7. Personal property is further divided into property in possession, and property or choses in action. (q. v.)

Comment: A french term: CHOSE IN ACTION. What does it mean?

Michael Joseph
05-08-13, 02:17 PM
CHOSE, property. This is a French word, signifying thing. In law, it is applied to personal property; as choses in possession, are such personal things of which one has possession; choses in action, are such as the owner has not the possession, but merely a right of action for their possession. 2 Bl. Com. 889, 397; 1 Chit. Pract. 99; 1 Supp. to Ves. Jr. 26, 59. Chitty defines choses in actions to be rights to receive or recover a debt, or money, or damages for breach of contract, or for a tort connected with contract, but which cannot be enforced without action, and therefore termed choses, or things in action. Com. Dig. Biens; Harr. Dig. Chose in ActionChitty's Eq. Dig. b. t. Vide 1 Ch. Pr. 140.

2. It is one of the qualities of a chose in action, that, at common law, it is not assignable. 2 John. 1; 15 Mass. 388; 1 Crancb, 367. But bills of exchange and promissory notes, though choses in action, may be assigned by indorsement, when payable to order, or by delivery when payable to bearer. See Bills of Exchange.


Comment: Wow a Check is a Choose in Action by Indorsement. Isn't that Interesting? A Chose in Action is PROPERTY. I ask again, are you with your own Treasury?

8. Property is again divided into corporeal and incorporeal. The former comprehends such property as is perceptible to the senses, as lands, houses, goods, merchandise and the like; the latter consists in legal rights, as choses in action, easements, and the like.

Comment: If I undertake for you, is that PROPERTY that you hold? Yes.

9. Property is lost, in general, in three ways, by the act of man, by the act of law, and by the act of God.

Comment: I wonder what the term LOST means? I'll wager it is tied into POSSESSION which is tied to Property. Lets see shall we?

LOST. What was once possessed and cannot now be found.

2. When a bond or other deed was lost, formerly the obligee or plaintiff was compelled to go into equity to seek relief, because there was no remedy a law, the plaintiff being required to make profert in his declaration. 1 Chan. c. 7T. But in process of time courts of law dispensed with profert in such cases, and thereby obtained concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of chancery, so that now the loss of any paper, other than a negotiable note, will not prevent the plaintiff from recovering at law as well as in equity. 3 Atk. 214; 1 Ves. 341; 5 Ves. 235; 6 Ves. 812, 7 Ves. 19; 3 V. & B. 54.

3. When a negotiable note has been lost, equity will grant relief. In such case the claimant must tender an indemnity to the debtor, and file a bill in chancery to compel payment. 7 B. & C. 90; Ryan & Mo. 90; 4 Taunt. 602; 2 Ves. sen. 327; 16 Ves. 430.


Comment: Ever argue a Promissory Note being Lost? Ever wonder why the Judge just steamrolls over that argument? He goes to Equity. Did you agree to pay? If you didn't then why are you arguing over the Note? You testify against yourself. So you argue, therefore the Note Existed, but now what should be done it is lost. Well what is fair and equitable under the Note? You pay that is what is fair. Why, because you agreed to pay. And God cannot lie and therefore to lie is an offense against God and Nature.


10. - 1. It is lost by the act of man by, 1st. Alienation; but in order to do this, the owner must have a legal capacity to make a contract. 2d. By the voluntary abandonment of the thing; but unless the abandonment be purely voluntary, the title to the property is not lost; as, if things be thrown into the sea to save the ship, the right is not lost. Poth. h. t., n. 270; 3 Toull. ii. 346. But even a voluntary abandonment does not deprive the former owner from taking possession of the thing abandoned, at any time before another takes possession of it.


Comment: Wow you cannot alienate a property unless you have the legal capacity to contract. What is the basis of the contract? Since FRN's are not valuable - the attorner's have a work around - a play on words "and OTHER VALUABLE consideration". There must be consideration and it MUST be valuable. Is your WORD valuable? How about your promises?


11. - 2. The title to property is lost by operation of law. 1st. By the forced sale, under a lawful process, of the property of a debtor to satisfy a judgment, sentence, or decree rendered against him, to compel him to fulfil his obligations. 2d. By confiscation, or sentence of a criminal court. 3d. By prescription. 4th. By civil death. 6th. By capture of a public enemy.

Comment: A debtor - interesting, yes? BORROWER is TRUSTOR.....ever read those words on a Deed of Trust? Self Indictment. Sign here and here and here.

12. - 3. The title to property is lost by the act of God, as in the case of the death of slaves or animals, or in the total destruction of a thing; for example, if a house be swallowed up by an opening in the earth during an earthquake.

Comment:

Num 16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:

Num 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:

Num 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

Num 16:20 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,

Num 16:21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.

Num 16:22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?

Num 16:23 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 16:24 Speak unto the congregation, saying, Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

Num 16:25 And Moses rose up and went unto Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him.

Num 16:26 And he spake unto the congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.

Num 16:27 So they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side: and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children.

Num 16:28 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

Num 16:29 If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me.

Num 16:30 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.

Num 16:31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them:

Num 16:32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.

Num 16:33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.

Num 16:34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also.

Num 16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.


13. It is proper to observe that in some cases, the moment that the owner loses his possession, he also loses his property or right in the thing: animals ferae naturae, as mentioned above, belong to the owner only while he retains the possession of them. But, in general,' the loss of possession does not impair the right of property, for the owner may recover it within a certain time allowed by law. Vide, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.

Comment: Does a debtor possess? No. Under a Mortgage the Lender ALLOWS the Debtor to possess the use by the Lender's good will and agreement in covenant - I have proved this before and I shall not be upon that proof again. Therefore the Lender is in Possession and can Enter upon the Property at any time - unless a prior agreement is made in limitation. The Loss of possession impairs the Right IN property but not OF property. The right of redemption is an excellent example.


So then again, I ask about Property - If you make a USE of Notes do you gain any Ownership IN Property? Who is the Owner? Is it not the Proprietor? Do you see now why Padelford was so clear? You are NOT a party to the Covenant called Constitution. Therefore you are without Property INTEREST under or in said Constitution.

