Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 165

Thread: What's in a NAME?

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    Thanks for your clear delination, Salsero. I admit my error: I have no claim on THE NAME. It is a legal fiction created by the state, for their benefit. What had me buffaloed was their 'claim' on the name, which carries with it the strong presumption that the user of the name is a debt serf, an employee of the socialist government corporation, and thus subject to jurisdiction under Roman (contract, lex mercatoria, UCC) law. Obtaining that jurisdiction is the entire purpose of the state's claim on the name. The state created it (first), thus they own it, and I can only use it; I have no right to tell the trustee what to do with his property. More importantly, I am not the beneficiary of the trust, and I have no obligation to use THE NAME. But now there is a problem; the 2nd dimension legal fictional jurisdiction that overlays the real world. I the natural man (people, not person) cannot contract with corporations; I must act within the office of a corporate person. So how to get electrical service, phone, bank account, etc? The whole purpose of the state claiming THE NAME is to establish their right to tax the property held by THE NAME. Just using THE NAME carries the presumption that 'you' (the people who acts as accommodation agent for legal person THE NAME) are a card-carrying employee of the trust, and that all you acquire in THE NAME belongs to the government.

    Suppose that I create another NAME for my use, not owned by the government. I can easily file for a dba with the state, and that corporate person will be recognized, and the legal system will recognize that I own it (I recognize that I did not create the legal system, so let's say that I own the exclusive interest to use this new corporate person, at least free of any presumption that it suffers from some prior claim by the government). It will also fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC legal system, but without all the baggage of the presumption that I am a US citizen, ie, debt slave. This should greatly simplify proving the claim that 'I am not a US citizen, subject to your jurisdiction.' I (as agent for the NEW NAME), am still subject to the UCC, but now only for actual contracts, thus shedding all the presumptions associated with using the NAME that the state has assigned to me (think of it as going off the grid). I perceive that the use of a NAME provides the contracting parties with the basic presumption that certain rules (the UCC) are in effect, and that your NAME has agreed to accept service of process there. But at least creating your own NAME would take the government's interest out of the contract. Then you get the DMV to issue an identity card in your own NAME, and you drive on that. Now there is no presumption that you are in contract with the state or federal rules, codes, and regulations. Only common law applies.

    My understanding of the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 is that the US government pledged all its assets to the bankers as security collateral for the debt. But the US corporate government did not own all the property in America. By using the debt obligations created by the endorsement of private bills of exchange (FRN's), the corporation perfected its claim on more and more of America, but it does not have a claim on privately held property. Some have said here on this blog that the people are deprived of money, thus cannot 'buy' anything. The stated benefit for the debt slaves is described by the corporation as being indemnified from having to actually pay for anything, ie, join us in this bankruptcy fraud (but we get to tax you for the privilege). But there is lawful money. Today it begins to look like a black market, but by using lawful money you can buy property and discharge all debts on it, including previous claims to it held by the corporate government. But if you put that property into YOUR NAME, you just re-create the government's claim on it, and they will still want to tax it... and you will have to take positive steps to rebut their presumptions. So maybe put it in the NAME you use that acknowledges God's trust, ie, your given name.

    btw, Doug Casey calls FRN's "I owe you nothing"s. He calls Euro notes "Who owes you nothing"s... only gold is honest money, honest weight.

    ps to Chex: gold is not currently money, due to the usurpation of fiat everywhere, but gold is wealth. It represents stored labor and resources in the real world.

