My birth certificate issued (I assume) in the summer of 1976 (I was born in August allegedly)- is NOT written in all capitals as proposed by freeman lore. My birth certificate reads Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx........ Is this strawman thing a sham?
Printable View
My birth certificate issued (I assume) in the summer of 1976 (I was born in August allegedly)- is NOT written in all capitals as proposed by freeman lore. My birth certificate reads Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx........ Is this strawman thing a sham?
Not a sham. ALL UPPER CASE is a convention for constructive trusts.
The date when you were born causes me to wonder if the convention of ALL UPPER CASE nomenclature on a birth certificate has integrated into American culture with METRO global municipal policy with the implementation of SDR's as currency? Perhaps that is just because I am reading my new (original) Terrible 1313 Revisited by Jo HINDMAN...
Michael Joseph has a bit more formal trust law reading than I do. I understand that the birth certificate will assign the TRUST to the State as initial trustee and if you do not understand your identity you will mistakenly replace the proper trustee whenever you identify yourself to be LAST, M FIRST like on your driver license. Ergo we suggest you would sign with True Name only and clarify to the officer that you are not using the card to identify yourself; at least not to identiy with the FIRST MIDDLE LAST constructive trust. You are just showing the card for competency and insurance policy purposes - your name is like you signed it.
I was born at night... but it wasn't last night.
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter1.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter2.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter3.pdf
It is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
You need to understand how the term strawman is legally defined.
Strawman redemption is a lot of garbage for the most part. I'm uncertain if the people who use the terms could define either strawman or redemption.
Attachment 1003
I didnt see the name thing thread earlier before I started this one, so my bad.
I need to distance myself from the above document apparently. The above document is in debt, owes an incredible amount of child support because said person surrendered his unalienable right to marry for the privilege to do so and now is paying the price for said action. (I THINK I am beginning to understand this)
However, my initial question - the legal entity represented on this paper is recorded incorrectly? Xxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxx as opposed to XXX XXXX XXXXXXX? Clerical error?
I think it is interesting to note that the parent's education is brought into question on said document.
more to the story - the above legal entity also plead guilty in court to a DUI he was totally innocent of (what a bunch of crap) just because a policy officer asked if said person had had anything to drink, which respondent stated "Yes, one with dinner at Chili's several hours ago". Long story short, the man didn't understand things like "subject matter jurisdiction", "standing", "writs", "corpus delecti", etc and instead of challenging jurisdiction or evidence of a plaintiff, said person allowed himself to come under the jurisdiction of the court and policing powers of the state. Ignorance and fear created a situation where said person will have to renew his license in a few weeks, so it would behoove me to learn as much as I can before doing so. I would LOVE to hang out with a full on suitor who walks the walk and just observe how one handles his day to day affairs.
Maxim of law: Confession trumps evidence. Commit that one to memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
Be more careful with whom information is divulged.
Never reveal anything to a policy enforcement officer.
That is procedure, legal definitions, and statutory construction and interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
You can learn all of that on your own, plus the information is freely available either on the Internet, library, or archive.
A license is permission to commit or omit an action that would otherwise be illegal, unlawful, a trespass, or a tort.Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
My question is: What is inherently illegal, unlawful, a trespass, or a tort about a man and woman coming together in matrimony?
A marriage license brings the marriage (and its fruits) under police powers of the State with its administrative courts.
A marriage license is a three party general partnership between the man, woman, and the State.
A license is not a contract however (despite having many quasi-contractual elements). A license is a SERVITUDE.
I'll let others answer this one. They are more versed on true name and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
If one will unite in Marriage of ESTATES then one will be making a USE of State Property - but All rights, titles and interests are in the State, in Abeyance for want of a proper claim in Equity - which is to say for the PUBLIC benefit and not for one's private gain. The latter claim for private gain is Usurpation of the Public Trustee and therefore a License must be issued. For one to make a Use of Public Property for Private Gain is to make one a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE which is to say a Trustee de son Tort - which is to say a Usurper.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
But notice that is EXACTLY what 99.999999999% of the men and women are doing so in effect governing law need only be the UCC because there is a level field Public Trustee contracting in FEE with Trustee de son Tort which is to say Constructive Trustee.