So if you make a use IN notes, and you make a demand for United States Notes and you make a Use of United States Notes to gain a Purchase [temporary possession or hold] upon a Thing, then you have interest IN the Use, but the Property is in the United States. See now why Gold is against Public Policy? Ounces allow for ALIENATION OF PROPERTY.

Images - look it up - its in the Top Ten. Thou shall not make any graven images.....

Shalom,
MJ

My twelve year old knows that everything in our house belongs to my wife and I [in relation to her] - she only gets to use the Things within the house by grant or permission or license given by Mom or Dad. Her use in no way alienates our interest in said Property.

David Merrill
05-08-13, 03:37 PM
Thank you for your inspired teachings Michael Joseph!

Michael Joseph
05-08-13, 05:19 PM
Thank you for your inspired teachings Michael Joseph!

my pleasure. there I did it, didn't I? I responded to a name that you called me by. I have implied our trust. ROFL.

But that is the lesson isn't it? A name is a tool - a wrench - in the hand of a skillful user. Roll Call - should come to mind.

I give Yehovah and El Shaddai the glory and the honor. I am merely an operator within vessel fitted for such uses. A child of The Elohim.

Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
05-08-13, 05:45 PM
The King's Treasuries underwrite the liability of the subjects and citizens - now substitute King with State and subjects/citizens with State Persons....

Ezr 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, Yehovah Elohim of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Ezr 4:11 This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time.

Ezr 4:14 Now because we have maintenance from the king's palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king's dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king;



Comment: Gee I'll bet the term Maintenance can be found in any Legal Dictionary. Lets check Johnny B. shall we?

MAINTENANCE, quasi contracts. The support which one person, who is bound by law to do so, gives to another for his living; for example, a father is bound to find maintenance for his children; and a child is required by law to maintain his father or mother when they cannot support themselves, and he has ability to maintain them. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 284-6.

If Ezra had MAINTENANCE from the king's palace, isn't that a way of saying the Treasury is underwriting this endeavor? Notice also the Pass Port that was given to Ezra so that he could pass between the other Treasuries without delay. See that if he, Ezra, was found absent Maintenance and absent a certification by the king - Passport - then he, Ezra might become the responsibility of the Treasury wherein he was found. This is full liability for one's claim. Therefore Cyrus issued forth a certificate that Ezra might show to anyone who stopped him so that others might see the king's seal and know Ezra was certified for the specific purpose within the kingdom.

Shalom,
MJ

David Merrill
05-08-13, 07:22 PM
my pleasure. there I did it, didn't I? I responded to a name that you called me by. I have implied our trust. ROFL.

But that is the lesson isn't it? A name is a tool - a wrench - in the hand of a skillful user. Roll Call - should come to mind.

I give Yehovah and El Shaddai the glory and the honor. I am merely an operator within vessel fitted for such uses. A child of The Elohim.

Shalom,
MJ

If you can decrypt how the tool is misused then you can get control over who and what you trust - or who or what you construct trust with!

Key 1: (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg)
Key 2: (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_legal.jpg)

Turning the key is to realize they are the same key. The context is important too. This is a law dictionary - Black's Fifth actually. So the definition of "Name" is specialized for attorneys to be the Legal name. It took me a long time to decrypt this so you should think about it carefully.

When I was buying the book at a used bookstore the clerk did not want to sell it! I am not sure what was going on with him. It was like he was a watchdog or gatekeeper for the Bar. I started to get upset and he sold it though. A couple decades later I saw him and asked him about it but he did not remember and could not imagine why he would behave that way.

Chex
05-09-13, 06:57 PM
Fw: Fw:fw: Now this is interesting..

Hello everyone............RobbRyder here…

I got an email a couple of days ago from a brother in Florida.. , seems he had gone to the trouble of Registering his fictitious name (ALL CAPS) with the State of Florida.. “APPLICATION FOR REGISTERATION OF FICTITOUS NAME” ..

ALL CAPS info goes in section one.. , owner is section 2…

Here in Michigan you register with the county… just google “fictitious name registration (STATE or county )”.. I’m sure you can find the appropriate form.. I did a video sometime ago on the subject..

Soon after he got a Certificate from the State of Florida

Anyway… ….. here is the good part… He submitted it into one his court cases… Late February 2013

At the hearing the judge entered a “Stay” … until he hired an attorney… (he has not)

He has not gotten any more mail pertaining to this case… , or… any of the others his ALL CAPS was party …Total of 4 cases… No mail has been sent for any of them…

When you think about it… he has a certificate from the State attesting that ALL CAPS is a corporation, and he (by true name Surname, Given Name) is the owner…. ending the presumption that he is ALL CAPS…

For a Corporation to sue a corporation over a contract issue… they need to have a contract …. signed by officers of both corporations.. in other words… a bilateral contract

When the presumption exist that ALL CAPS is you…. then the “unilateral contract” you signed.. (but they did not)
is your promise of a “gift or donation” to them.. and you broke your promise.. (but you didn’t mean for it to be a gift)

Sorry cannot share his documents… but basically it was just filling out the form.. and entering it into his case…
he did that part with a short paragraph ….with standard court heading. , file stamped by clerk.

” Comes now Surname, First Middle owner of ALL CAPS and files into and upon this court that ALL CAPS is a Fictitious Name Registration dated (Date) and,

Said Registration is active ” I certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to (Banks Attorney)

At the bottom right of the page he put.. Surname, First Middle Owner of ALL CAPS

Something to think about : http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/now-this-is-interesting/

David Merrill
05-09-13, 11:15 PM
Has he, the owner, failed to appear for the corporation yet?

walter
05-10-13, 04:12 PM
Don't know if this is good or bad yet?

There are some very interesting points being made here.


Registration of
Fictitious Names

Download: Fictitious Name (DSCB: 54-311)

Generally, any sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or other form of association that conducts any business under an assumed or fictitious business name must register this name with the Pennsylvania Department of State. A fictitious name is any assumed name, style or designation other than the proper name of the entity using such name. These types of entities include any association, general partnership, syndicate, joint venture or similar combination of groups of persons. Certain entities need not make a fictitious name filing, contact the Corporation Bureau for details.

The surname of a person, standing alone or coupled with words that describe the business, is not a fictitious business name and need not be registered. For example, "Jones Radio Repair" would not be a fictitious name because it includes the last name of the owner. However, "Bill's Radio Repair" is considered to be a fictitious business name because the owner's last name is not listed.

