What's in a NAME?

[Anthony Joseph]

Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Salsero, etc. are ALL fictions!

These are names and names are not living beings. A name is absent a soul. This goes to the heart of IDENTITY - and then you must satisfy the answer of IDENTITY within what law boundary. Meaning who has the surety. This is typically the treasury.

I don't care what your name is - it is a fiction.

Can you hear me speaks the sentient being? Now I wonder where in the common law that came from....well lets find out.

Exo 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the People that was in the camp trembled.

Exo 19:17 And Moses brought forth the People out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.

Exo 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

Exo 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

=====

they could not see - but they heard! Now you can pull out all sorts of images of what your mommy named you or what daddy attested to - I don't care! This is all a fiction. A name has no blood. A name has no voice. A name has no soul. A name has no spirit. A name is SIMPLY PUT A FICTION.

Can a name establish the character of a man. No. Can a man predestine a man to a certain destiny. No. A name is a label used for convenience within a society. That society has a certain law form - be it natural law or moral law or statute law, etc. That law form has conventions for handling names.

Therefore dear reader a name is a Person.


Shalom,
MJ

i agree; this is precisely what i have been attempting to convey

without a voice (living) there is no claim, to property or otherwise

'Anthony Joseph' is a name; and yes, it is a person/fiction; and, it is property which i claim

the same goes for 'Anthony Joseph Surname'; what other man will step forward and verify a claim of vested interest in said name?

paper is meaningless and powerless on its own; a claimant (man) must speak his claim or there is no claim

i believe i have a right to be secure in my persons, papers, house(s) and effects (all i claim is my property) against unlawful trespass

not only do i believe this; the entity to which people bound themselves in public service supports my belief:

[cf. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation (that means in living voice with full liability), and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] (emphasis mine)

[salsero]

i agree; this is precisely what i have been attempting to convey

without a voice (living) there is no claim, to property or otherwise

'Anthony Joseph' is a name; and yes, it is a person/fiction; and, it is property which i claim

the same goes for 'Anthony Joseph Surname'; what other man will step forward and verify a claim of vested interest in said name?

paper is meaningless and powerless on its own; a claimant (man) must speak his claim or there is no claim

i believe i have a right to be secure in my persons, papers, house(s) and effects (all i claim is my property) against unlawful trespass

not only do i believe this; the entity to which people bound themselves in public service supports my belief:

[cf. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation (that means in living voice with full liability), and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] (emphasis mine)

Prove you are a party to the Constitution? I can prove you are not.
The right of the people [fiction] to be secure in their persons [fictions] , supported by oath or affirmation [a piece of paper] .... and the persons or things to be seized. Are you a person? This applies to persons. If you a person, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

You do have a right to be secure in your person, there is no belief about that, it is the law. It is a human right to be recognized as a person, with all the benefits and privileges, subject to the liabilities. If you agree Anthony Joseph is a person and you claim it, then we all anxiously await the outcome of when you hold your court.

You whole point is what man is going to step up and say I own that person, Anthony? What makes you assume they have to answer or do anything in their court of Just-us? Their oaths are to the state and the public trust not you, a man.

[Anthony Joseph]

Prove you are a party to the Constitution? I can prove you are not.
The right of the people [fiction] to be secure in their persons [fictions] , supported by oath or affirmation [a piece of paper] .... and the persons or things to be seized. Are you a person? This applies to persons. If you a person, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

You do have a right to be secure in your person, there is no belief about that, it is the law. It is a human right to be recognized as a person, with all the benefits and privileges, subject to the liabilities. If you agree Anthony Joseph is a person and you claim it, then we all anxiously await the outcome of when you hold your court.

You whole point is what man is going to step up and say I own that person, Anthony? What makes you assume they have to answer or do anything in their court of Just-us? Their oaths are to the state and the public trust not you, a man.

i never stated i am a party to the 'Constitution' ['cf.' means compare my belief to _____]; and, if you can prove a negative, you accomplish an impossibility

people (mankind) live and breath; 'The People' is a fiction; it would benefit you to study capitalization [Capitis Diminutio]

an oath or affirmation must be made in living voice [affidavit = a piece of paper] - huge difference

"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim can only be made by man
once again, do you deny the right of a man to pursue a claim and move his court; do you deny that it has been done?

only a man has rights; i believe the inherent rights i claim are my property; and, no one has a right to disparage or deny my rights or my property unless i cause harm to a man, injure his property or commit a breach of a valid and lawful contract - these 'wrongs' must be determined according to common law; man on man

[Michael Joseph]

i never stated i am a party to the 'Constitution' ['cf.' means compare my belief to _____]; and, if you can prove a negative, you accomplish an impossibility

people (mankind) live and breath; 'The People' is a fiction; it would benefit you to study capitalization [Capitis Diminutio]

an oath or affirmation must be made in living voice [affidavit = a piece of paper] - huge difference

"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim can only be made by man
once again, do you deny the right of a man to pursue a claim and move his court; do you deny that it has been done?

only a man has rights; i believe the inherent rights i claim are my property; and, no one has a right to disparage or deny my rights or my property unless i cause harm to a man, injure his property or commit a breach of a valid and lawful contract - these 'wrongs' must be determined according to common law; man on man

Whereas I believe my following comment will most likely inflame some I really don't care. The so called Common Law came out of the Old and New Testaments or the Word of Yehovah our Judge. Now then I am asked all the time concerning books that I might point a reader to and I can say with 100 percent accuracy that the single greatest book one can read to learn about trust and common law is the Bible. End of Story.

