Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 165

Thread: What's in a NAME?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    Salsero, can you please expound upon the concept that the state owns my body? I can see that the state records the NAME (and then enters it into the Trust, liening it with debt for the state's benefit). Now the state makes the claim that my NAME must comply with endless codes, rules, and regulations, which are merely corporate rules (municipal law), enforceable only through Roman law (based on the debt contract which the state created for me by usurping my NAME, and then hoping I would confirm their presumption). My NAME is a corporate person, thus under the rules of corporations, but I want to use it for my benefit, not for the state's benefit, so I would like to get free of the Trust. The state cannot own the people, first because it is a corporation, and people are natural persons, and second because of the 13th Amendment. So debt slavery can only be voluntary. I am interested in un-volunteering, which I must do only due to presumptions of the trustee. Now if I am the beneficiary, which the unwritten contract for social security says I am, then I can certainly void the presumptions and tell the trustee to dissolve the trust. What say you?

    We kind of agree but our wording is different. I agree a man must come forward and state he has a higher claim but the issue is not about that property being yours, it is an issue that everything on the planet belongs to the Creator and we are just mere users of said property, with right of use, control, enjoyment and possession but not ownership.

    I have no objection to being owned by the Creator, but I have a lot of objection to being owned by the state. I say my NAME is mine to use, free of the state's interest. Where does the state get the right to own my property? Who has a higher right to the complete control and use of my NAME, and where did they get that right? All power of the government derives from the consent of the governed...

    Freed
    I would not be able to expand on the concept that the state owns anyone's body. So Freed maybe you can answer this for me: What evidence do you have to prove that Name is yours? I have shared with the group the evidence I have to prove that Name is not my property; HOWEVER, I am authorized user of that property. How does the State usurp YOUR Name? If your parents named you John Michael, that is YOUR given name. The family Name is Smith. Smith is made up the family unit, with mom, dad, Mary, Jack, Jill and John. Smith is not exclusively YOUR NAME. It is a family name. I agree the Name John Smith is a non-incorporated person, subject ONLY to the jurisdiction thereof when one consents or claims to own or have some interest in that property or Name. I use the Name for the purpose of conducting commerce for the state's benefit for its property called a Name. In directly, I, the man receive the benefit; however, it is state's property that I USE, that receives the discharge and acquittal, not me the man, because I have nothing to do with it. Man is free of the Trust. It ain't his unless he wants to make a claim against it and then he consents to be surety for the estate. I agree the State can not and DOES NOT own people. I would suggest you look up the definition of natural persons. The 13th A permits for voluntary servitude not involuntary. I AM JOHN SMITH is a voluntary consent to act as surety or executor of the estate. Yes debt slavery can ONLY BE VOLUNTARY. You are not the beneficiary, the state is the beneficiary and thus under the rules of usufruct, the one who benefits must be subject to the liabilities. Please provide evidence you are the beneficiary? If you accept eh benefits, you accept the liabilities. That is what I say. THat is the contract. I do not think we TELL the trustee or executor anything but we do inform the executor. We give notices. We rebut the presumptions. Absolutely. You have no authority to void anything. It ain't yours to begin with.
    Excellent - you are a child of the Most High. The state does not own anyone unless they consent. Consent makes the law. WHen you say your Name, the state basically says thank you, Mr. Surety. The state get the right to own its property because it holds the original title to that property or name you believe is yours. You are sent a certified copy. The state has a higher right and loves when you think you have the higher right. Basically you are nothing but chattel. The state got the right through 1. holding original title 2. by being paid for beneficial use BY the United States through the SSA and 3. You can not get hold of that COLB 4. ALl you get is something called a CERTIFIED BC basically for your USE.
    All power of the government is derived from those who are a party to that society. A free man is NOT a part of that society UNLESS he consent and thus is subject to the benefits along with the liabilities that society offer. God created man free, not encumbered.
    I like to be challenged this helps me get my head around all this - it ain't easy but if you continue to seek, earnestly, you will find.