The inclusion of words that suggest additional owners, such as Company, & Company, & Sons, & Associates, makes the name an assumed or fictitious name. For partnerships, the last name of all partners must be listed or the fictitious name rule applies. For example, if "Moore, Johnson, & Smith" includes all three partners' names, it is not considered to be a fictitious business name. If all the partners' names are not included, then the name must be registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State.

To register an assumed or fictitious business name, you must file form DSCB:54-311 with the Corporation Bureau in the Pennsylvania Department of State. After registering a fictitious name, you will be required to place an advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which your business will be located and one in a legal publication or newspaper in that same county. You can identify the legal publication by contacting the county courthouse or county bar association in the county where the principal office is located. The Pennsylvania Department of State's Corporation Bureau can also assist you.

The penalty for failing to file a fictitious name registration is that the unregistered entity may not use the courts of Pennsylvania to enforce a contract entered into using the fictitious name. The failure to register the fictitious name does not void the contract, but merely prevents such enforcement until registration. The court also has the option of imposing a $500 penalty in these instances where the entity seeks to enforce the contract and subsequently registers the fictitious name in an untimely manner.

Download: Fictitious Name (DSCB: 54-311)

http://www.paopen4businessbriefcase.state.pa.us/BStructure/Fictitious.htm

Chex
05-10-13, 06:27 PM
RobbRyder here.

Video on the Fictitious Name, and claiming it.. best described in the audio I did with Juan today.. found on Talkshoe.. Call ID: 122402 May 9th call Video shows similarities between the Original Registration of your ownership… compared to what the completed instrument for claiming the name will look like as far as witnesses, and seals..

Also where it says in the Act for Fictitious Names.. that .. if you are doing business with an assumed name (ALL CAPS)… and have not registered it… you are guilty of a misdemeanor….. right now.. today… as you sit reading this… you are a criminal… because you have not registered your ownership in your “corporation”

This is why “unknown owners” is used… The Estate exist.. you at one time were the registered owner.. but did not renew the registration.. and the Estate is considered abandoned…

Further.. you cannot bring a suit of any kind in the state court unless you have registered your ownership… and you can listen to me read it .. right out of their law….

So claim the NAME… before they do…

Its truly profound.. if you just think about it for a minute… by doing this.. you have separated the man from the NAME.. and the STATE is going to Certify it.. you now have a registered corporation.. doing business as ALL CAPS…


And in Commerce.. there is only one type of contract.. BILATERAL.. officers of both corporations sign the contract…

We did our part.. signed the contract and put up collateral… but the other party has refused to sign the contract… now its just contract law… UCC… Court of Equity (in the Manner of DELEWARE).. lets call it Corporate Equity… no matter…

What matters.. is THEY now have a BIG.. BIG .. PROBLEM…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljtAOjoC8U&feature=youtu.be

Freed Gerdes
05-11-13, 04:29 AM
Good stuff, Chex, but here in NC, the state wants to get into your business really quick and deep. Registering the fictitious name will get you referred to the NC Privilege Tax division, where they want you to file more forms, pay a Privilege Tax (the city of Charlotte wants a cut of that too), then register all your business property for purposes of paying an annual Business Property tax, etc. The Privilege Tax requires that you identify your business under some 30 categories, none of which is 'Estate management,' so they can determine the tax rate to apply to all your gross revenues. It looks like this filing would open you up to much more hasslement from the state, eh? Can you file a dba and claim that you are not going to do any actual business? Or that it is none of their business? Please take a look at the NC statutes and tell me this is same as Michigan... Looks to me like you are asking for a privilege (the right to do business), and that subjects you to lots of taxes. Again the presumption that if you are filing a fictitious name, which NC assumes is a business name, then you must be in business, and they must tax...

Chex
05-11-13, 01:59 PM
Freed and to all I’m just following what’s going on by, reading, studying, this process and pass it along for more amplified results, you know two heads are better than one. This is what Robb has found and I’m looking at it from all angles. I know there are people from Michigan here that are probably looking into it also; I’m just scraping the surface of this in my state. Is a name property really grabbed my attention and why other persons get entitlement from it baffles me unless I contracted with them, Everything is a contract. I’m just riding the wave to see if I can get to shore. Here at STSC this process David has shown us i.e. is the suitors work as this is Robb’s work; understanding becomes easier for some than others. When people come here for answers such as Is a name property (2,497 views) one way or the other it will get to the bottom of the subject. I can’t give you an answer for NC, I wish that I could, we all have to do our due diligence and get answers. I have to read http://www.sba.gov/content/register-...iness-dba-name what the process is http://info.legalzoom.com/add-dba-llc-3292.html but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The need to know is what’s involved and what the responsibilities and the benefits. There is a difference between licenses and permits and trusts and I’m trying to get a clear picture on how I want to protect in every way I can http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ame-30262.html what’s mine and pass it down to my family instead of giving it to the (EBT: Eat Better Tonight) public. Lawful money is already in the bag, protecting it from the other grubby hands is the next step.

Michael Joseph
05-12-13, 07:19 PM
with them, Everything is a contract.


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

ENGAGEMENT. This word is frequently used in the French law to signify not only a contract, but the obligations arising from a quasi contract. The terms obligations (q. v.) and engagements, are said to be synonymous 17 Toull. n. 1; but the Code seems specially to apply the term engagement to those obligations which the law, imposes on a man without the intervention of any contract, either on the part of the obligor or the obligee. Art. 1370.

OBLIGATION. In its general and most extensive sense, obligation is synony- mous with duty. In a more technical meaning, it is a tie which binds us to pay or to do something agreeably to the laws and customs of the country in which the obligation is made. Just. Inst. 1. 3, t. 14. The term obligation also signifies the instrument or writing by which the contract is witnessed. And in another sense, an obligation still subsists, although the civil obligation is said to be a bond containing a penalty, with a condition annexed for the payment of money, performance of covenants or the like; it differs from a bill, which is generally without a penalty or condition, though it may be obligatory. Co. Litt. 172. It is also defined to be a deed whereby a man binds himself under a penalty to do a thing. Com. Dig. Obligation, A. The word obligation, in its most technical signification, ex vi termini, imports a sealed instrument. 2 S. & R. 502; 6 Verm. 40; 1 Blackf. 241; Harp. R. 434; 2 Porter, 19; 1 Bald. 129. See 1 Bell's Com. b. 3, p. 1, c. 1, page 293; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them.