Since the Public Good is the Usufruct then the NAME, being Public is a vessel to bring the Good to the Public - For ye are as a City on a Hill. What is private about that?
One who is with the benefit is with the Liability. If the NAME is for the Public but you gain a private benefit then you have the liability. If you benefit the Public with the Use of the NAME then the Public is with the benefit.
There is no need to license one who is upon proper use of Ceasar's property. Even the NAME is a Corp Sole. For it is the issue of some State so it is like this:
The Mayor of the City of Savannah is a Corp Sole. The Mayor is the single office which is occupied by a single man or woman. The City of Savannah is the Ministry - Public in its Nature.
FIRST MIDDLE LAST of the State of Florida. Pray tell whose seal is upon the BC? Will you make a private use of FIRST MIDDLE LAST - if so enjoy those liabilities - new BILLS issue each season to ......
Well you get the point....I withdraw. But one last thing: I heard an attorner say one time "I shall fear no evil for I shall dwell at the trough of the taxpayer for ever and ever." Consider. This too is why the false priests were so angry at Yehoshuah Messiah [Jesus Christ] for He declared the Public Trust - give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give unto God what is God's. The false priests had grown rich at the TROUGH of the Constructive Trustee - taxpayer.
Shalom,
Michael Joseph
I still have a hard time grappling with it in my head how I can distance myself from that sheet of paper. If I do so, wont the policy enforcers then accuse me of trying to create a new/false identity or just label my alias?
The conditioning runs deep ya know
I model it as a TOOL that I might use to achieve a goal. I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
But you are right, the confusion or Babel is between the ears. I came a long way when I literally turned off the TV and the Radio and sought to fill my time with something that strengthens me. I began to STUDY Scripture. At first I did not understand. So I sought out someone to teach me. So then Confusion is dispelled and cannot find vacancy within this Temple. Got to get attuned to the right frequency.
Identity is not the issue. If identity was the issue, then pray tell why when one is summoned to court does the court NEVER check for ID to ensure identity. consider.
The Nexus is Trust.
This... this changes everything. I never even thought of that, but it did remind me of one of my favorite court clips ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwfIDv6uXZYQuote:
Identity is not the issue. If identity was the issue, then pray tell why when one is summoned to court does the court NEVER check for ID to ensure identity. consider.
The conditioning does run deep and a renewing of the mind is what we should pray to, and thank, our Creator for.
The court is seeking first hand testimony from the living since it CANNOT use a DL, a SSN or a BC for identificaton without an express testimonial act from the living.
Just ask the questions:
Can the court, on its sole action, use a DL for identification of the living?
Can the court, on its sole action use a BC for identification of the living?
Can the court, on its sole action, use a SSN for identification of the living?
If the answers are "NO", then what can I use to identify myself? Tell me what I can use to identify myself?
If the court falsely identifies you by the NAME, ask, "Under what authority is that NAME being used to identify the living?"
turning the mirror back on you old boy, you say the conditioning runs deep...what about the hearsay you posit after that comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
the court is requesting an APPEARANCE, and you automatically assume something.
"If the court falsely identifies you by the NAME..."
what is the definition of APPEARANCE?
what would you do if you find out the defn actually is a DOCUMENT.
yes, consider that
again, one does it to one's self voluntarily because we think it's English and it ain't.
p.s. sorry, forgot something, and lest the mirror reflect back upon me, check out the New Zealand Judicature Act, for the Definition of the Term, Appearance.
That's called duplicity.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Booth
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Booth
Actually, it was BAMAJiPS who first stated that the "conditioning runs deep..." and I agreed with that sentiment as also applying to me; I thought I conveyed that, but apparantly not well enough.
When one goes to the court, the court simply asks questions. The response to the questions (first hand testimony) from the living, as to one's capacity in regards to the vessel/cause before the court, is the opportunity to convey one's peaceful intents by also asking questions - seeking clarity.
Be at peace, absent claim, as charitable and special minister for the FIRST MIDDLE LAST when operating that trust vessel. The USE of that transmitting utility is for the benefit of the public good and the public trust. The appointed and/or oath-sworn trustees remain with the liability as the legal title holders on behalf of the public beneficiaries.