  2. #42
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    what man or woman can verify a claim of: vested interest in; or, the right to administer, another man's property (the Name)?

    i don't have to prove the Name is my property; it's my property because i say it is (i speak in living voice); and, my right of use (means property) of the Name is exclusive of all others

    someone else must verify the claim (in living voice) that the Name isn't my property; a futile task which would be laughed out of court, if you know how to hold a court of record

    please provide any evidence that a man or woman could convince a jury, under oath or affirmation in open court, that your Name is not your property

    'UNITED STATES', 'STATE OF XXXXX', 'IRS' etc. do not have vocal chords; only man can make a claim

    property does NOT mean ownership or title; it means 'exclusive right of use'; our grant from the Creator in covenant is to subdue the earth and have dominion so long as we do not interfere with another man's grant to do the same - do unto others...

    a fiction cannot make a claim to property (no voice); and, we cannot harm a fiction nor do we have any inherent obligation to a fiction - contract wisely

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    what man or woman can verify a claim of: vested interest in; or, the right to administer, another man's property (the Name)?

    This is the last time I am going to respond. To continue to go back and forth on this is really silly. First of all: 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.”

    I have asked multiple times to provide evidence that Name is your property and every one here goes around what I am specifically asking. I have even answered how that is not YOUR property.


    i don't have to prove the Name is my property; it's my property because i say it is (i speak in living voice); and, my right of use (means property) of the Name is exclusive of all others

    someone else must verify the claim (in living voice) that the Name isn't my property; a futile task which would be laughed out of court, if you know how to hold a court of record

    OK you are going to hold your court of record, please tell me why is any judge going to allow this? Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64) "No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it." YOU, the living man is not a part of their society. Here is a direct quote from a SCOTUS decision PROVING you, the "citizen, man, person, resident, etc is not a party to bring a claim into their court, you are not a party to the constitution. What rights do you have in their court? The courts can only deal with persons who, with the consent of man, falls under the jurisdiction thereof. The state owns the name, the US has bought interest in that property and is the protected purchaser under UCC 8-303.

    please provide any evidence that a man or woman could convince a jury, under oath or affirmation in open court, that your Name is not your property So the man is going to convince a jury of his peers? Who are this man's peers? Or a jury of US citizens that are required to follow the judges' instructions? This common law stuff is pase - thanks to 1. the bankruptcy and 2. the Erie RR decision of 1938. We are under public policy statutes. Now I have to be honest with you, do I see the POSSABILITY OF COMMON LAW WORKING IN COURT? Yes, but it has nothing to do with common law whatsoever, it has to do with the fact that the US is under a state of emergency which means that we are in war. The finial on the flags in the court room scream war, the attorneys, the executive orders, etc. The mere fact a common law plea may get some traction is the fact that the court does not want "citizens" to ask too many questions and the case MAY be dismissed as not to take a chance let the people know the truth.

    I can very easily prove that Name, I USE IS NOT MY PROPERTY. I hand over the BC and ask a simple question of the jury [this would never be allowed - but I am just giving an example]: Does the jury see I have this certified BC in hand? Did I sign it? Did I put an official stamp from the State on it? Who put the stamp and signed this document? A fiduciary of the State. Therefore, if it were my property, I would sign it, I would put MY stamp on it. The paper, the stamp, the signature, etc are not MINE.


    'UNITED STATES', 'STATE OF XXXXX', 'IRS' etc. do not have vocal chords; only man can make a claim I agree 100%.

    property does NOT mean ownership or title; it means 'exclusive right of use'; our grant from the Creator in covenant is to subdue the earth and have dominion so long as we do not interfere with another man's grant to do the same - do unto others... Blacks 6th ed: Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one....The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. I did not put the entire definition - but lets pick out a few words here: Person, ownership, estate - are you a person? ownership vests in the state, estate property is from "a dead person" - the IRS manual 6209 goes into detail about what forms W-2, 1099, W-4 and 1098 tax class. It is evident, if one is receiving one of these forms, there must be a presumption of some estate. Now the question is whose estate and who is the beneficiary, executor, and grantor?

    a fiction cannot make a claim to property (no voice); I agree 100%. and, we cannot harm a fiction nor do we have any inherent obligation to a fiction - contract wisely
    I agree 100% but contract, per THEIR law is not up front, it is deceptive and presumptive - you can volunteer into servitude.

    Let us to agree to disagree on this one. And honestly, if what you are doing is working for you, I think that is great and wish you the very best.

  4. #44
    Infants do sign the instrument when they make their mark on it.

    Edit -- The person named thereon is an unincorporated association, best I can figure. The infant is not the person, but he does have a secured interest in it. The certificate is issued as evidence of that security interest.
    Last edited by Keith Alan; 01-29-14 at 04:17 AM.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Salsero:

    In my humble opinion the NAME is not my property as I have looked at the Certificate and I find a State SEAL upon it. That is enough for me. As such, I see a trust, as beneficiary of another trust. Now each trust has its own actors and Administrations but the one at the bottom of the so called proverbial totem pole is subject to everything above it - even international treaties that the United States might enjoin itself unto.

    In a sense we are talking about Usufruct. And a mere user can only make a use in privilege. And a privilege is not an established Right. Or let me say this that absent a Claim which establishes Property there can be no Property = which is to say Rights of Use. Estates are therefore INTERESTS in Property.

    Therefore, the subjects buy, sell, trade and exchange Estates but they have NO ACCESS to Property. And therefore, Property CANNOT be alienated without the State because the subjects are NOT ALLOWED to play at that level. Meaning they, the subjects, have no Claim, therefore they lack Property and therefore they have ZERO RIGHTS and only Civil Rights which amount to mere privilege. And privileges can always be revoked.

    Padelford clearly showed this to be fact - for we find that a State can tax its subjects to death - if necessary - so that the State can continue. Subjects ARE NOT SOVEREIGN. The Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. When I had my day in court - I actually was so stupid as to tell a DA who had a huge smile on her face that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. She assured me she had it. I pondered for a bit and then I realized that indeed THIS MATTER concerned the Property held by the State. Therefore the licensed lawyers have full authority to hear any matter in the NAME and I realized that I stood adversary. So I backed off that claim and then I found peace. ALL SMILES. I gave away the stone and walked away from that anchor.

    Said another way, I have no trust in the horses of Egypt. But I do recognize the fact that the 56 who pledged HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME and the subjects have nothing to add - except loyalty to those who gave them a government. WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT DID YOU GIVE US - A republic if you can keep it. And they setup the Trust Agreement for themselves and their Heirs. This of course is Trust 101.

    People can call these chattels tools or whatever they would like but in the end of the day, if one benefits in Estates formed by others, then that one is SUBJECT to the administration of those who hold the Property whereof those Estates are formed. In reality the subjects only deal with Estates that are interests in Property owned by others.

    Notice the Estate is even Recorded in an ASSET REGISTRY within a County held in a State. Don't let me get started on UCC. If one indeed has his/her own Property, then there is a Claim, and there would exist a Registry held in their State/Kingdom and there would be a Court which would be foreign to other States. I don't need to go on. I believe I have made my point.


    In True trust the King is the biggest SERVANT of ALL for the Property in reality belongs to the Creator and the King Administrates the Property for all who abide within the Kingdom. Man is told to take dominion yet, in true trust Yehoshuah is King of kings. So we see vassal kings UNDER the King of kings. Even our bodies and souls belong to Yehovah.

    Oh one more thing. Both parties stand naked but the one with the Might is looking for Consent in ACTION. This is IMPLIED TRUST. And I can testify there is no better remedy than a man standing and speaking what comes from his own heart.

    Jer 17:7 Blessed is the strong man that confideth in Yehovah, and whose confidence Yehovah is.

    Jer 17:5 Thus saith Yehovah; "Cursed be the strong man that confideth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from Yehovah.

    We are with CHOICE....with that I take my leave.

    Shalom,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-29-14 at 02:59 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!

  6. #46
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

    - a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

    - case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
    true meaning and intent

    - legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

    again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

    now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

    if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    Padelford clearly showed this to be fact - for we find that a State can tax its subjects to death - if necessary - so that the State can continue. Subjects ARE NOT SOVEREIGN. The Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. When I had my day in court - I actually was so stupid as to tell a DA who had a huge smile on her face that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. She assured me she had it. I pondered for a bit and then I realized that indeed THIS MATTER concerned the Property held by the State. Therefore the licensed lawyers have full authority to hear any matter in the NAME and I realized that I stood adversary. So I backed off that claim and then I found peace. ALL SMILES. I gave away the stone and walked away from that anchor.
    So we the people are subjects while the state is the Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. This government needs an enema.

    I see why.

    Michael Scotto, a reporter for New York cable http://news.msn.com/us/ny-rep-threat...r-over-balcony Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm physically threatened NY1 political reporter Michael Scotto at the conclusion of an interview in the Capitol Rotunda following Tuesday night's State of the Union address http://www.ny1.com/content/news/2026...e-of-the-union

    "So Congressman Michael Grimm does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances," Scotto said before tossing back to the station. But as the camera continued to roll,

    Grimm walked back up to Scotto and began speaking to him in a low voice. "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy."

  8. #48
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    So we the people are subjects while the state is the Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. This government needs an enema.

    I see why.

    Michael Scotto, a reporter for New York cable http://news.msn.com/us/ny-rep-threat...r-over-balcony Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm physically threatened NY1 political reporter Michael Scotto at the conclusion of an interview in the Capitol Rotunda following Tuesday night's State of the Union address http://www.ny1.com/content/news/2026...e-of-the-union

    "So Congressman Michael Grimm does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances," Scotto said before tossing back to the station. But as the camera continued to roll,

    Grimm walked back up to Scotto and began speaking to him in a low voice. "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy."
    The way I see it the "We the People OF the United States" are not the same "people of the states". I think the people are destroyed for LACK OF KNOWLEDGE and ignorance. Again, I reference a banking agreement - men and women go to banks and open accounts every day and yet I will wager only about 1/2 of 1% actually read the Agreement.

    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!

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

    - a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

    - case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
    true meaning and intent

    - legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

    again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

    now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

    if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost
    See - we somewhat agree but it appears you do not follow it through. I fully agree a man can not cause harm to anything in the 2 or 3rd dimensions and vice a versa. Man has no place in any court to begin with. Court is for fictions. Those case sites have nothing to do with man, I agree. What we do not agree is who is the owner of any property here on earth. If everything was created by the Creator for all of his children to use, not own, then we men are USERS, we have control, possession and dominion but not ownership. Ownership is a man made - as a matter of fact, for those that read the bible, this is exactly what Satan wants - men to believe they own and can make claims - it all boosts the EGO or edging God out.

    Since you posed the question - would I verify in open court what you say is your property is NOT your property? I would not have to because you would not get that far, but let's say the judge [the same judge you are in front of consenting for him to settle controversies] asked me salsero - is this Name Anthony's property? I would say NO! that Name he is claiming is not his property. he can use it but since he wants to make false claims, he must pay the piper.

    In ANY COURT, man must consent to have the judge settle the controversy being brought in. This is why you are asked to swear to tell the truth, then STATE YOUR NAME. It is all a trick. If you think you are going to go in the state's court and run it and tell the judge what to do [I would never say never but the likelihood is very much against you but I would not say impossible - EVER] and run that court - good luck. As I stated, the reason why I BELIEVE that Karl and Glenn get away with what they get away with is due to "the system not wanting to be exposed. With Glenn Fearn, I see everything he does as UCC masked in common law. It does not make it wrong - if he is getting remedy - wonderful. whatever as long as one is getting his remedy.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

    - a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

    - case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
    true meaning and intent

    - legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

    again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

    now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

    if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost
    See - we somewhat agree but it appears you do not follow it through. I fully agree a man can not cause harm to anything in the 2 or 3rd dimensions and vice a versa. Man has no place in any court to begin with. Court is for fictions. Those case sites have nothing to do with man, I agree. What we do not agree is who is the owner of any property here on earth. If everything was created by the Creator for all of his children to use, not own, then we men are USERS, we have control, possession and dominion but not ownership. Ownership is a man made - as a matter of fact, for those that read the bible, this is exactly what Satan wants - men to believe they own and can make claims - it all boosts the EGO or edging God out.

    Since you posed the question - would I verify in open court what you say is your property is NOT your property? I would not have to because you would not get that far, but let's say the judge [the same judge you are in front of consenting for him to settle controversies] asked me salsero - is this Name Anthony's property? I would say NO! that Name he is claiming is not his property. he can use it but since he wants to make false claims, he must pay the piper.

    In ANY COURT, man must consent to have the judge settle the controversy being brought in. This is why you are asked to swear to tell the truth, then STATE YOUR NAME. It is all a trick. If you think you are going to go in the state's court and run it and tell the judge what to do [I would never say never but the likelihood is very much against you but I would not say impossible - EVER] and run that court - good luck. As I stated, the reason why I BELIEVE that Karl and Glenn get away with what they get away with is due to "the system not wanting to be exposed. With Glenn Fearn, I see everything he does as UCC masked in common law. It does not make it wrong - if he is getting remedy - wonderful. whatever as long as one is getting his remedy.

Posting Permissions

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