2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforeed by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them.

3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind. 1. We are bound to obey the will of God as far as we are able to discover it, because he is the sovereign Lord of the universe who made and governs all things by his almighty power, and infinite wisdom. The general name of this duty is piety: which consists in entertaining just opinions concerning him, and partly in such affections towards him, and such, worship of him, as is suitable to these opinions.

4. - 2. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites.

5. - 3. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.

DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things; in its more restrained sense, it is often used as equivalent to customs, (q. v.) or imposts. (q. v.) Story, Const. §949. Vide, for the rate of duties payable on goods and merchandise, Gord. Dig. B. 7, t. 1, c. 1; Story's L. U. S. Index, h. t.

TAXES. This term in its most extended sense includes all contributions imposed by the government upon individuals for the service of the state, by whatever name they are called or known, whether by the name of tribute, tithe, talliage, impost, duty, gabel, custom, subsidy, aid, supply, excise, or other name.

5. The word taxes is, in a more confined sense, sometimes applied in contradistinction to duties, imposts and excises. Vide, generally, Story on the Const. c. 14; 1 Kent, Com. 254; 8 Dall. 171; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 232; 1 Black. Com. 308; The Federalist, No. 21, 36; Woodf. Landl. and Ten. 197, 254.


Comment: DEAR TAXPAYER is this possibly a name of tribute? Interesting, yes? Notice FOR THE SERVICE OF THE STATE. Making a Use of the State is not free.


SERVICE contracts. The being employed to serve another.


SERVICE feudal law. That duty which the tenant owes to his lord, by reason of his fee or estate.


Comment: How many of you hold lands in FEE Simple? I truly do not comprehend how anyone after reading Blackstone can say that a Fee Simple estate is NOT a qualified estate - it just simply is. And as such there may be duties required - I remember the draft for military service. How is that not a Service or duty that the TENANT in Common or Joint Tenant owes to his/her feudal lord - LANDLORD in Service?

The Feudal Lord is the Cestui Que Trust and the Tenant is the Trustee.

SERVITUDE, civil law. A term which indicates the subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing.


SERVITUS, civil law. A service or servitude; a burden imposed by law, or the agreement of parties upon certain persons, for the benefit of others; or upon one estate for the advantage of another, or for the benefit of another person than the owner.

SERVITUS. Servitude; slavery; a state of bondage. "Servitus autem, est constitutio," say the Institutes of Justinian, 1, 3, 2, "qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur." Servitude is a disposition of the law of nations, by which, against common right, one man has been subjected to the dominion of another. See Bract. 4 b; Co. Litt. 116.

DISPOSITION, French law. This word has several accept-ations; sometimes it signifies the effective marks of the will of some person; and at others the instrument containing those marks.


Comment: Under Servitude "of a thing to a thing" is not a name a thing? Is it not a wrench or a tool. Meaning I am me not a name. A name is a mere convenience. I am a child of El Elyon - what I am called presently is merely a tool of convenience set up for relationships. Now who setup which tool? A birth certificate bears a name and my mom and dad gave me a name.

So which Adam is Adam?

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

THINGS. By this word is understood every object, except man, which may become an active subject of right. Code du Canton de Berne, art. 332. In this sense it is opposed, in the language of the law, to the word persons. (q. v.)

Comment: Which may become an active subject or right. Now then, we are getting somewhere - cannot Rights be vested in a Name? Are not estates vested in a Name? If you say no, then pray tell, how on earth is the IRS putting forth a Lien against all assets held in NAME?


Shalom,
mj

Chex
05-13-13, 12:00 PM
appellation http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/appellation

Taken from another source.

TAKE:

1. To Lay Hold of; to gain or receive into possession; To Seize; To Deprive one of the possession of; to assume ownership. Thus, it is a Constitutional provision that a Man's (PRIVATE) Property SHALL NOT be TAKEN for Public Uses WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. 9 Ind. 433.

2. To Obtain or assume possession of a chattel UNLAWFULLY, and without the Owner's Consent; to appropriate things to one's own use with felonious intent. Thus, an actual TAKING is essential to constitute larceny. 4 Bl. Comm. 430.

3. To Seize or apprehend a person; to Arrest the body of a person by virtue of Lawful Process. Thus, a CAPIAS commands the officer to TAKE the body of the defendant. (The Judicial "Commercial" Courts have been arresting the WRONG Person; the Private Person instead of the US Fictional "Corpus account" Person, who is bound to the Commercial Codes.)

4. To acquire the Title to an ESTATE; to receive an estate in lands from another person by Virtue of some SPECIES of TITLE. Thus, one is said to "take by purchase," "take by descent," "take a LIFE-interest under the DEVISE," etc. (Certificate of LIVE Birth", Driver's License with the LIVING"S picture, other documents with the LIVING Autograph.)

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?614-Is-a-name-property&p=7117&viewfull=1#post7117

Don’t have the access yet.

Hyden CR2008-158369-001 ……….felony case using GSA forms based on the SSN as a FEDERAL CONTRACTOR and the oaths of the judge,

Pilat CV2010-016616 ………………foreclosure case after fighting and hiring lawyers for almost three years.

Apparently something is working.

Michael Joseph
05-14-13, 02:59 AM
appellation http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/appellation

Taken from another source.

TAKE:

1. To Lay Hold of; to gain or receive into possession; To Seize; To Deprive one of the possession of; to assume ownership. Thus, it is a Constitutional provision that a Man's (PRIVATE) Property SHALL NOT be TAKEN for Public Uses WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. 9 Ind. 433.


How many argue Section 1 article 8 - lawful money is gold/silver. But there is a HUGE difference between a State and a District. File any cause in the USDC and you will find that on North Carolina the style will be as such:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Notes are fine all day long within the Districts.

