Comments and criticisms welcomed.
http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html
Printable View
Comments and criticisms welcomed.
http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html
I think you already posted this once today, what is the new information?Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
1. I posted this in this what I felt was a more appropriate area.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
2. I only posted a snippet of what the entire article detailed.
I do remember from reading American Jurisprudence that under common law, a person could create any identity so long as it was not used in fraud.
Government created identities has to mean you are using someone else's creation.
I concur with that, even when you do not give them a name they create a named constructive trust pending on how serious the situation is you will be given the name John Doe or Jane Doe.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
Questions is will one know how to deal with this situation is all depending upon the acceptance of the name.
Identity or law of identification is a separate branch of the Law of EvidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by motla68
A treatise on the law of identification; A separate branch of the law of evidence
The word identity descends from Latin, idem, meaning "same".Quote:
Identification of Persons and Things.
1. It is proposed in these pages to introduce the law and rules of identity of persons and things as a separate branch of the law of evidence. It has become a question of growing importance and one that is daily before the courts; perhaps the question of personal identification is now one of the greater importance, not only because the doctrine that the identity of name was evidence of identity of person, has measurably exploded, except in the examination of titles to real estate; but because of the great number of important cases of mistaken identity, both in civil and criminal practice, and in cases involving the identity of the living and the dead. Parties to actions, the ancestor and the heirs to estates questions of pedigree, marriages, births and deaths; questions of vendor and vendee, ancient records and documents, and parties thereto, and the degree of evidence necessary toe stablish them, and the doctrine of idem sonans.
My question is if an policy enforcement officer can demand identification, is the identification, in fact, yours? It seems to be carrying government identification carries burdens of servitudes .....
Is the name a gift given to government first, followed by conveyance to a child?Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
I do not mind walking this through in baby steps if that helps you.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
From your quote on Identification Of Persons and Things:
Read the following case carefully as in referenced to this entity called Person:Quote:
identity of name was evidence of identity of person
The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.
Yes I know your going to say there is a distinction between persons and natural persons and I agree, BUT what you have shown me just says person not natural person. By laws of statutory construction when a law means something it says it has to be specific and not general, or somewhere within the same Article give definitions and specfically define natural person whenever they say person.
Ok, next lets look a little further down in your quote:
I assume the toe was a typo for to.Quote:
the degree of evidence necessary toe stablish them, and the doctrine of idem sonans.
Also for this you added:
You did good friend, but your only partly there in understanding.Quote:
The word identity descends from Latin, idem, meaning "same"
There is something called the sona language and the architects of the legalise society are masters at it. Your correct is saying " same " , but when you add the word "sonans" now were looking at the definition of " sounds the same ". BUT just sounding the same is not the same. So now you know why when someone points at a piece of plastic or paper and they ask is that you, you can unequivocally say: " I do not consent to be recognized by that name" , because your not a piece of plastic or paper.
Remember me saying: " mom and dad said what shall we call him, not what shall we write him " ?
Adding a couple more things to this:
In most courts the attorney's are allowed to lie to get what they want, but in most courts if you do not speak up then this is acquiescence to the facts. this is known as a tacit. "Silence is Futile". - the borg. Any copy brought into evidence by rules of evidence must be a certified copy, when they ask if that is you when pointing to the signature on a piece of plastic or paper another response you could say: " I do not have the original to compare it to, sorry no ".
Also there is nothing on that COLB/BC that contractually obligates you to that name, just learn to walk away from it. The inked footprint on it does not mean crap either, for one thing if it was you , it is no longer you because your not a child anymore and the actual forcing of the footprint onto the piece of paper voids the law 18 USC 242 among other things.
There is other thing too someone could argue that the fact we even use it. Well this is the necessity, you have a natural right to basic needs of survival no matter what name you use.
Just like there is confiscation for army necessity that was mentioned in the Liber Code we have the basics too for natural existence.
Hope that answer your question and then some, might have to think about a couple of those and do some due diligence to put the pieces together.
Not exclusively, more like consideration. The event recorded will get a name whether the parents fill out a form or not, either John Doe or Jane Doe. Government commences a survey and out of consideration allow the parents to name the event.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
i am SO not used to Nara ever being on the receiving end, of that kind of condescension - from someone who is arguably on the same page as he is. Or, am i reading this wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by mot
Hey mot,
The treatise Nara linked to, predates that Sona crapola that you linked to. Latin predates sona as well. Maybe you'll have to carry me through your understanding, as i am apparently unable to find my legs here. i've never heard of a "legalise society." Gotta' link to a member list?