    Freed
    All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name. No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid. Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this. The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully. This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

  2. #72
    i do not hold or subscribe to the defeatist viewpoint that "we live in a demoCRAZY - where majority rules"

    i am preparing a claim to move in my court presently

    you; salsero, have no first hand knowledge of what you claim regarding the Name (my property) and the BC (a piece of paper with no vocal chords)

    your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?

    only man can make a claim of property in a common law land; everything else you speak of is conjecture and the facilitation of defeatism through fear

    God's Law is common law, that's the point; the unwritten law of right and wrong:

    - harm to a man
    - injury to a man's property
    - breach of a valid and lawful contract

    everything else is in the land of "legalese" where i do not wish to "reside"

  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    i do not hold or subscribe to the defeatist viewpoint that "we live in a demoCRAZY - where majority rules"

    i am preparing a claim to move in my court presently

    you; salsero, have no first hand knowledge of what you claim regarding the Name (my property) and the BC (a piece of paper with no vocal chords)

    your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?

    only man can make a claim of property in a common law land; everything else you speak of is conjecture and the facilitation of defeatism through fear

    God's Law is common law, that's the point; the unwritten law of right and wrong:

    - harm to a man
    - injury to a man's property
    - breach of a valid and lawful contract

    everything else is in the land of "legalese" where i do not wish to "reside"
    I will conditionally accept your statements upon prove that:

    1. We do not live in a democracy or as I live to state it - demoCRAZY where the majority rules, bad or good have nothing to do with it.
    2. With your statement, salsero you have no first hand knowledge regarding ... do you have first hand knowledge that I do not have first hand knowledge?
    3. From your own statement, I am preparing a claim to move forward - that you have first hand knowledge.
    4. my "claim", if I made such a thing is without merit.
    5. you verify your claim.
    6. [once you hold your own court] the judge will even allow you to speak after the fact you state "your name" and for the record, when you speak on the record, who hold those records?
    7. that at any time I would intermeddle and speak or even act as trustee for the state. Intermeddling has a big price called surety-ship. I can only speak for me and not the entity I use.
    8. please tell us where is common law land is located
    9. that any man can NOT make a claim anywhere. Hillary will be the president in 2016 is a claim. I just made it. People make claims of what they believe all the time. I must live in a democrazy.
    10. Fear - please tell how you possibly interpreted fear. [if anything it is liberating to finally come in to God's world and not into man's paper fiction]
    11. God's law is common law. Where on earth did you get this from? God's Law is Supreme - how on earth can you bring a claim in in court here in the USA, saying it is your court, then ask a judge, who is a man to make a judgment on another man or person. ONLY GOD IS OR CAN BE THE JUDGE, as I have found NO WHERE GOD PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO ANY MAN TO JUDGE ANOTHER MAN. If anything, there is a scripture that states judge not lest you be judged.
    12. man contracts - please state how.
    13. that you do not reside in the land of legalese

    Paisan I do not wish to argue with you, really. You like the bible, this is very good. I wish you would take some time to listen to Marcus and his video series. He really brings up some excellent biblical points that will leave you to MAKE A DECISION - who do you serve? Man or God. There is no half way. CHOOSE. It will get this MY PROPERTY thing in a different context for you. I can not write a book here.

    Because I know you are very sincere with this thinking, I honor that but I do not agree. As I have said, WE ARE FORCED to do commerce out of necessity and we do this through an entity we USE.

    Again here is the link for Marcus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSR...Y1ZxJB&index=1 and also if you are so inclined check out notacitizen.com

    Again, if none of this resonates with you, that is fine with me, as we are all on our own journey. When you move your court, please let us know how that worked out for you.

  4. #74
    some of your questions ask to prove a negative; sorry, i don't do that

    some of your questions come from a belief that we are at the mercy of the "powers that be"; sorry, i don't believe that

    some of your statements come from a belief that man is NOT the highest standing on earth; sorry, i don't believe that

    some of your statements presume that something called 'state' has rights and can make a claim of property in the third dimension; sorry, i don't believe that

  5. #75
    All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name.

    The state does claim the NAME; they claim ownership of the assets held in the NAME, which they pledge to the IMF as collateral. But more obviously, the state is a corporation, so the NAME created by them is a corporation (actually a limited liability corporation, or LLC). I get it that the state does not own me, the man, but they have interposed themselves between me and my right to contract, claiming legal title and leaving me only equitable title to any asset I buy. But there is a Constitutional nation in the geography of the US, and the Fed govt is just a legal overlay on that. And the only connection between the two is the presumption of voluntary servitude, ie, being a 'US citizen' rather than an American Citizen. Prior to the bankruptcy trust being created, ordinary Citizens owned assets in their given names. Is that not possible now? Apparently it is not possible if your NAME has been claimed by the fed govt, without your consent...