The contract was made in the District of Columbia; was to be there performed; and respected real property in Washington. Within this District, Congress has power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever. Art. I, sec. 8, ch. 17

These terms unquestionably include the power to make treasury notes legal tender for all debts. Willard v Taylor, 8 Wall. 557 (1869)

…the people of the insurgent States, under the Confederate government were, in legal contemplation, substantially in the same condition as inhabitants of districts of a country occupied and controlled by an invading belligerent. The rules which would apply in the former case would apply in the latter; and, as in the former case, the people must be regarded as subjects of a foreign power, …and contracts among them be interpreted and enforced with reference to the conditions imposed by the conqueror, so in the latter case, the inhabitants must be regarded as under the authority of the insurgent belligerent power actually established as the government of the country, and contracts made with them must be interpreted and enforced with reference to the condition of things created by the acts of the governing power. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. 1, 12 (1868)


Now therefore the Military Commander was tasked to create DISTRICTS - and notice that Within the Bounded Survey known as the DISTRICT of [INSERT NAME] we see notes.

Can you say WARD?

walter
05-14-13, 08:36 PM
district (n.)
1610s, "territory under the jurisdiction of a lord or officer," from French district (16c.), from Medieval Latin districtus "restraining of offenders, jurisdiction," then under the feudal system "area of jurisdiction," noun use of past participle of Latin distringere "hinder, detain" (see distress). Used vaguely of "any tract of land" from 1712. District attorney attested by 1789, American English.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=district&searchmode=none

distress (n.)
late 13c., "circumstance that causes anxiety or hardship," from Old French destresse, from Vulgar Latin *districtia "restraint, affliction, narrowness, distress," from Latin districtus, past participle of distringere "draw apart, hinder," also, in Medieval Latin "compel, coerce," from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + stringere "draw tight, press together" (see strain (v.)). Meaning "anguish, suffering; grief" is from c.1300.

territory (n.)
early 15c., "land under the jurisdiction of a town, state, etc.," probably from Latin territorium "land around a town, domain, district," from terra "earth, land" (see terrain) + -orium, suffix denoting place (see -ory).

An alternative theory, somewhat supported by the vowels of the original Latin word, suggests derivation from terrere "to frighten" (see terrible); thus territorium would mean "a place from which people are warned off." Sense of "any tract of land, district, region" is first attested c.1600. Specific U.S. sense of "organized self-governing region not yet a state" is from 1799.



I wonder why English was chosen as the official corporate language of the planet?

Michael Joseph
05-14-13, 09:47 PM
I wonder why English was chosen as the official corporate language of the planet?

ISH is Hebrew for Man. BRT is Hebrew for Contract. BRIT-ISH is hebrew for Contract Man. Ephraim is a Multitude of Nations. Manasseh is a Strong Nation. And the older Manasseh shall serve the younger Ephraim.

Concerning Dis-Trict - Federal - let me see:

Quoting: Mastery of the Universal-Legal-Technology:

"Some surprising things are discovered as we look deeply into the subject of syllables. We in America have what
is called a Federal District Court. These courts are the lowest courts in the federal court system, (excluding the
federal bankruptcy courts). The word "Federal" comes from the latin word "foedus," meaning "Foul, hideous,
revolting, vile, disgraceful, filthy, disgusting, or repulsive." The word District comes from the Latin: districtus and
distringere. Further break down reveals that dis- (prefix) means “rich, having or containing or bringing wealth.” Disis
also a name of “Pluto, god of the Lower World.” On the other hand, _trictus (suffix) has the meaning: “nonsense;
vexation, troubles; [to] behave in an evasive manner; trifle/ delay/dally; [to] cause trouble; [to] pull/play tricks.”
Distringere means to “stretch out/apart; detain; distract; pull in different directions.”62 Therefore, a Federal District
Court is a foul, hideous, revolting, vile, disgraceful, filthy, disgusting, or repulsive court of Pluto, a demon god, used to
bring wealth through all sorts of nonsense, vexation, troubles, evasiveness, trifling, delays, dallying, troubles, and
tricks; all employed to stretch apart, detain, distract, and pull in different directions — the parties of the litigation.

What disturbs me is that the creators of the federal district court system in 1792 were either evil, or trying to make
fools of us all. Maybe they were cussing at the court in a foreign language, what a mystery. To fix this problem, we
started using the term: Di-strict-Court of the Unity-States. Later, Unity was changed to Union, because it did not
sound so controversial, like the Unity Church"

62 From the University of Notre Dame Latin Dictionary Online.

In my opinion, Hebrew was the original language - the languages were confused. If you are one who stays upon this non-sense called Evolution, then please explain to me why it is Evolutionally practical to have 6000+ different languages. Wouldn't it be better [survival speaking] to just have one common language? Of course it would. Stack one up for the Creationist. Wahooooo.


Shalom,
MJ

Michael Joseph
05-14-13, 10:05 PM
TAKE:


2. To Obtain or assume possession of a chattel UNLAWFULLY, and without the Owner's Consent; to appropriate things to one's own use with felonious intent. Thus, an actual TAKING is essential to constitute larceny. 4 Bl. Comm. 430.

The Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple

How do we find the meaning of SEIZED?

SEISIN, estates. The possession of an estate of freebold. 8 N. H. Rep. 57; 3 Hamm. 220; 8 Litt. 134; 4 Mass. 408. Seisin was used in contradistinction to that precarious kind of possession by which tenants in villenage held their lands, which was considered to be the possession of their lords in, whom the freehold continued.

2. Seisin is either in fact or in law.

3. Where a freehold estate is conveyed to a person by feoffment, with livery of seisin, or by any of those conveyances which derive their effect from the statute of uses, he acquires a seisin in deed or in fact, and a freehold in deed: but where the freehold comes to a person by act of law, as by descent, he only acquires a seisin in law, that is, a right of possession, and his-estate is called a freehold In law.

4. The seisin in law, which the heir acquires on the death of his ancestor, May be defeated by the entry of a stranger, claiming a right to the land, which is called an abatement. (q. v.)

5. The actual seisin of an estate may be lost by the forcible entry of a stranger who thereby ousts or dispossesses the owner this act is called a disseisin. (q. v.)

6. According to Lord Mansfield, the various alterations which have been made in the law for the last three centuries, "have left us but the name of feoffment, seisin, tenure, and, freeholder, without any precise knowledge of the thing originally signified by these sounds."

