Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 165

Thread: What's in a NAME?

  1. #91
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by salsero View Post
    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

  2. #92
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    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
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  3. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    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. 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.
    Lie and deny. Been reading a lot about that lately.

    Do you think the state is going to openly in court under oath or affirmation and testify in front of a jury or a grand jury and acknowledge that the birth certificate (the NAME) was issued and now it’s the states property?

    Forget about the judge and the rules he tells the jury that this is my courtroom and you abide by what I say goes theory.

    This is all about living breathing people, (jury) or humans or whatever you want to call us.

    These are the questions that represent the STATE or the FED GOVERNMENT should be answering.

    Who is the owner of the property tangible or intangible that is in the NAME you say I am?

    Is the state is a corporation, a limited liability corporation, or LLC?

    Was the NAME created by the state for commercial purposes?

    If the state does not claim the NAME who delivers ownership of the assets held in the NAME?

    Does anyone or corporation pledge the ownership assets held in the NAME to the IMF as collateral?

    Is there a difference being a 'US citizen' rather than an American Citizen?

    Is usufruct is a right of enjoyment?

    If Usufruct is a right of enjoyment and I am the enabling holder then who is receiving the derive profit?

    If usufruct is a right of enjoyment or benefit from any property that is tangible or intangible titled to another person or which is held in common ownership then who has legal title?

    If usufructuary is the right to use the property and enjoy its fruits and I am using it as servitutes personarum then who is charging me for the usage?
    (A beneficial interest is "that right which a person has in a contract made with another" ... "A property interest that inures solely to the benefit of the owner.")

    If I don’t pay the usufructuary property tax for the right to use the land who is going to take it away from me?

    If I don’t pay a usufructuary tax for the right to use lawful money who is going to take it away from me?

    In equity, a beneficial owner is one who benefits from a security or property because the use and title belongs to him/her, although the legal title may belong to another person. I don’t see the other person on this warranty deed, who is it, who is going to take it away from me? http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.13d-3

    Beneficial owner as it appears under title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

    The term "beneficial owner" shall mean any person who is deemed a beneficial owner pursuant to section 13(d) of the Act and the rules thereunder; provided, however, that the following institutions or persons shall not be deemed the beneficial owner of securities of such class held for the benefit of third parties or in customer or fiduciary accounts in the ordinary course of business (or in the case of an employee benefit plan specified in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section, of securities of such class allocated to plan participants where participants have voting power) as long as such shares are acquired by such institutions or persons without the purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer or engaging in any arrangement subject to Rule 13d-3(b) (§ 240.13d-3(b)):

    (i) A broker or dealer registered under section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o);

    (ii) A bank as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c); (would that be the FRB with the first lien using their private credit?)

    (iii) An insurance company as defined in section 3(a)(19) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c);

    (iv) An investment company registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8);

    (v) Any person registered as an investment adviser under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) or under the laws of any state;

    (vi) An employee benefit plan as defined in Section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ("ERISA") that is subject to the provisions of ERISA, or any such plan that is not subject to ERISA that is maintained primarily for the benefit of the employees of a state or local government or instrumentality, or an endowment fund;

    (vii) A parent holding company or control person, provided the aggregate amount held directly by the parent or control person, and directly and indirectly by their subsidiaries or affiliates that are not persons specified in § 240.16a-1 (a)(1)(i) through (x), does not exceed one percent of the securities of the subject class;

    (viii) A savings association as defined in Section 3(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813);

    (ix) A church plan that is excluded from the definition of an investment company under section 3(c)(14) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3);

    (x) A non-U.S. institution that is the functional equivalent of any of the institutions listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section, so long as the non-U.S. institution is subject to a regulatory scheme that is substantially comparable to the regulatory scheme applicable to the equivalent U.S. institution and the non-U.S. institution is eligible to file a Schedule 13G pursuant to § 240.13d-1(b)(1)(ii)(J); and

    (xi) A group, provided that all the members are persons specified in § 240.16a-1 (a)(1)(i) through (x). (17 CFR 240.16a-1)

  4. #94
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by yarash View Post
    Hi everyone, i'm new here, trying to figure my way around. Such a great forum with so much information, i am overwhelmed by all this great knowledge. I have a couple of questions in regards to the NAME issue, perhaps a little off topic.

    First I have been redeemed, bought with a price paid for in blood and my debt is wiped clean. I am no longer my own but belong to Yahveh. I am a new creation and i have been given a new name. "Therefore, if anyone is in Messiah, he is a new creation: old things (NAME, DL, BC etc.) are passed away; behold ALL things are become new, 2Cor. 5:17, and Yahveh declares "I have called you by my name…you are mine. Is.43:1" I'm working on forsaking the old to walk in the newness of life.

    I would like to buy a new car with lawful money (cash) and trade an old car that is registered with the State. I have no State identity in the form of a DL (expired) and the dealership would have to report the sale to IRS requiring a "NAME and perhaps a number and a residence". How would one go about buying the car as private property (belonging to Yahweh--where He sends me I will go) without any attachment to the State--the certificate of title has their created NAME on it and i would not want it to be somehow tied to my new identity in the Messiah. Can it be done? How?

    I have so many questions, as i'm sure most do who come to this forum, but for now I'll be grateful for any answers or input on this particular issue since it involves "identity/name".
    it is a process. Remember that Israel did not come out of Egypt overnight. They too had to endure the first 3 or so plagues just like the Egyptians. This also is a proof that no fly away rapture is happening- but that is off topic. Slow and steady is the course. Let the Holy Spirit of Yehovah lead you to where you can be used. But I will give you this one analogy - If you want a bridge built do you hire an artist? You hire an engineer! As such, if you are to walk as a priest in the Kingdom then you MUST know and keep the Law. This is Hosea 4:6. And Ezekiel 44:23. Order of Melchi [king] Zedok [priest].