Please leave typos alone, or i'll hammer you every time i catch you. i can't believe you checked him for toe; and then proceeded to omit an- from -other; AND used your, where you shoula' typed you're. THAT IS SO TROLL. Please refrain from doing that. Try minding your own composition more. My hat is off to you, however, for making correct use of that one too in there.
Maybe, i need to take you by the hand, and explain how chat room works?
Did you spend any time reading the linked treatise? Did you notice the OP solicited comments and criticisms of same? Near as i can tell, you answered Nara's understanding, without referring to the treatise itself. Now, follow me...Now, this alone, could generate pages of comments - and hurling, maybe. It should wet the appetite of any like minded readers, to click over and search the matter out.Quote:
Originally Posted by page 242-246 section 345
If you bother to check this quote, you'll see it's in the handwriting of subscribing witnesses neighborhood. In fact, there are places where the treatise seems to almost glimpse graphoanalysis, in attempts to establish identity! No sona mumbo jumbo. Really man.
It's brass tacks controversies, in condensed form, that helped me imagine a dialogue that went a little like this...
"Sir, who signed this bond? Yer under oath now. This looks exactly like all these other signatures, that you just admitted were yours, and here's the guy - i'm about to get him to testify - that he witnessed you sign that there paper. " It references old old cases that predate the operative, corporate gubment paradigm of some researchers; that as far as i know, predate all of our most sacred, patriot, strawman cows. ha! And these last two assertions, might be worth discussing here, too.
In closing, i cannot resist pointing out a phrase from Nara's first quote of the treatise - which thing stoned me...Ya, duh, wow. Anyone else notice that? i never ever knew that such a doctrine existed. What a great find! Tell me more, someone, please.Quote:
the doctrine that the identity of name was evidence of identity of person, has measurably exploded
assumptions, no condescension intended. Really, you are going to argue over a typo? where is that forum rule here?
The linked just had many definitions for the same word, TMI
Nara, not heard of it and the only time every mentioned here is in you post. Perhaps you have better reference?
Why over complicate things? low level agents are simpleton. someone always got a predation, no worries here, old cases are someone else's law.
Here is one you like, doctrine of toe. Spirit is not form, form is not spirit, wax the old.
cheers!
You don't really believe that. Anyway, you typed it, and i may use it against you in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
assumptions, ya, your posts around here are full FULL of them; and apparently i did misread your post. Surely, you didn't intend any condescension; maybe you're just naturally that way.
And, i am not gonna argue over spelling. It's my rule really, and has nothing to do with forum rule.
Nara is what i type instead of Shikamaru. i like to think of it as an affectionate way of referring to him. i am not surprised, that you were not curious enough about his moniker, to google it.
If you remember correctly in a older post that I do not use them for my benefit, I use them for the benefit of many on this forum so they have a bit of a guide rule to discover some things for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug-again
Everyone makes assumptions everyday and it is no different here, do you check all the tires on a vehicle every time before you use it to travel in? or did you just assume they all had air in them? When you come home at night do you look through the window to make sure there is not some man ready to kill you on the other side of the door before opening it or do you just assume it is ok because you had to unlock the door to get in it? Name a day someone who never assumes anything and can prove it I will call your comment justified.
Ego causes conflict which leads to argument which leads to controversy and that man is a whole lot of crap that could have been spent more productively doing something else.
If my posts effect you that much then your probably better off not responding at all.
I have spent enough time reading about history, just because I do not know the same history as you does not make you any better then me so get over it. If living out Nara, Shikamaru, moniker or whatever name you want to give it makes you happy then do it, you go your way and I go mine.
What I know about history suits me for the intent of how I live and it does not injure another man by doing it, have made my life simpler through knowledge and that makes me happier. Life, Liberty and Happiness, is this not what it is all about? or maybe criticizing and being judgemental about someone's beliefs is what makes you happy? is that not how all these hate groups got started... KKK, Black Panthers, some monolithic house in the woods where wealthy white people gather and kill babies e.t.c,
How about adding more positive thinking to the forum so we all can move forward together rather then drudging up all this negative stuff from the past that does not do anybody good?
We cannot change the past, cannot make certain predictions for the future, we can only deal with the age in which we live in, we were not there when all this other stuff happened, is that not making assumptions to by using a story someone else wrote?
No need for the baby step walkthrough. I'm fairly versed in the Law of Persons. Let's explore concepts instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Actually, this is presumption on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
The term 'persons' is a legal construct that a political power holder can manipulate completely to their design whether natural or artificial.