7. In the United States, a conveyance by deed executed and acknowledged, and properly recorded according to law, and the descent cast upon the heir are, in general, considered as a seisin in deed without entry; and a grant by letters- patent from the commonwealth has the same effect. 4 Mass. R. 546; 7 Mass. R. 494; 15. Mass. R. 214 1 Munf. R. 17O. The recording of a deed is equivalent to livery of seisin. 4 Mass. 546.

8. In Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Ohio, seisin means merely, ownership, and the distinction between seisin in deed and in law is not known in practice. Walk. Intr. 324, 330; 1 Hill. Abr. 24 4 Day, R. 305; 4 Mass.; R. 489 14 Pick. R. 224. A patent by the commonwealth, in Kentucky, gives a, right entry, but not actual seisin. 3 Bibb, Rep. 57. Vide 1 Inst. 31; 19 Vin. Ab. 306; Dane's Abr. c. 104, a. 3; 4 Kent, Com. 2, 381; Cruise's Dig. t. 1, §23; Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. liv. 3, t. 1, c. 1, n. 80; Poth. Traite des Fiefs, part 1, c. 2; 3 Sumn. R. 170. Vide Livery of Seisin.

SEIZURE, practice. The act of taking possession of the property of a person condemned by the judgment of a competent tribunal, to pay a certain sum of money, by a sheriff, constable, or other officer, lawfully authorized thereto, by virtue of an execution, for the purpose of having such property sold according to law to satisfy the judgment. By seizure is also meant the taking possession of goods for a violation of a public law; as the taking possession of a ship for attempting an illicit trade. 2 Cranch, 18 7; 6 Cowen, 404; 4 Wheat. 100; 1 Gallis. 75; 2 Wash. C. C. 127, 567.

2. The seizure is complete as soon as the goods are within the power of the officer. 3 Rawle's Rep. 401; 16 Johns. Rep. 287; 2 Nott & McCord, 392; 2 Rawle's Rep. 142; Wats. on Sher. 172; Com. Dig. Execution, C 5.

3. The taking of part of the goods in a house, however, by virtue of a fieri facias in the name of the whole, is a good seizure of all. 8 East, R. 474. As the seizure must be made by virtue of an execution, it is evident that it cannot be made after the return day. 2 Caine's Rep. 243; 4 John. R. 450. Vide Door; House; Search Warrant.

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

Quoting other sources:

Q: What does seized in fee simple mean?

That means real property was owned by the decedent at the time of her death, i.e., the decedent was seized in fee simple of certain property as follows . . . . When land is conveyed to a new owner the new owner becomes seized in fee simple of that property. It's an old common law from the word seisen which is the possession of a freehold estate. Seisen was used to contrast the lesser estate held by tenants in a village where the land was considered to be the possession of the lords who held the freehold estate.

Q: Fee simple- does land conveyed in fee simple include mineral rights?

Initially, land is conveyed from a government to private ownership by a land "grant" or a land "patent". The government may or may not include or exclude mineral rights in the land grant or land patent, or such rights may be governed by statutory law. A government may choose to lease or sell such mineral rights separate from the "land" or "real property".Subsequently, land or real property is conveyed from private ownership to private ownership by "Deed". A private owner could sell off the mineral rights to one party while selling off the land to another title" (the land grant or patent, followed by a series of conveyance deeds).Generally, land conveyed "fee simple" also conveys the mineral rights from a Grantor to a Grantee, provided that the Grantor possessed such mineral rights to convey.To find out whether the Grantee has, and the Grantor had, such mineral rights requires tracing back the "chain of title" (usually with a County Clerk of Court or County Recorder of Deeds). One is looking for any deed restrictions or separation of mineral rights in such chain of title. Then one also needs to research whether Federal or State law reserve mineral rights to the government through the land grant or land patent or any subsequent transfers.An important component of "mineral rights" is usually the "right of entry" to exploit such rights. While many mineral rights holdings lay "dormant", they often have a exploit the land as compared with a property owner. Which means that they can choose to excavate a huge hole or otherwise tear up your property to exploit what is underneath it. They "eventually" need to compensate you or to more or less put things back the way they may have more rights to the land than you have to the property. It depends on the governing law (federal or state) and who granted what to whom and when.

Goldi
05-19-13, 10:29 PM
I believe the basis of being detained on the street is probable cause. Well if that's the case, we need to drill down exactly what probable cause is, and what it isn't. Probable cause is defined in the 4th amendment at the state and federal level as that which is supported by oath or affirmation. Further to that, there must be a major premise under scrutiny, not simply a minor premise "violation".

Goldi
05-19-13, 10:34 PM
Is a name, an appellation property?

I believe it is "unclaimed" property. Have you ever made a public claim? I think one could do that easily and then effect a quiet title on the name and establish a fee schedule for the use of it without your express written permission. If you keep it under the Small Claims limit in your state, you could be having some real fun with that. Because after all, isn't it always all about right, title and interest?

Goldi
05-19-13, 10:42 PM
[QUOTE="Forward to creator and owner of the name" then i put vital statistics address on it from the province in which i was born,
its been 7 months and i have not had another statement sent to me...crossing fingers still and hoping for the best, but it looks like i hit a nerve,[/QUOTE]

I've heard of at least 3 people claim to have made a visit to/called either the Sect'y of State or the Vital Stat's dept. in their state and ask who owns the name on the birth certificate. The answer was the agency owned the name. Then one guy got smart and said "excellent because I've got about several grand worth of bills to that name I need to pass along to you." He was asked to come back the next day which is when the agency clerk said, "sorry, my mistake, you own the name".

shikamaru
05-20-13, 08:00 PM
I believe it is "unclaimed" property. Have you ever made a public claim? I think one could do that easily and then effect a quiet title on the name and establish a fee schedule for the use of it without your express written permission. If you keep it under the Small Claims limit in your state, you could be having some real fun with that. Because after all, isn't it always all about right, title and interest?

Interesting idea :D!

Michael Joseph
05-20-13, 11:03 PM
Interesting idea :D!

David Merrill, was it Leroy Michael that was particularly adept at the King's Bench? I seem to recall him giving a lecture concerning how that works.