    No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid.

    [COLOR="#000000"][COLOR="#FF0000"] The state says that I can have the 'benefit' of using the NAME to contract with other legal entities, which as you say is almost required in this modern age, but I only act as agent for the LLC when I do use it. I am me, and the NAME is just an imaginary shell which I can put on to operate in the 2nd dimension, the imaginary plane of Roman law/contracts. If the judge asks my name, I will give him my given name, and state that I am people, not person.

    Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this.

    Wait! I claim that I do have an option, that I am not forced to use the NAME owned by the state, I am allowed to accept the benefit of not paying for it when I use the NAME. I am only forced to use the NAME if I intend to pay in their private, false currency. If I pay in lawful money, I can buy an asset which the state cannot claim ownership to (see 12 USC 95 a (2)), and I can title it in my own name. The title is only evidence of ownership; as AJ says, I the living man makes the claim of ownership. And he acquires this claim through applying his labor to modify some part of God's creation to make it more suitable to his purposes. Money is a representation of exchangeable labor; FRN's are a representation of promised future labor.

    The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully.

    The new name would be an LLC recognized by the State, not the Fed govt. North Carolina has a Constitutional government outside the US Federal government. So the new name is a State citizen, not a US citizen. And obviously it would have to be somewhat different from the NAME claimed by the fed govt, which I could then quit using.

    This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

    Yes, I understand that the living man has no standing in a Roman court; the judge is not a judge at all, he is an administrator, authorized only to resolve contract disputes between corporate entities, one of whom is making a claim of a contract violation. My view there is that the state is making a claim against its own property, and trying to con me into accepting liability for this violation. But I am not a corporation, and my actions can only be limited by common law; as a sometimes beneficiary of the NAME, I will give my permission for the judge, as acting trustee for the trust, and in his capacity as a fiduciary agent for the People, to resolve the corporation's internal bookkeeping conflict in whatever way seems easiest to him, and I will grant him my sovereign immunity so that he will not face personal liability for doing so. Now the problem with this position is that the judge will want to be swayed by the preponderance of implied contracts associated with the NAME, which, as you note, it is almost impossible to avoid, as they now pervade every aspect of our lives (the Federal government is a partner in your marriage, remember those kinky three-way vows?). There is a presumption that you the natural man have benefited from the socialist corporate government policies, so you have undertaken liabilities associated with this invisible contract. Must rebut this entire mass of presumptions.

    Freed

  6. #76
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,398
    DECLARE THYSELF.

    OR go to the courts and get your judgment that you seek. See how that is in fact a submission? Has it dawned on anyone here not to go at all? Yes warrants will issue and you will be FORCED to go but then you have established your lack of trust - THE NEXUS IS TRUST.

    SHOW ME - is the name of the game. If I have no trust in you then you are wasting my time. So lets get on with the hanging or do you really mean that you desire peace? Yet if it can be shown that you have express and implied trust - then shut your mouth - else you are in contempt of the Administration [Court]. A trustee will comply with the terms of the Use. Or said another way - If I make a promise then I should keep my promise. That is Equity 101.

    So which is it Joseph? If you keep your mouth shut you will be carried off into Egypt as a slave. But he could have said I am of the House of Israel. Now don't get me wrong Joseph PERCEIVED the actions of his brothers were part of a bigger plan - however learn the lesson. You words and your writings mean NOTHING without the Deeds to back them up.

    This is why I find this so humorous - the arguments presented are framed from one who is REACTING to a condition.

    Go and have a seat I will get to you in a minute. Will you forsake your claim? Lets see? A GREAT Apostasy is happening whereupon men and women are doing just that as they forsake their first love and pick up Theosophy and Spiritualism.