I would focus more on Classical Greek, Latin, and Law French rather than sona. Sona has only been around since the 30s. More important than the sound is the meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Also: http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Shikamaru_Nara
Here is a concept; Father, Mother, child , aunt, uncle, grandpa. Are these persons constructed for political power manipulation?
What came first, real man or the person? therefore who has higher law?
I was not born on the land of Greece, South America or France so what does that have to do with anything?
I can only really make a distinguishments for what land I sojourn on. Cannot change the past so what does it matter? Cannot prove the future so what does it matter? I can only be concerned with events happening today.
The higher Claim in Law depends on the man or woman's TRUST. If Trust is found in the State, then the State has the higher Claim. Pretty simple actually, it is up to the man or woman - Choice.
Stay on God; or,
Stay on Man.
The former brings blessings, the latter curses. Ever read Deuteronomy 28? As I said it is really very simple. Law is a benefit. There is always a higher power when you speak of Law.
Yes and is exactly why we keep trading the natural abundance for a bowl of soup every time we make choices of limitation. A governance outside of us instead of governing one self, realization that we have the power and authority to create for oneself.
You are da man. Say goodnight Gracie. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
and hammering mot, that i forgot that the OP was that NCIDP link! i noticed that they're beating this dead horse - STILL...The inspector at the DMV office in Elkin, NC, told me the Patriot Act required him to require a SS# from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by NCIDP
Quoting federal law to that statey - who was compelling ss# disclosure - who was compelled by newer federal law to compel ss# disclosure, was a complete waste of my time.
Seeing this no-ifs-ands-or-buts type language, in this context, makes me wonder if the rubber has met the road for these researchers. Anyone at NCIDP competent to sue a bank for compelling ss# disclosure? How 'bout a state DMV controller, or whatever?
There might be a justiciable controversy, really, and this is the first, or closest thing, i've seen for grounds for a tort, but you won't see me arguing it. Still interesting...
Oh, in case the link goes down, the NCIDP makes a point over there, citing Keeble v. Hickeringill (eegads from the Queen's bench! 1707!) thatOne might construe the state's requirements for 3rd party documentation of identity as anQuote:
imposing upon a victim's personhood or livelihood, imposing insecurity upon an individual's sense of personal autonomous self or sense of safety or security, constituted "violent assault".
...but the effect of the mischief being distinctly psychological. Please, if you think i related the article poorly, pm me, and i'll edit this. thanks.Quote:
act of imposing a "mischief" upon an individual that constituted violent assault, not any act of physical impact struck upon an individual (a legally distinct act of battery)
I feel you are forgetting a critical component of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Law implies the ability to establish and maintain one's will by force (the baton variety).
Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
Ever read the Lieber Code? Those police officers are quasi military. See their stripes? Ever grab a snake by the tail? Or is it better to grab a snake by its head? Admiralty is the venue of the sea, yes? What branch of the military deals with the sea? - Navy? What aspect of NAVY deals with Law - JAG?
Question is are you an enemy or a "peaceful inhabitant". I believe "private civilian" under Lieber Code is enemy combatant.
"However, the code envisioned a reciprocal relationship between the population and the Army. As long as the population did not resist military authority, it was to be treated well. Should the inhabitants violate this compact by taking up arms and supporting guerilla movements, then they were open to sterner measures. Among these were the imposition of fines, the confiscation and/or destruction of property, the imprisonment and/or expulsion of civilians who aided guerrillas, the relocation of populations, the taking of hostages, and the possible execution of guerillas who failed to abide by the laws of war. It authorized the shooting on sight of all persons not in uniform acting as soldiers and those committing, or seeking to commit, sabotage."
Upon reading the Trust called Lieber Code you will see those terms are clearly made known within it. The Military is the competent authority. Because Lincoln put it all into Trust and made the Military Trustee. The bankers made an end run around the Trust by way of USE - use and endorsement of their system.
"They shall have first lien"....
Law Martial ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
Good stuff as always MJ.
Thank you. Kudos to Motla68 who took the time to assemble a small group of local men and women to discuss concerns such as Lieber Code...Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
Attachment 186
But force under color of law is void by the law in their own words: 18 USC 242.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
Therefore authority of someone else's law can only be obtained through consent.
"" This, then, is what is granted to the military commander: The power or duty 'to
protect all persons in their rights of person and property; to suppress
insurrection, disorder, and violence, and punish, or cause to be punished, all
disturbers of the public peace and criminals;' and he may do this by the agency of
the criminal courts of the State, or, if necessary, he may have resort to military
tribunals.
