Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 165

Thread: What's in a NAME?

  1. #101
    While the name is a fiction, it's a useful one. We aren't the ones who superimposed this "person" over our identities, but the reality is that this "thing," whatever it really is, is the vehicle being used to control people in society. And another reality is that some people need to be controlled.

    I think most of the people who come to the realization that their being is separate from the fiction, also know that in today's society it's very difficult to function without it. So the struggle is in trying to figure out how to operate without the legal person.

    Yet another reality is that we're all unique creations, and each of us reach understanding in our unique and individual ways. Each one gains knowledge, filters it through life experience and contemplation, and eventually it buds into wisdom.

    I am continually amazed at the depth of thought that is constantly displayed here at this site. I find it remarkable that so many people - each coming from his own understanding - are still able to find commonality in the ideas routinely discussed.

    Concepts like the name are ethereal, spiritual, and hard to express in words. So it's natural to try and relate the idea to experiences that we hope others will have had, and reach unity in understanding.

    Fortunately we've been given a real life example to follow, and his actions are memorialized and made present in those of us who believe and accept his promise of redemption. He is the Captain of our salvation, and has already won the battle.

  2. #102

    yarash

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    While the name is a fiction, it's a useful one. We aren't the ones who superimposed this "person" over our identities, but the reality is that this "thing," whatever it really is, is the vehicle being used to control people in society. And another reality is that some people need to be controlled.

    I think most of the people who come to the realization that their being is separate from the fiction, also know that in today's society it's very difficult to function without it. So the struggle is in trying to figure out how to operate without the legal person.

    Yet another reality is that we're all unique creations, and each of us reach understanding in our unique and individual ways. Each one gains knowledge, filters it through life experience and contemplation, and eventually it buds into wisdom.

    I am continually amazed at the depth of thought that is constantly displayed here at this site. I find it remarkable that so many people - each coming from his own understanding - are still able to find commonality in the ideas routinely discussed.

    Concepts like the name are ethereal, spiritual, and hard to express in words. So it's natural to try and relate the idea to experiences that we hope others will have had, and reach unity in understanding.

    Fortunately we've been given a real life example to follow, and his actions are memorialized and made present in those of us who believe and accept his promise of redemption. He is the Captain of our salvation, and has already won the battle.
    Hello Keith, I agree that some are given a higher level of understanding than others on how to separate the real from the fiction, not just in thought and expressed through a keyboard, but actually in deed. And if we are ever going to overcome this beastly system of slavery and rise above it, it would be great to have some real acts and deed to emulate.

    There is a scripture verse that says "come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sin, so that you will not receive of her plagues". If we utilize their system we are taking part in it, no? I want no part of it although thanks to David and his findings on lawful money (just weights and measures) i have been redeeming LM. If we are going to use the benefit in any way then we owe a duty. But Scripture says "the whole duty of man is to love Yahveh and keep His commandments"

    I prefer to go the route of MJ and his statement "DECLARE THYSELF" i am not sure exactly how--on paper?. Perhaps he will explain it himself or others who are doing the same.

    If He is the Captain of our salvation, to quote you, and has already won the battle, why aren't we shouting it from the rooftop to TPTB that our King reigns and owns everything?

    Just my 2cents
    Thanks for anyone who read this.

  3. #103
    I mostly agree with everything you stated. It is very good that WE be open to understand and learn from one another AND be open, along with challenge our beliefs. I started this journey quite accidently, it was watching the documentary - The Zeitgeist. It was through my intense wanting to learn more, I found a local group for the Zeitgeist Movement and form there we, as a group find info about Tim Turner. Though I found many things Tim had said profound, we, as a group were ready to move forward on "his remedy". Remember I knew absolutely nothing. However, it was I that kept researching Tim, at that time, and I warned the group, after I came to learn more about remedy, this was not for us. The group eventually disbanded. But I continued to study. I move forwarded to AFV, copyright of the Name, Notice of understanding, Purging from the matrix, redemption manual, creditors in commerce, Bill Thorton, common law, Equity, black card, abatement, UCC, etc. All this study was important; I am glad I took the time to learn "something" probably not too well - but just a taste. When I finally got to Peace Inhabitant process, if you want to call it that, I argued no less that Anthony, probably even more. I argued with a man, called John Tanis. I said to him what do you mean it is not MY bank account, my car, my house, I worked for it!!!! I worked a lifetime for my stuff. It has my name on it. John very patiently took the time to go back and forth with me. I realize now why he did so. 1. because HE had to reinforce himself in this idea 2. He wants to follow the scriptures by being of service to humanity, as is part of all our duty and 3. Its about spreading the word so that we can get back into "grace" here on earth [not that that is ever lost, that is just an illusion and we suffer for our fighting our "correct BEINGNESS"]. I fully admit this PI process is not an easy concept to grasp because of our earthly density - let's face it we, at one level or another, still have selfish motives. Its not about right or wrong, it just IS. I should also state it was not only John that helped me along this path, but also too, a guy named Boris, Marc Fishman and Batman, all with very profound knowledge.