    I believe it was James : A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways. And Faith[trust] ABSENT DEEDS is dead! This is called an EXECUTORY TRUST. Proving anything is impossible - you cannot prove a single thing to me. And if you would stop to THINK you would realize that proof is an absurd proposal. There is only TRUST and OBEY and SUBMISSION to a common law form.

    All I have to do is read or listen to your words and I can tell which law form you submit unto. Argue with me please - and imply that i have the dominion or jurisdiction - whichever you prefer.

    "The only way to win is not to play the game". "I have no trust in you" is a 98 mph fast ball. Now the umpires are sitting back and watching for your TRUST expressed in DEEDS. WHERE ARE YOUR DEEDS - O James?

    Yet as men and women of God we are required to live quiet and peaceful lives IF IT BE POSSIBLE. Sometimes it is not possible. But even then our Faith wins the day as the Light shines from within.

    Now then let me proceed. Simply put I DO NOT GO TO THE SAME CHURCH. It is as simple as that.

    You might gainsay my last statment in discourse; however I ask you:

    1. did not Germany establish a state church under Hitler? A: Yes.
    2. did not England setup a state church with Monarch as its head? A: Yes
    3. did not United States setup a state church with the state as its head? A: Yes. Ref 501c3

    Who has beguiled you into thinking that State and Church are separate? The State is the Church! I do not attend to the alters of Baal.


    I declare that I am a son of Elohim by the GREAT MERCIES and GRACE of my Savior, my Redeemer and my King and my Friend, Yehovah our Savior. I seek to be led by the Holy Spirit of Yehovah but not in my own will but in the will and desire of my Father. Or said another way, I submit as a preparing bride for my Husbandman. My whorish mind is departing from her delilah ways and she is humbling herself to submit to the Spirit of Yehovah. OF YEHOVAH my JUDGE.

    I have no truck with the world except that I will just be me as an example. I cannot judge another for I am not the judge. Therefore I will love you in keeping Torah and the Prophets to the best of my ability. And I hope to show you the heart of God which is his Instructions [Torah].

    The church of the firstborn is free. For I do not seek a city of this world.

    Heb 13:10 We have an altar, of which they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

    Comments: "They" are the Levitical Priesthood. "We" is speaking to the new Priesthood of the order of Melchizedok.

    Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the Holly of Holies by the high priest concerning sin, are burned outside the camp.

    Comments: "outside the camp" : Be not of this world


    Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

    Heb 13:13 Let us go forth therefore to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

    Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek the coming one.

    Heb 13:15 By Yehoshuah therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to El Elyon continually, that is, the fruit of our lips confessing to Yehoshuah's name.

    SIMPLY PUT I ATTEND AT A DIFFERENT ALTER. I too abide in the law of necessity. For you cannot make a law that interferes with obligations in an existing Contract. I have a Marriage Contract with God. And I am told that a man who will not take care of his family is worse than a heathen. Therefore I have a charge to take care of my family. Therefore I will forage as I need to ensure my family has provision - trusting in my God for providence and provision - Yehovah Yireh.


    Absent accommodation, without recourse, without prejudice, absent benefit received, but with full liability for my actions, but absent liability assumed and absent suretyship and absent joinder in or for any Person or office of a Person, and in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I issue the foregoing claiming the Commonwealth of Yisra'el under my King, Yehovah my Savior.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-31-14 at 12:02 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

  7. #77
    declare thyself... precisely

    if warrants issue from a non-living entity against a man, the one prosecuting the relating [false] claim is committing barratry if said man requires the claimant appear and verify [in living voice] said claim

    i would never "go to the courts"; instead, i would move my court at the courthouse where a man can stand and speak his claim before living witnesses if he so wishes

    if you cause a man harm, make it right
    if you injure a man's property, make it right
    if you breach a valid a lawful contract with another man, make it right

    the game is an illusion where no 2nd dimension entity can ever be harmed by man
    man is the source of energy, labor and credit(s) issued