Shalom,
MJ

EZrhythm
05-21-13, 04:31 AM
I've heard of at least 3 people claim to have made a visit to/called either the Sect'y of State or the Vital Stat's dept. in their state and ask who owns the name on the birth certificate. The answer was the agency owned the name. Then one guy got smart and said "excellent because I've got about several grand worth of bills to that name I need to pass along to you." He was asked to come back the next day which is when the agency clerk said, "sorry, my mistake, you own the name".

I hope he didn't fall for their "mistake". There are a number of us who have been discharging accounts with, "This name and account number are property of the United States. Please forward to the owner in care of The Treasury of the United States." :cool:

We put those words across the statement and mail it back to whomever it was from.
Sometimes I'll add, "Demand is made for a true bill payable in lawful money pursuant Title 12, Section 411."

Chex
05-21-13, 01:25 PM
Without probable cause, there is no requirement for anyone to even utter a word nor provide any information to a cop during a "field interview". Nor is there any requirement for anyone to have a legal name or last name.http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?614-Is-a-name-property&p=7117&viewfull=1#post7117


I would still like to see how this works from a law and officer standpoint.

Rich and Tom discussing Rich's day in court
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=122402&cmd=tc

walter
05-21-13, 05:04 PM
I would still like to see how this works from a law and officer standpoint.



here is a good video of what the law does with out probable cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1tLjKn6gLy8

Michael Joseph
05-22-13, 12:33 AM
How many argue Section 1 article 8 - lawful money is gold/silver. But there is a HUGE difference between a State and a District. File any cause in the USDC and you will find that on North Carolina the style will be as such:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Notes are fine all day long within the Districts.

The contract was made in the District of Columbia; was to be there performed; and respected real property in Washington. Within this District, Congress has power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever. Art. I, sec. 8, ch. 17

These terms unquestionably include the power to make treasury notes legal tender for all debts. Willard v Taylor, 8 Wall. 557 (1869)

…the people of the insurgent States, under the Confederate government were, in legal contemplation, substantially in the same condition as inhabitants of districts of a country occupied and controlled by an invading belligerent. The rules which would apply in the former case would apply in the latter; and, as in the former case, the people must be regarded as subjects of a foreign power, …and contracts among them be interpreted and enforced with reference to the conditions imposed by the conqueror, so in the latter case, the inhabitants must be regarded as under the authority of the insurgent belligerent power actually established as the government of the country, and contracts made with them must be interpreted and enforced with reference to the condition of things created by the acts of the governing power. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. 1, 12 (1868)


Now therefore the Military Commander was tasked to create DISTRICTS - and notice that Within the Bounded Survey known as the DISTRICT of [INSERT NAME] we see notes.

Can you say WARD?

Have you been Re-Venue[ed]. Consider, have you been moved from one trust to another in your Undertakings? A venue is a place.

In my opinion, Re-VENUE is sort of like Re-PUBLIC-[ing] a people. Commercial warfare being waged in a mailbox.

walter
05-22-13, 06:05 PM
Have you been Re-Venue[ed]. Consider, have you been moved from one trust to another in your Undertakings? A venue is a place.

In my opinion, Re-VENUE is sort of like Re-PUBLIC-[ing] a people. Commercial warfare being waged in a mailbox.

i like to go to the oldest definitions I can find of the word to by-pass years of manipulation.

venue (n.)
early 14c., "a coming for the purpose of attack," from Old French venue "coming," from fem. past participle of venir "to come," from Latin venire "to come," from PIE root *gwa- "to go, come" (cf. Old English cuman "to come;" see come). The sense of "place where a case in law is tried" is first recorded 1530s. Extended to locality in general, especially "site of a concert or sporting event" (1857). Change of venue is from Blackstone (1768).


The mailbox (address) becomes the venue.

What cares more liability? the NAME or the address?

A relative of mine travels for work all around the world living in hotel rooms.
When back in Canada he never had a permanent home/address.
He called the CRA and asked them what to put down as his address on his income tax forms since he had none.
He also asked if he could use his friends address as a return for his tax's.

The CRA said that he could not file his tax's with out his own address and that he could not use his friends.
The CRA told him that he would have to wait until next year to file two years in a row when he did get himself an address.

The NAME had no liability until connected to an address in this case.
It was all about venue.

David Merrill
05-24-13, 03:25 PM
Commercial warfare being waged in a mailbox.



i like to go to the oldest definitions I can find of the word to by-pass years of manipulation.

venue (n.)
early 14c., "a coming for the purpose of attack," from Old French venue "coming," from fem. past participle of venir "to come," from Latin venire "to come," from PIE root *gwa- "to go, come" (cf. Old English cuman "to come;" see come). The sense of "place where a case in law is tried" is first recorded 1530s. Extended to locality in general, especially "site of a concert or sporting event" (1857). Change of venue is from Blackstone (1768).


The mailbox (address) becomes the venue.

What cares more liability? the NAME or the address?

A relative of mine travels for work all around the world living in hotel rooms.
When back in Canada he never had a permanent home/address.
He called the CRA and asked them what to put down as his address on his income tax forms since he had none.
He also asked if he could use his friends address as a return for his tax's.

The CRA said that he could not file his tax's with out his own address and that he could not use his friends.
The CRA told him that he would have to wait until next year to file two years in a row when he did get himself an address.

The NAME had no liability until connected to an address in this case.
It was all about venue.

The model I prefer is that the mailbox is an enclave. Residential Address carries a lot of connotations though; so I will not argue against that post at all.

ManOntheLand
05-24-13, 06:30 PM
In the USA, the address itself would seem to be Federal property, as you have no authority to change the address of the house you live in, do you? The address itself belongs to the U.S. Postal Service. If you claim it is "your" address, I believe you are connecting yourself to the U.S. (presumed citizen of the federal U.S.?).

For Federal tax purposes, providing even a "mailing address" seems to create a presumption that you "reside" in the state where that address is located.

For example, every Tax Court decision I have ever seen mentions (usually at the very beginning) that "At the time of filing his Petition,the Petitioner resided in (whatever state). This appears to be a statement made up front in the Court's ruling to establish its jurisdiction.

In the Tax Court rules for filing a petition in a levy action, oddly, the petitioner is required to provide "petitioner's mailing address" and separately required to state petitioner's "State of legal residence" implying that declaring your "legal residence" is in itself jurisdictional in a levy action. But in a Notice of Deficiency action, one is not required to declare a State of legal residence.

My guess is that they want you to declare your State of legal "residence" in a levy action so they know where to go to levy against you? Or maybe somehow you are giving them permission to do so by declaring where you "reside"?

I contested a levy action recently in Tax Court and did not declare a State of legal residence in my petition; but I did give a "legal address", including the city and the state of course. The Court later claimed in its decision that I had "identified my 'legal residence' as (the same state as in the mailing address I provided). According to this Court at least then, legal address=legal residence. A "care of" in front of the address might help avoid presumptions of residency from the use of a mailing address. And I probably did not help my cause by referring to the place I receive mail as my "legal address".

David Merrill
05-24-13, 08:52 PM
Very true - which is why Redeeming Lawful Money is such a great coverall remedy. It is designed for state banks originally - 1913.

Identify the res: res-ident.



http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4281/residentdefinition.jpg

Michael Joseph
05-24-13, 09:51 PM
Very true - which is why Redeeming Lawful Money is such a great coverall remedy. It is designed for state banks originally - 1913.

Identify the res: res-ident.



http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4281/residentdefinition.jpg

I take notice that the CONSTRUCT speaks of TERMS as they relate to the CONSTRUCT. In the name of Yehoshuah - now then, that's better....I take my refuge in Yehovah and my shade in El Shaddai. No Babylonian or Egyptian state can ever protect me from, well, anything. As far as I can tell a government big enough to give one shade is big enough to make one a slave.

Therefore, I don't trust man - his chariots [mind] is weak. Including this man. I rather stay on the Ever Living - I am resident in Him - Acts 17:28. The Commonwealth of Israel.

If I make a use of a SSN or a DL - I can still truthfully say - these things are not mine. So to the question - Let me see your [insert whatever] I can truthfully answer I don't have one of those. The illusion hinges on "Your". And any slick attorner will say but it is yours to use. Just as any slick will say that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. As in it is lawful to make a use of FRN's as a legal tender. And it is lawful to make a use of USN's as a legal tender; yet FRN's are not lawful money - but ONLY a legal tender; and, USN's are both legal tender AND lawful money.

Lawyers like to twist words - it is their only weapon - and since words don't mean much in the end - it is just the assimilation of ego's struggling against one another for dominance. What a shame when one thinks of the wonderful building that might be accomplished in cooperation.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

Goldi
05-25-13, 02:28 AM
The NAME had no liability until connected to an address in this case.
It was all about venue.

Exactly, because the jurisdiction always follows the venue. And the IRS needs to collect taxes on income from sources doing business within the United States in order to claim that income as taxable. And BTW, "income" is a Subtitle A tax issue (go look up 26 CFR 1.61)and guess who is liable for that? Go look up 26 USC 7701(a)(16) to find the definition of withholding agent which then leads you to 26 CFR 1. 1441, 1442, 1443 and 1461 and all of those are foreign persons, corps and orgs.

Goldi
05-25-13, 05:13 PM
"In the USA, the address itself would seem to be Federal property, as you have no authority to change the address of the house you live in, do you? The address itself belongs to the U.S. Postal Service. If you claim it is "your" address, I believe you are connecting yourself to the U.S. (presumed citizen of the federal U.S.?)" A retired postmaster spilled the beans back about 3 years ago. He stated that when they brought in the new street addressing scheme, all they did was "overlay" that scheme on top of the existing rural route addressing system, and that the rural route system was still there, in effect, usable. Kinda like the metes and boudaries system of property identification was overlaid by lot/block/subdivision etc.

ManOntheLand
05-25-13, 10:55 PM
Apparently there was a court case years ago where a U.S. attorney argued that the act of placing an envelope in a U.S.P.S. mailbox made you a presumed surety for the U.S. debt. The Post Office was replaced with the U.S.P.S. and doing business with them is now presumed to be a "privilege" or in any case contracting with a private corporation. However, unlike with U.S. Notes vs FRN's you have no reasonable alternative to the U.S.P.S. Thus you are "without recourse" and can note that on the envelope whenever you send something through the mail to void any presumed agreement to be surety for the U.S. debt. Not sure if I am actually presumed to be a surety just for placing an envelope in the mail, but I see no harm in adding the phrase "without recourse" to the "care of" address that I use. I also spell out the state name, and write "non-domestic, United States of America" in place of a zip code.

walter
05-26-13, 04:06 PM
Apparently there was a court case years ago where a U.S. attorney argued that the act of placing an envelope in a U.S.P.S. mailbox made you a presumed surety for the U.S. debt.

PRESUMED is the magic word here.

I find this one very hard to swallow. (not a lawyer arguing)

If someone from China was visiting USA and they send a postcard back home, that they would be a surety for the USA debt for buying a stamp.

Maybe the lawyer might be referring to having a return address on the letter with the postal codes on.

David Merrill
05-26-13, 10:22 PM
I believe that if you do not redeem lawful money then there is a first lien by the Treasury on anything you buy with the Fed's private credit - including a postage stamp.

I severely doubt any attorney would expose that by arguing it in court.

Michael Joseph
05-27-13, 02:08 AM
Apparently there was a court case years ago where a U.S. attorney argued that the act of placing an envelope in a U.S.P.S. mailbox made you a presumed surety for the U.S. debt. The Post Office was replaced with the U.S.P.S. and doing business with them is now presumed to be a "privilege" or in any case contracting with a private corporation. However, unlike with U.S. Notes vs FRN's you have no reasonable alternative to the U.S.P.S. Thus you are "without recourse" and can note that on the envelope whenever you send something through the mail to void any presumed agreement to be surety for the U.S. debt. Not sure if I am actually presumed to be a surety just for placing an envelope in the mail, but I see no harm in adding the phrase "without recourse" to the "care of" address that I use. I also spell out the state name, and write "non-domestic, United States of America" in place of a zip code.


I don't agree with this model. I have looked all over the Notes and the Coins and I cannot for the life of me find my name upon them. The United States is surety. This is why the 55 pledged their estates. If you want to be a constitutor then I suppose you can do that.

Question: What is a rock star absent fans?