    When you really sit yourself down and give heavy duty thought to it, those in power are there for OUR good. OUCH! YES, as evil as they appear to be, and they are, their purpose is to help us WAKE UP. The more we resist, the worse they get. Me, Mine, My or I, is about separatism. "I" am part of the "we". Therefore when I state that car is MINE, it is saying, I own it. How does one prove he owns it? With a piece of paper? We are used to saying - it is my car - and that is the deception. The Creator owns all of the creation AND it is to be USED by all of His creation, freely given AND NOT CHARGED FOR. How does one charge his brother for anything? God gave ALL resources freely. When you really think about it, we do not even own our next breath, this is freely given by grace.

    When one OWNS something, it is to the exclusion of anyone else. This means if I own the bank account and there is a debt levy on the person I use, the creditor CAN legally go into MY BANK ACCOUNT and take out those fictional funds. That same creditor can come and foreclose on the house and car. Some still will insist under COMMON LAW this can not be done. Well I guess we will have to hear about the out come of that theory. The Name is a public person or non-incorporated entity that is given to us for the public good. If you are a belligerent, and start with me, mine, my and I, then there are those who will help tame you.

    When we use something, the owner is liable. It does not mean I can not have exclusive use of it, it is just that everything I contribute or do, the owner benefits [which I do joyously], subject to the liabilities.

    Last time I bring this up. If you really dig the bible, give this guy a listen to, his name is Marcus. It is long and boring, but boring because he is trying to really drill this into man and his conditions here on earth.


    We are servant kings and Marcus can explain this to you all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSR...Y1ZxJB&index=1

  4. #104
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    the public courthouse is NOT "theirs", it is ours; only man can make a claim

    the "fictional court" cannot allow or disallow anything

    the man or woman who acts as 'court clerk' is your 'court clerk' if you require he/she perform for you

    in a common law court, names are not necessary; i may stylize my claim however i wish; and, a witness can merely speak and point to a wrongdoer in open court without knowing, or using, a name to identify a wrongdoer

    i never stated that i want something to do with anything of "theirs"; who do you believe is "they" and what is "theirs"?

    of course i agree that a man must try to have a meeting of the minds and work things out with his brother first, however, if that process fails in the private, a man has a right to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public; that is the nature of common law and that law still exists on this land, if one knows how to invoke and hold it by one's own right

    this is why i keep repeating that we (that includes me) need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    the public courthouse is NOT "theirs", it is ours; only man can make a claim the "fictional court" cannot allow or disallow anything
    the man or woman who acts as 'court clerk' is your 'court clerk' if you require he/she perform for you

    in a common law court, names are not necessary; i may stylize my claim however i wish; and, a witness can merely speak and point to a wrongdoer in open court without knowing, or using, a name to identify a wrongdoer

    i never stated that i want something to do with anything of "theirs"; who do you believe is "they" and what is "theirs"?

    of course i agree that a man must try to have a meeting of the minds and work things out with his brother first, however, if that process fails in the private, a man has a right to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public; that is the nature of common law and that law still exists on this land, if one knows how to invoke and hold it by one's own right

    this is why i keep repeating that we (that includes me) need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land
    Ok AJ I get the public courthouse is NOT "theirs" its a "fictional court."

    How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?

    Who then has the meeting of the minds? Who is his brother your talking to with the meeting of the minds? How do you get the meeting in private first and with Who?

    In the private A doesn't agree with B with the meeting of the minds in private so then to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public in common law that law still exists on this land to invoke the right, How does that get started?

    I agree that we need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land?

    Lets get to it.

    I am ready for this.
    Last edited by Chex; 02-01-14 at 03:31 PM.

  6. #106
    **How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?**

    Fix the money.

  7. #107
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    Ok AJ I get the public courthouse is NOT "theirs" its a "fictional court."

    How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?

    Who then has the meeting of the minds? Who is his brother your talking to with the meeting of the minds? How do you get the meeting in private first and with Who?

    In the private A doesn't agree with B with the meeting of the minds in private so then to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public in common law that law still exists on this land to invoke the right, How does that get started?

    I agree that we need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land?

    Lets get to it.

    I am ready for this.
    the public courthouse is just a building; an edifice where people have access to court (court is a verb also)

    a man is always in or at common law if he remains standing as man; that ability comes with knowledge and practice - do not use ANY legalese or you show competence in a legalese court; and then, you are subject to the rules of said court

    if someone sends you a present[ment], find out who is sending it and why through letter writing - do not delay
    if it is written using legalese terms, you do not understand as a man; "i believe this may read as thus and so, however i am not certain and i cannot decipher your language, please communicate in common parlance." [a man is not required to know or understand the foreign language of legalese]

    if this private communication cannot be settled, one party may choose to take it public by way of a law suit in court
    a man has a right to face and question his accuser [cf. the Plaintiff must appear - Trinsey v Pagliaro] (notice this citation is NOT the basis for the claim of man's right, it is just an exhibit for comparison purposes)

    if the "Plaintiff" is named as STATE OF XXXXX, IRS, UNITED STATES, etc., then, even according to "their" own rules and precedents, the Plaintiff must appear and the attorney is not permitted to speak to the facts without first hand knowledge; we do not rely upon "their" rules or precedents, we stand upon the common law right to face our accusers in open court

    if no man will speak with voice against another man who requires to face, and answer to, his accusers claims, THERE IS NO PROPER CLAIM BEFORE THE COURT - no controversy exists [cf. no subject matter jurisdiction]

    if the matter is man on man, the one moving the claim (prosecutor) establishes the rules of court and both parties present their cases before a jury that will judge the merits and render a final decision - the black-robed-one is independent of the tribunal (claimant, wrongdoer, jury) and only bears witness to the happenings

    it is the claimant's court and the judgments and orders issue through said court, with magistrate as witness and court clerk as recorder for public benefit

    there is no book or template for this, that is why true common law is unwritten; a man must learn to stand as such (a man) and conduct his affairs accordingly and in honor
    Last edited by Anthony Joseph; 02-01-14 at 07:03 PM.

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    the public courthouse is just a building; an edifice where people have access to court (court is a verb also)

    a man is always in or at common law if he remains standing as man; that ability comes with knowledge and practice - do not use ANY legalese or you show competence in a legalese court; and then, you are subject to the rules of said court

    if someone sends you a present[ment], find out who is sending it and why through letter writing - do not delay
    if it is written using legalese terms, you do not understand as a man; "i believe this may read as thus and so, however i am not certain and i cannot decipher your language, please communicate in common parlance." [a man is not required to know or understand the foreign language of legalese]

    if this private communication cannot be settled, one party may choose to take it public by way of a law suit in court
    a man has a right to face and question his accuser [cf. the Plaintiff must appear - Trinsey v Pagliaro] (notice this citation is NOT the basis for the claim of man's right, it is just an exhibit for comparison purposes)

    if the "Plaintiff" is named as STATE OF XXXXX, IRS, UNITED STATES, etc., then, even according to "their" own rules and precedents, the Plaintiff must appear and the attorney is not permitted to speak to the facts without first hand knowledge; we do not rely upon "their" rules or precedents, we stand upon the common law right to face our accusers in open court

    if no man will speak with voice against another man who requires to face, and answer to, his accusers claims, THERE IS NO PROPER CLAIM BEFORE THE COURT - no controversy exists [cf. no subject matter jurisdiction]

    if the matter is man on man, the one moving the claim (prosecutor) establishes the rules of court and both parties present their cases before a jury that will judge the merits and render a final decision - the black-robed-one is independent of the tribunal (claimant, wrongdoer, jury) and only bears witness to the happenings

    it is the claimant's court and the judgments and orders issue through said court, with magistrate as witness and court clerk as recorder for public benefit

    there is no book or template for this, that is why true common law is unwritten; a man must learn to stand as such (a man) and conduct his affairs accordingly and in honor
    The above is an excellent explanation! Thanks AJ!

    Below is my attempt to get this approach before the CLGJ audience:

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...aw#comment-230

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by salsero View Post
    When one OWNS something, it is to the exclusion of anyone else.
    Not necessarily.

    In law, there is distinction between absolute ownership (Roman Civil Law::dominion) and qualified ownership (Roman Civil Law::servitude).
    To be honest, there wasn't even absolute ownership in English Common Law save the radical title of the King.
    As far as states go, all ownership is subject to the state (as far as they are concerned).

    Quote Originally Posted by salsero
    This means if I own the bank account and there is a debt levy on the person I use, the creditor CAN legally go into MY BANK ACCOUNT and take out those fictional funds. That same creditor can come and foreclose on the house and car. Some still will insist under COMMON LAW this can not be done.
    1) No one owns an ACCOUNT. The account is the property of the issuer, in this case, the bank. An account is a chose in action (right to sue for recovery of a debt owed). Interestingly enough, taxes are a chose in action of the king (or government). Not only that, the legal title of the notes transfer from the depositor to the bank. The bank becomes the legal owner of the notes deposited into the account.

    A levy and a withdraw are different beasts. A levy has to do with taxation (or conscription into a martial force). A withdrawal has to do with a deduction of funds from the account to the requester.
    Foreclosure is another beast all together. Foreclosure is the final action a creditor will take to recover property pledged as collateral for a debt based on a CONTRACT the debtor indorsed.

    Under Common Law, creditors had more power than they do now, believe it or not. Quite a few protections have been put into the law since medieval English times in protection of the debtor.

    You don't even what to know how insolvents were treated under Common Law .

    Quote Originally Posted by salsero
    The Name is a public person or non-incorporated entity that is given to us for the public good.
    Originally in Common Law, only men of note had first and last names. Those names were recorded by the private families. This was for purposes of inheritance of passing on titles and property.

    Quote Originally Posted by salsero
    When we use something, the owner is liable. It does not mean I can not have exclusive use of it, it is just that everything I contribute or do, the owner benefits [which I do joyously], subject to the liabilities.
    The liabilities of ownership also comes from customs of Common Law. Owner of property or holder of title was subject to the King's dues. This was primarily providing military aide as well as funds to ease the King's wants ....
    Last edited by shikamaru; 02-02-14 at 02:13 PM.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    Not necessarily.

    In law, there is distinction between absolute ownership (Roman Civil Law::dominion) and qualified ownership (Roman Civil Law::servitude).
    To be honest, there wasn't even absolute ownership in English Common Law save the radical title of the King.
    As far as states go, all ownership is subject to the state (as far as they are concerned).



    1) No one owns an ACCOUNT. The account is the property of the issuer, in this case, the bank. An account is a chose in action (right to sue for recovery of a debt owed). Interestingly enough, taxes are a chose in action of the king (or government). Not only that, the legal title of the notes transfer from the depositor to the bank. The bank becomes the legal owner of the notes deposited into the account.

    A levy and a withdraw are different beasts. A levy has to do with taxation (or conscription into a martial force). A withdrawal has to do with a deduction of funds from the account to the requester.
    Foreclosure is another beast all together. Foreclosure is the final action a creditor will take to recover property pledged as collateral for a debt based on a CONTRACT the debtor indorsed.

    Under Common Law, creditors had more power than they do now, believe it or not. Quite a few protections have been put into the law since medieval English times in protection of the debtor.

    You don't even what to know how insolvents were treated under Common Law .



    Originally in Common Law, only men of note had first and last names. Those names were recorded by the private families. This was for purposes of inheritance of passing on titles and property.



    The liabilities of ownership also comes from customs of Common Law. Owner of property or holder of title was subject to the King's dues. This was primarily providing military aide as well as funds to ease the King's wants ....
    Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Persons, banks, corporations, cars, houses, property, boats, children, bank accounts, etc are ALL legally titled WITH State OWNED PROPERTY CALLED A NAME, ESTATE, TRUST, INDIVIDUAL, ETC. It can not be MINE, MY, I, OR ME. Agree or disagree, it really is unimportant. It just is based on fact of fiction - yes that is the proper ridiculous, lack of common sense way of stating it. I never said I liked what I was writing.

    When there is a judgment against the person and that person "has assets" whether a car, bank account or a house or whatever, that "stuff you OWN" is going to be taken. A levy is different than a withdrawal I agree, but I was writing in concept not legal brief. My point is if you own it, it can not be taken. Everything you cited is all well and good and it may very well be a "basis or history" on current law today; however, IT IS MY OPINON, that since all titles were seized in the 1930s and after the Erie RR decision [basically doing away with common law], all I can wish you all "pro-common law is alive and well today" is by all means go for it. As long as someone is obtaining remedy and cure, I luv it. Please provide the group with detail info on your successes. I am willing to admit MY ERROR.

    I bothered to check out this link http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...aw#comment-230 - I had seen much of this stuff previously. Excellent info to be aware of. But I personally see NO REMEDY there. ALL I DO KNOW, if we all do not wake up soon from this "illusion called life", maybe when Hillary becomes president in 2016, as her balls are big enough to push that red button, then we can start the planet all over again - because all this warring is really a downer. And Hillary seems to be just the right leader of our collective consciousness reflecting back to We, the People exactly what we are.

    God Bless

Posting Permissions

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