"I believe" are TWO very powerful words. They cannot be proved and therefore we will naturally come to this conclusion eventually : Do not trespass upon your neighbor : or Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I would never go into your place of business and start running the show - I have no standing. And I suppose the men and women who patronize your business would be quite confused and you might be upset as well.

Shalom,
MJ

[Anthony Joseph]

Whereas I believe my following comment will most likely inflame some I really don't care. The so called Common Law came out of the Old and New Testaments or the Word of Yehovah our Judge. Now then I am asked all the time concerning books that I might point a reader to and I can say with 100 percent accuracy that the single greatest book one can read to learn about trust and common law is the Bible. End of Story.

"I believe" are TWO very powerful words. They cannot be proved and therefore we will naturally come to this conclusion eventually : Do not trespass upon your neighbor : or Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I would never go into your place of business and start running the show - I have no standing. And I suppose the men and women who patronize your business would be quite confused and you might be upset as well.

Shalom,
MJ

i wouldn't begin to know who your comments "will most likely inflame"; perhaps atheists and BAR members

remember; at a public courthouse, the public (living people) have a right to conduct their business (court) without interference

the public courthouse is the same as the public library; it is NOT a private building for BAR members only

wish proof, ask to see the building manager ['chief judge'] and ask the question

[Michael Joseph]

i wouldn't begin to know who your comments "will most likely inflame"; perhaps atheists and BAR members

remember; at a public courthouse, the public (living people) have a right to conduct their business (court) without interference

the public courthouse is the same as the public library; it is NOT a private building for BAR members only

wish proof, ask to see the building manager ['chief judge'] and ask the question

Yes, the rural routes all went thru the courthouse. And still do. On wake county their were nine judicial districts. read Exodus 18.

[salsero]

"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

Are you sure? people. (usu. cap.) (180i) The citizens of a state as represented by the prosecution in a criminal case <People v. Snyder>. According to blacks 9th Ed, people are citizens. Are you a citizen of the state?


i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

OK - we can call it gift, better to call it left naked - but call it what you want. OK you can BELEIVE law applies when one USES said person. I do not. USE is not the same as ownership. Consent is presumed by your actions. Then is it confirmed by your claims

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim can only be made by man

OK I guess it all depends on how one sees it. You feel property is exclusive use and not actual ownership. However, stating I have use as opposed to ownership are really two different things:

use (yoos), n, (bef. 12c) 1. The application or employment
of something; esp., a long-continued possession
and employment of a thing for the purpose for which
it is adapted, as distinguished from a possession and
employment that is merely temporary or occasional
<the neighbors complained to the city about the owner's
use of the building as a dance club>.


beneficial use. Property. The right to use property and
all that makes that property desirable or habitable,
such as light, air, and access, even if someone else
owns the legal title to the property.

owner. (bef. 12c) One who has the right to possess, use,
and convey something; a person in whom one or more
interests are vested .• An owner may have complete
property in the thing or may have parted with some
interests in it (as by granting an easement or making a
lease). See OWNERSHIP.

naked owner. Civil law. A person whose property
is burdened by a usufruct .• The naked owner has
the right to dispose of the property subject to the
usufruct, but not to derive its fruits. See USUFRUCT.
[Cases: Estates in Property (;:::> 1.]

Take note an owner is a person. Someone who uses is not necessarily a person.


once again, do you deny the right of a man to pursue a claim and move his court; do you deny that it has been done?


I do not deny anyone anything. How does a man not use a person and go into court? How does man "Move his court"? I told you I do not deny it has been done - but not the way you think. In my opinion, it has been done because the court does not want others to know its secrets. The court does not want to be exposed for its deception. It is better to dispose of one case rather than wise up the people that fraud is going on.

only a man has rights; i believe the inherent rights i claim are my property; and, no one has a right to disparage or deny my rights or my property unless i cause harm to a man, injure his property or commit a breach of a valid and lawful contract - these 'wrongs' must be determined according to common law; man on man[/QUOTE]

Man is heir to his Creator's thrown. Persons have man made rights, with liabilities. Under God's rights, there are no liabilities. I agree controversy must be settled between man and man, yet I do not see how common law has any force TODAY doing this, as when you walk into their court, you must state their Name, which is their property, thus falling under the jurisdiction thereof.