    'corporations', 'states', etc. were created to help man and not to cause harm or injury

    man cannot harm a fiction

    do unto others... ; and, contract wisely

  8. #78
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    declare thyself... precisely

    if warrants issue from a non-living entity against a man, the one prosecuting the relating [false] claim is committing barratry if said man requires the claimant appear and verify [in living voice] said claim

    i would never "go to the courts"; instead, i would move my court at the courthouse where a man can stand and speak his claim before living witnesses if he so wishes

    if you cause a man harm, make it right
    if you injure a man's property, make it right
    if you breach a valid a lawful contract with another man, make it right

    the game is an illusion where no 2nd dimension entity can ever be harmed by man
    man is the source of energy, labor and credit(s) issued

    'corporations', 'states', etc. were created to help man and not to cause harm or injury

    man cannot harm a fiction

    do unto others... ; and, contract wisely

    I suppose I do not understand your use of 2d, 3d nomenclature. The way I see it. I am a man dealing with other men and women. We are all created beings with CHOICE. so we will either go our own way against our creator or we will align with the instructions the creator has given. If a group of men get together to pool their equity within a corporate body - they are still a group of men. I do not comprehend 2d.

    I do however see x,y,z,t, and perhaps another 7 unseen dimensions [seven spirits of Elohim - El Shaddai or Wisdom - she is called]

    Now then I am either in the way or making my own way - in my Choices. The creator of all desires reverence - which is to say - I should think about you - because if I harm your equitable interests I have harmed you - and since you too are a creation of Yehovah, I have harmed Yehovah as well.

    I do not speak in theory. I have walked this path and then some. My trust has been proven to be rock solid and I believe that:


    Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him That loved us.

    Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

    Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of Yehovah, which is in Yehoshuah our King.

    Again, I attend to a different alter. I have nothing to prove - For the Glory is for Yehovah my Savior - to work THRU my vessel. I am willing by Choice but I know not the outcomes. Therefore I trust that I am redeemed - yet, I do not know how I will be used for the sake of the kingdom. I await intuition from my Father. Which is to say leading and direction from the Holy Spirit of Yehovah.

    Absent accommodation, without recourse, without prejudice, absent benefit received, but with full liability for my actions, but absent liability assumed and absent suretyship and absent joinder in or for any Person or office of a Person, and in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I issue the foregoing claiming the Commonwealth of Yisra'el under my King, Yehovah my Savior.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-31-14 at 12:31 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

  9. #79
    i was writing regarding another who suggested something called 'state' (2d) can make a superior claim to property than man (3d)

  10. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name.

    The state does claim the NAME; they claim ownership of the assets held in the NAME, which they pledge to the IMF as collateral. But more obviously, the state is a corporation, so the NAME created by them is a corporation (actually a limited liability corporation, or LLC). I get it that the state does not own me, the man, but they have interposed themselves between me and my right to contract, claiming legal title and leaving me only equitable title to any asset I buy. But there is a Constitutional nation in the geography of the US, and the Fed govt is just a legal overlay on that. And the only connection between the two is the presumption of voluntary servitude, ie, being a 'US citizen' rather than an American Citizen. Prior to the bankruptcy trust being created, ordinary Citizens owned assets in their given names. Is that not possible now? Apparently it is not possible if your NAME has been claimed by the fed govt, without your consent...

    No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid.

    [COLOR="#000000"][COLOR="#FF0000"] The state says that I can have the 'benefit' of using the NAME to contract with other legal entities, which as you say is almost required in this modern age, but I only act as agent for the LLC when I do use it. I am me, and the NAME is just an imaginary shell which I can put on to operate in the 2nd dimension, the imaginary plane of Roman law/contracts. If the judge asks my name, I will give him my given name, and state that I am people, not person.

    Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this.

    Wait! I claim that I do have an option, that I am not forced to use the NAME owned by the state, I am allowed to accept the benefit of not paying for it when I use the NAME. I am only forced to use the NAME if I intend to pay in their private, false currency. If I pay in lawful money, I can buy an asset which the state cannot claim ownership to (see 12 USC 95 a (2)), and I can title it in my own name. The title is only evidence of ownership; as AJ says, I the living man makes the claim of ownership. And he acquires this claim through applying his labor to modify some part of God's creation to make it more suitable to his purposes. Money is a representation of exchangeable labor; FRN's are a representation of promised future labor.