Wow. Neato. Just discovered something new and relevant along the lines of what we've been talking about. I went to register with Alafile (Alabama's online legal filing service) because I have a followup child support case review coming up and I am done with attorneys I imagine, and they gave three options to sign up - Attorney, Account Manager, and Pro Se. I chose pro-se, as I am representing myself and am a fairly competent person. I have been reading several articles about subject matter jurisdiction, and such because I believe I was railroaded with my bogus DUI charge- I hope to be able to eventually get a void judgement because there is no plaintiff, the court lacked standing and there was no subject matter jurisdiction.
So I learn about this thing called "in pro per" as opposed to "pro se". Now I want to use the Alafile system in pro per but there is no option there to select!!
In pro per is a way to represent your "person" while challenging the court's jurisdiction over you! I am AMAZED! It totally affirms the identifying who you are at court.
I find it annoying that there is no option for that in the automated filing system. I didn't realize this until now, but as SOON as you hire an attorney you admit to court's jurisdiction over you, as you have just hired THEIR officer! The same thing happens if you file "Pro Se" - all you have done is appointed yourself as the agent of THE COURT - thereby acknowledging it's jurisdiction over you!
My oh my - what an amazing revelation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
From a message board posting.Quote:
I will limit my answer strictly to the question regarding the difference between "Pro Se" and "Pro Per." Quite frankly I am stunned by the previous answers. Both of which, while not actually wrong, are not in fact answering the question. To wit; THERE IS a very substantial
legal difference between proceeding "pro per" (or "in pro per" or "in propria persona") and proceeding "pro se" (or "in pro se"). Understanding of these two terms is critical, especially pertaining to personam jurisdiction.
There are two types of jurisdiction: "personam" and "subject matter" and a court needs to clearly have jurisdiction of both in order to hear a case for or against you.
Personam jurisdiction gives a court the authority over your person or you as an individual in order to hear or try a case involving you.
Subject matter jurisdiction gives a court the authority over the thing, issue, or activity (i.e. negotiable instrument, car collision, injury to person or property, alleged crime, etc. alleged in a complaint) in order to hear or try a case involving you.
Believe it or not, use of the wrong legal phrase can sabotage you, jurisdiction-wise.
Okay, let's look at the two terms in detail and in depth.
"In propria persona." In one's own proper person. It was formerly a rule of pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave (permission), which admits the jurisdiction. See Pro se. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pg. 712
"Pro se." For himself; in his own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pg. 1099
Appearing "pro se" is not the same as appearing "in propria persona" as one appearing "pro se" is serving as his own attorney and thereby granting the court jurisdiction (personam jurisdiction) as all attorneys are officers of the court. As you saw in the definition of "in propria persona" above, when attorneys plead for you, they automatically admit the jurisdiction (court's authority). Attorneys are agents of the court that are used to give the court automatic jurisdiction. That's why you are always told to get an attorney for your court action and not usually for the reasons you are lead to believe; in short it's because they are officers of the court and automatically give the court authority over you and this makes things easier for the judge.
If you or any one else wishes to argue the above points I first ask that you obtain a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary Fith edition and look it up for yourself. The Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, definition provides us with crucial information, especially if we are to argue jurisdiction. You see, before a court can proceed with an action against you or involving you, be it civil or criminal, jurisdiction (personam and subject matter) must be established on the court's record and this is black letter law.
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533
"The record must show affirmatively that the jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied." Hayman v. L.A., 17 Cal.App.2d. 674
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751, 211 P2d 389
"Jurisdiction may never be assumed, not even by colorable claims or status or black robes or officialdom or appearances, but must be substantively proven by the plaintiff/claimant of said jurisdiction. Once challenged by any proper party the plaintiff/complaint must prove their jurisdiction in a timely manner." McNutt v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 56 S.Ct. 502
I am not a lawyer nor is this legal advise; it is opinion
http://books.google.com/books?id=bdA...8%2C346&edge=0
Read that a couple times to let it sink in .....
One such precondition is that of standing. http://www.bulletsystem.com/examples...ONAL%20LAW.pdf
Non-Lawyer pro se litigants not to be held to same standards as a practicing lawyer
Many pro se litigants will use this in their pleadings; "Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."
In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 USC ยง 1331