    Like I said go easy - it will come to you. but first and foremost is seeking the kingdom of God - all the rest will be added. That is not to say I have all the answers - I don't - but it is a Path - a Way - a Walk - a Relationship.

    Shalom,
    MJ
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  5. #95
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    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

  6. #96
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-31-14 at 07:05 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  7. #97
    "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.

  8. #98
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    you know how you can tell 'property' is not 'ownership'; the words are spelled differently

    if you use legal dictionaries to get your definitions, you consent to be competent in said legal realm - "welcome, defendant"

    'case law' are only opinions of 'judges', NOT law; 'case law' can be overturned at any time by another's opinion

    you keep referring to 'the court' as if it is an entity on its own; court is what one brings, moves, holds and keeps at the courthouse

    the one who prosecutes brings 'court'; you really need to etymologize the word 'court'

  9. #99
    When you say "my property", most folks would take that to mean you own it. I do not need to use a legal dictionary, legal dictionaries are not for men, they are for fictions, this point I believe we agree. I agree case law is only opinions; however, those opinions are based upon the interpretation of the public policy statute, or if pre-1930s public law. Court is an entity operating in bankruptcy and has "rules" how it operates. I still have no clue how you plan on "bringing, moving, holding and keeping at, in, or out the courthouse?

    The plaintiff is the one who sets jurisdiction and brings his claim to be settled. OK I can go with that. What I still do not understand is how or why, you a man, want to ask a judge to settle any matter. Where is YOUR force of law to bring a defendant into YOUR court? If I am correct, under common law, you would not need to pay any filing fees. Why is any court system today going to permit you to move forward? Where would you find a common law jury? The jury you demand could exist? A jury of one's peers? So this would EXCLUDE all residents and US citizens. Since only citizens can serve on a jury, at, in or out of a court, it seems the pickings may be slim to none.

    Bottom line, please explain simply why any fictional court is going to allow you to BRING or move or whatever the court? How do you, a man proceed in any court without using the person that you think is your property? John can not bring a claim against Mary. John SMith can bring a claim against Mary Jones. Both names are property of the state and are held in trust for the public good.

    I do not mean to be disrespectful, If I am in error, I hope to learn something.

    The way I see it is the following: Man has nothing to do with anything of theirs. It appears real but it is not. We are commanded by the Creator to forgive and not judge. This is the Royal Law. When one makes a claim against his brother, he is really making a claim against God, as all are part of His creation.

    Now if you were to ask me what about rapists and murderers - this brings up a whole other topic. If you are asking me about, ie, a man damages one of his brothers in some way, then the brother and the man must have a meeting of the minds and work it out.

  10. #100
    As I was reading this post, I thought I would add it here. In my opinion, this guy has come to a level I hope to obtain someday. These are not my words.
    ================================================== ================================================== ==========

    So do you actually want "remedy"?

    Remedy is just another legal term defined in legal fiction where a fiction provides remedy to a fiction. Even if a man harmed another man, in the legal society it is not the actual man being charged or sued. It is just the legal name being charged or sued in which judgment is made against the legal name.


    In law remedy means:

    The manner in which a right is enforced or satisfied by a court when some harm or injury, recognized by society as a wrongful act, is inflicted upon an individual.

    The law of remedies is concerned with the character and extent of relief to which an individual who has brought a legal action is entitled once the appropriate court procedure has been followed, and the individual has established that he or she has a substantive right that has been infringed by the defendant.

    Categorized according to their purpose, the four basic types of judicial remedies are (1) damages; (2) restitution; (3) coercive remedies; and (4) declaratory remedies.

    That all sounds good at first glance, but what exactly is it that is the "individual"? It's a legal fiction. The legal name, or can be a legal corporation or LLC, all of which are persons before the law. And if we are not suppose to be in those courts then why would we go to one to seek remedy?


    Rather than saying you want your remedy, shouldn't you instead be seeking your SALVATION?


    From the biblical sense salvation means:


    — n

    1. the act of preserving or the state of being preserved from harm

    2. a person or thing that is the means of preserving from harm

    3. Christianity deliverance by redemption from the power of sin and from the penalties ensuing from it

    4. Christian Science the realization that Life, Truth, and Love are supreme and that they can destroy such illusions as sin, death, etc


    [C13: from Old French sauvacion, from Late Latin salv?ti?, from Latin salv?tus saved, from salv?re to save 1 ]



    Isn't this really what we are after? Preserving ourselves from being harm? To be delivered by redemption from the power of sin and the penalties ensuing from it? The realization that Life, Truth, and Love are supreme and that they can destroy such "illusions" as sin, death, etc.? Didn't Jesus prove to us there is no death and it is just an illusion to create fear and all Life is eternal?


    If we are the problem where we are the ones who acted out of our ignorance where we are the sinners for having worshipped those graven images and made false claims to them by claiming those graven images as our property, then isn't it us who needs to repent so we can save ourselves from the sin we chose to partake in out of ignorance?



    Besides, how can a fiction provide a man with a remedy when all a fiction has control over is just more fiction? If we repent by correcting our mistakes and surrender back all our claims we made to graven image property, then wouldn't the State taking care of its own fiction property then provide you with your salvation where you are no longer going to be harmed where you are then redeemed from the power of sin and from penalties ensuing from it by having destroyed all that illusion with the realization of Life, Truth, and Love?

    What is better, some remedy in fiction from a fictional legal system or salvation?

Posting Permissions

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