""
Source: pdf file in post #22 - 12_U.S._Op._Atty._Gen._182_1867.pdf
Beyond that what is your point?
My post said law, not color of law. There is great substantive distinction between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Reiterating again, law implies will along with the force to impose that will upon others.
Reflecting on this question, it may have been a better point to have included several powers of a Sovereign including the power to define (author) what a term means as well as its interpretation and applicability.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Definition is legislature.
Interpretation is judiciary.
Applicability (with force if necessary) is the executive.
Person is a legal term. The term is given definition by the entity having the power to define its meaning and to whom it applies.
It follows that if one has the power to define, one also has the corresponding power to classify what is or is not within the definition.
THAT is my point.
Law is contract, contract is law.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
Ok, by their rules can a law be proven without certification of the evidence? If evidence not certified and wet ink signature nowhere around to compare it to then what?
Witnesses to the event that can prove intent, how is the signature formed?
If not all of this can be obtained for proof beyond a reasonable doubt then the rest of your point is mute.
This is a partial error.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Within in the scope of contracts, yes contract makes the law.
Law is not contract however. Law implies compulsion. Compulsion often involves duress, threats, and coersion. The aforementioned elements makes a contract void.
Your questions are confounding the legislative with the judiciary. Only if there is a controversy will a "law" come before the judiciary. Since the courts are composed out of the Sovereign's power, I'll allow you to draw the dots from here forward. The record or repository of the law is considered the evidence in an of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
#1 - This thread is not a judiciary. We are not at bench nor is this some official repository.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
#2 - You are dismissing many long standing concepts with regard to jurisprudence.
I believe I relayed to you in another thread that I delve deeply into the history and jurisprudence of law.
Jurisprudence, according to wikipedia, is the theory and philosophy of law.
If you find such information to be "moot points", that is your prerogative, of course.
Why do you argue for a little ink on paper. Is it the paper or the ink that gives you rights and freedom
I have a piece of paper that says that I have the right and execute any law and All people, person, humans, natural persons, man on the land etc. etc. etc. must adhere to my laws.
This paper is signed by 49 of my friends confirming my right to make you conform to my laws.
One of my laws is that I may collect taxes from the afore mentioned at any place or time of my choosing.
So get all your possesions together as I will be over shortly to go through them and decide what I would take as my just tax.
Will you obey or create a controversy. Do I need to bring my 49 friends. What say you fB
It most certainly is a claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick Burrell
The claim has even been solemnized into/through its writing.
Have the laws practiced in the United States of America been solemnized? By who? You? fB
I loved it when he says at 7:40 that he is going to suit everyone in the room and the guy behind him wearing the yellow shirt runs out of the room:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhCWb...eature=related
Objection you failed l to prove jurisdiction!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=JDLbZxZ301s
Contract between whom? Trustee to Trustee or Trustee to Grantor? Who Granted the Law?Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
For example: Do you observe Sunday as your Sabbath or Saturday? This is Hegelian Dialectic. Who granted that Sunday would be the day of Sabbath for those Under Gods Law? Was it God? or was it the Pope? If you observe Sunday, then whose Law are you now Under and have you now accepted the Pope's law by implied Trust - you obey the Pope - you keep Sunday.
But how doth the Scripture rule on how to ascertain the month? Does it not say the New Moon sets the first day of the month - and then the sevens set the Sabbath? It does! Do you observe Sabbath every Saturday or every Sunday? Are not BOTH of these incorrect? But alas we argue I keep Saturday and another, I keep Sunday and both are Under Man's Law and not Gods. Therefore, who has become god?
Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve. Will you allow man [pope] to be the Corrector of Heresy.
Therefore Law becomes contract when one Party either Undertakes for another or both parties mutually ascent to the terms or when Trust is formed by action or lack thereof; as such, there lies a HUGE assumption on the table. Who will express the terms first?
Okay, I am clearly Beneficiary and as such, I appoint myself with the Power of Direction for this trust relationship. What does that leave? Office of the Trustee. But the Trustee performs by contract or the contract is naked.
Now consider your experiences with Law - Man's Law. Were you treated as a Trustee? I bet you were. In fact I bet a Judge asked the Beneficiary for an Order and then the Judge issues judgment upon a Trustee to perform. Is that not how it went? Who gave the Order? Was it not the DA?
Why did not you give the Order? You are Beneficiary, right? Does the Beneficiary/Director carry out business or give Orders to have business carried out? You know the answer.