    The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully.

    The new name would be an LLC recognized by the State, not the Fed govt. North Carolina has a Constitutional government outside the US Federal government. So the new name is a State citizen, not a US citizen. And obviously it would have to be somewhat different from the NAME claimed by the fed govt, which I could then quit using.

    This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

    Yes, I understand that the living man has no standing in a Roman court; the judge is not a judge at all, he is an administrator, authorized only to resolve contract disputes between corporate entities, one of whom is making a claim of a contract violation. My view there is that the state is making a claim against its own property, and trying to con me into accepting liability for this violation. But I am not a corporation, and my actions can only be limited by common law; as a sometimes beneficiary of the NAME, I will give my permission for the judge, as acting trustee for the trust, and in his capacity as a fiduciary agent for the People, to resolve the corporation's internal bookkeeping conflict in whatever way seems easiest to him, and I will grant him my sovereign immunity so that he will not face personal liability for doing so. Now the problem with this position is that the judge will want to be swayed by the preponderance of implied contracts associated with the NAME, which, as you note, it is almost impossible to avoid, as they now pervade every aspect of our lives (the Federal government is a partner in your marriage, remember those kinky three-way vows?). There is a presumption that you the natural man have benefited from the socialist corporate government policies, so you have undertaken liabilities associated with this invisible contract. Must rebut this entire mass of presumptions.

    Freed
    Very close Freed. The state loves for you to contract because it benefits through the name you use. I used to think man had equitable title. We don't even have that. The state has legal title and the US has equitable title because the US purchased a "beneficial Interest" in that Property Name through the Social Security Act 1935, title 5, part 1 [502]]: ALLOTMENTS TO STATES: SEC. 502.. Man has been left naked user of said property where everything he does automatically vests to the state. We must consent to voluntary servitude because the 13th A prohibits involuntary servitude. Being a US citizen or resident of the US is automatic CONSENT to the jurisdiction thereof. It is not possible for any man or person to own property since the 1930s when all titles or COLB were seized and are held in abeyance in the "public trust".

    YES, you must rebut the presumption by asking questions, not making a claims. Remember when you make a claim, it must be substantiated. I AM NOT JOHN SMITH is a claim. A better way to respond when asked what is your name? What makes you think I own such a thing? OR by what authority are you using a Name to identify a living man? An agent is a person. Man is not an agent unless he consents. By Law, Man is an animal - it says so in their law: U.S. Code › Title 7 › Chapter 6 › Subchapter II › § 136 (d) Animal The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish. (s) Person The term “person” means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, or any organized group of persons whether incorporated or not.

    Yes you do have a choice to use the name or not. There have been many positive stories stated on this site about lawful money but I also believe I have seen some issues where the IRS flagged the lawful money. PLEASE CORRECT ME ON THIS MATTER, IF I AM WRONG. Persons do 12 USC 411. You can not title anything in your own name unless it is your first/middle name given by your parents. Re-read the 12 USC 95a again, carefully, one must RELEASE any possible reversionary interest to that property for the state to take full responsibility of its property. I can only offer you Freed to think it through carefully - try not to mix fiction with man. It is very difficult because the fiction images the real and we presume. A new name under a LLC is still a fiction. NC is a subsidiary of the US. A state citizen is a citizen. A citizen is a person. A person is a surety, call it state of federal.

    An administrator judge is in place to settle controversies between fictions. A fiction who has been bad by not adhering to the public policy statutes is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The state makes a claim against man who either accepts surety-ship or not. So either the court will take the FRN from the person OR if not claim is made, the court will be forced to take settle the matter internally. Freed, really take the time to review and be clear what it is you want. You actions are limited by the claims you make or do not make. You can not be a beneficiary of something that you have no say in.

    I would never say never, but I would not necessary want to go there and start with UCC stuff. But again do whatever resonates with you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •