Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 165

Thread: What's in a NAME?

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    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
    There is not evidence that the infant or person is a trust. However, there is evidence that the Name, person, etc is an estate. The estate is owned by the state and the US has beneficial interest in that property. This is all provable. Where I was confused at first like many people -- its all about separating the fiction from the real. This ain't easy. Man has nothing whatsoever to do with the fiction. NOTHING. It is a very hard concept to get passed because the unreal parallels the real. This Satan has full authority to trick and deceive, we the people. Paper is only an image of the real. It is not the real. The title to the car, the infant, house, licenses, etc are all paper. Do you want to travel in the car? Do you want to live in the house? Do you want to be the man? Then paper has nothing to do with the real.

    The BC is a usufruct compliant certified certificate for the purposes of indemnification of the State's property Name, WHEN USED PROPERLY. It is that simple. If it is YOUR name, then you are liable. If it is the State's Name, then the state is liable. Again folks, I have no issue with Common Law - the problem is long ago and far away - after the Erie decision, common law, equity all got mixed up in admiralty and we are under public policy statutes. THINK - how does the state get away with this and still not violate the 13th A?

    Karl's process seems to work in England and Canada - great. We are here in the USA, home of Hillary for 2016, Barry-kare, Nancy P and Harry R. Does anyone really believe there is hope - we can believe in - for amerika?

    I am not really here to convince folks to buy this concept or not. One should do what works for himself and then that is the correct path for you.

  2. #52
    Infants or persons sign the instruments as that infant - are making false claims and are held as surety. Man or persons that sign By: or For: John Smith separates the one signing as being that entity. I agree the infant is an unincorporated association or organization. It is still property. An infant is a person, individual, taxpayer, executor, fiduciary, creditor, debtor, etc. These are all fictional titles that describe a fiction. the State can only deal with fictions, not men. The state has no jurisdiction over men, without his consent.

    Man does NOT have any interest in that infant's estate. We must learn to separate the fiction from the real. The only "interest" if you want to call it that, is that BC is a usufruct compliant certified certificate TO BE USED FOR INDEMNIFICATION PURPOSES FOR THAT PROPERTY OR NAME OWNED BY THE STATE. By MERE coincidence, MAN too is indemnified because of his proper use of said certificate.

  3. #53
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    when did i ever claim ownership?

    what evidence would you bring in open court to verify that what i claim is in error - can a piece of paper verify itself?

    when did i say i would go in the "state's" court and be ruled over by a "judge"?

    when i bring my court to a public courthouse, it will be the rules of my court (which i create) that the magistrate will follow and hold the parties to as a witness independent of the tribunal

    the unwritten common law is the highest law on this land - contract wisely

    you do know that you are participating on a site which is named 'saving to suitors' club, right?

    not only do i believe i have an inherent right to a common law remedy, so do the people who wrote the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 which still stands today...

    [cf. "...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.]

    exercise your inherent right; and, be competent

  4. #54
    I prefer to think of an estate as marked by some kind of monument. - Like piles of stone or the Law of the Flag on the Libel of Review:

    Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of God and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to God. Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:27.
    Years ago one intrepid suitor elaborated... [Paleo-Hebrew letters for Yehovah and Yehoshuah etc. did not transfer to the quote.]

    Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of Yahuah - , the one true G-d Anglicized Jehovah in the Holy Scriptures, and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to Yahowah- and the Messianic advent of Yahoshuah- . Be it hereby known that the competent common law is prior to 1938 and 1842 – the period between Swift v. Tyson and Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. Protected by the saving to suitors clause of 1789 the state law applied to this diversity issue is modeled by the Holy Scriptures and found in the Fundamental Orders of 1639. With respect to Yahowah’s grace demonstrated by the Messianic advent of Yahoshuah- :

    Exodus 13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand Yahowah - brought us forth out of Egypt.

    Genesis 1:27 So Elohiym created man in his [own] image, in the image of Elohiym created he him; male and female created he them.

    “…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches…”

    The 4th day of the 4th month, called June, 1639, all the free planters assembled together in a general meetinge, to consult about settling civil government according to GOD, and about the nomination of persons that may be found by consent of all fittest in all respects for the foundation work of a Church which was intended to be gathered in Quinipieck. After sollemne invocation of the name of GOD in prayer, for the presence and help of his spirit and grace in these weighty businesses, they were reminded of the business whereabout they met…

    Quaere 1. Whether the Scriptures doe holde fourth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duteyes which they are to perform to GOD and men as well in the government of famyles and commonwealths as in matters of the Church?
    This was assented to by all, no man dissenting, as well expressed by holding up of hands. Afterwards it was read over to them, that they might see in what wordes their vote was expressed: They againe expressed their consent thereto, by holding up their hands, no man dissenting.


    Here quoted from the capital laws:
    1) idolatry (Deut 13.6–17.2 – Exodus 22.20)
    2) witchcraft (Exodus 22.18 – Leviticus 20.27 – Deut. 18.10,11)
    3) blasphemy (Leviticus 24.15,16)
    4) murder by violence (Exodus 21.12,13,14 – Numbers 35.30,31)
    5) murder by guile (i.e. poisoning) (Exodus 21.14)
    6) bestiality (Leviticus 20.15,16)
    7) homosexuality (Leviticus 20.13)
    8) adultery (Leviticus 20.10 and 18.20 – Deut. 22.23,24)
    9) rape (Deut. 22.25)
    10) kidnap (Exodus 21.16)
    11) perjury (Deut. 19.16,18,19)
    12) treason against the commonwealth
    13) striking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21.17- Leviticus 20.9 – Exodus 21.15)
    14) a parent shall turn in a criminal child (Deut. 21.20,21)
    15) general discretionary power is retained by the general court to prosecute any other harmful behavior against individuals, family and community, church or commonwealth.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    David,

    In my opinion, this is exactly right. Man is without this entire construction. Here is an excellent poem I believe....Kipling...

    "The Liner, she's a lady" - Kipling




    THE LINER she’s a lady, an’ she never looks nor ’eeds—
    The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, an’ ’e gives ’er all she needs;
    But, oh, the little cargo-boats, that sail the wet seas roun’,
    They’re just the same as you an’ me a-plyin’ up an’ down!

    Plyin’ up an’ down, Jenny, ’angin’ round the Yard,
    All the way by Fratton tram down to Portsmouth ’Ard;
    Anythin’ for business, an’ we’re growin’ old—
    Plyin’ up an’ down, Jenny, waitin’ in the cold!

    The Liner she’s a lady by the paint upon ’er face,
    An’ if she meets an accident they count it sore disgrace:
    The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, and ’e’s always ’andy by,
    But, oh, the little cargo-boats! they’ve got to load or die.

    The Liner she’s a lady, and ’er route is cut an’ dried;
    The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, an’ ’e always keeps beside;
    But, oh, the little cargo-boats that ’aven’t any man,
    They’ve got to do their business first, and make the most they can!

    The Liner she’s a lady, and if a war should come,
    The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, and ’e’d bid ’er stay at home;
    But, oh, the little cargo-boats that fill with every tide!
    ’E’d ’ave to up an’ fight for them, for they are England’s pride.

    The Liner she’s a lady, but if she wasn’t made,
    There still would be the cargo-boats for ’ome an’ foreign trade.
    The Man-o’-War’s ’er ’usband, but if we wasn’t ’ere,
    ’E wouldn’t have to fight at all for ’ome an’ friends so dear.

    ’Ome an’ friends so dear, Jenny, ’angin’ round the Yard,
    All the way by Fratton tram down to Portsmouth ’Ard;
    Anythin’ for business, an’ we’re growin’ old—
    ’Ome an’ friends so dear, Jenny, waitin’ in the cold!

    ====

    Its those little cargo boats....setup for someone to make a Use.


    Shalom,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-29-14 at 08:57 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. #56
    Years ago one intrepid suitor elaborated...

    "I have been utilizing the ‘saving to suitors’ clause properly in the US district courts, invoking true Article III judiciary for years now. About 100 suitors, most of whom have gained control of the suits that once festered into nightmares, mostly from misconceptions about how to handle process (mail). Agents of a foreign principal are required to file in the district courts of the United States prior to exercising any claim against a man or woman on this land. Of course with Federal Reserve Notes as currency that means a bill collector has to take you to court? No. The same process is expedited through your (well, it’s not really yours) mailbox. By teaching people how to handle mail for the suits that it is, these people terminate nuisance law suits against their estates, nipping them in the bud."
    Dec 2003 http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306

    Now I remember where I first read it, then had to know more about it, http://admiralty.uslegal.com/jurisdi...tors-clause-2/.
    Last edited by Chex; 01-29-14 at 04:43 PM.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Genesis 1:27 So Elohiym created man in his [own] image, in the image of Elohiym created he him; male and female created he them.]
    Parse out the Hebrew and you will discover an interesting problem. Elohim created THE MAN [eth ha aw-dawm] in his image; [SEMICOLON] male and female he made mankind [aw-dawm]

    The scripture tells us that only ONE was made in the Image of God and that is Yehoshuah. Mankind is transformed into that image slowly when mankind becomes repentant and his mind is renewed in Christ. The Man of course is Jesus Christ or Yehoshuah which translated means Yehovah the Savior. This is why the Son could say "If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father."

    Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I Am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, if not through Me.

    Joh 14:7 If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also: and from now ye know Him, and have seen Him."

    Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

    Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

    Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I Am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak, I speak not from Myself, but the Father That dwelleth in Me speaketh them, and His works that I do, I do not from Myself, but the Father That dwelleth in Me doeth them.

    Joh 14:11 Believe Me that I Am in the Father, and the Father in Me: or else believe Me on account of the works themselves.


    Of course the COMMON LAW comes from Scripture. Any student will verify that fact.

    Let me see if I can do the work for those who lack the manuscripts. See attached. Now it is time to go play in the snow.

    Shalom,
    MJ

    P.S. If you understand the Mystery of the Ages then you will see you look today like you looked then. But we see the Angels are always shown to be young and youthful.

    P.S.S. Open says Me.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-29-14 at 05:06 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!

  8. #58
    Keep them coming MJ. To read about the simple changes that took place in England is to understand very clearly how very much the role of money has been perverted in modern times. Lewis channels Adam Smith, David Ricardo and other Classical thinkers in reminding readers that money is not wealth, rather it’s the measuring stick that we use to express the actual wealth we’re exchanging. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamn...e-should-read/

  9. #59
    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
    Keep them coming MJ. To read about the simple changes that took place in England is to understand very clearly how very much the role of money has been perverted in modern times. Lewis channels Adam Smith, David Ricardo and other Classical thinkers in reminding readers that money is not wealth, rather it’s the measuring stick that we use to express the actual wealth we’re exchanging. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamn...e-should-read/
    In my opinion, money with images upon it, is a direct offense to Yehovah Elohim. It is a breaking of the Covenant. The measure was substance in terms of weight. We see in the word not to have unfair BALANCES:

    Deu 25:13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
    Deu 25:14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
    Deu 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened on the soil which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
    Deu 25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

    and

    Pro 11:1 False balances is abomination to the LORD: But a just weight is His delight.


    They were weighing substance from the Earth. And this is right for it acknowledges the Sovereign nature of Yehovah.

    Today money has all sorts of Images upon it. And we are commanded in the "wedding vows" or Trust Agreement - do not make graven images. You say but we don't worship money, right? Well that is just about to make me laugh out loud. Worthless pieces of papers with images of demi-gods upon it and the people all place their trust in paper. This is ultimately a false balance. But we recognize the operation of law from whence those papers came and being not of the world but in the world, we make a use out of necessity.

    This is why John the Baptist ate honey and locusts - a meager existence - so that he would learn to hate the evil and love the good. I was teaching my son yesterday about paper and images and I asked him if he would accept a blank piece of paper for money. he said no. I asked why not - it is paper just like this note. He had no answer. I will wait on him for his answer and not command him that it IS money. I often learn quite a bit from my children.

    They do not carry years of programming and they have a way of cutting thru the crap and seeing the simple truth. Money exists ONLY IN TRUST. There must exist TRUST for any relationship to exist. So if i hand you an IOU do you trust me that I will make good? Or do you require a Rich Man - Fed Government - to underwrite our commerce? What is that rich man is now a pauper?

    See that the Fed Government needs money to handle its affairs. It trades government bonds with a private bank whereby the private bank issues notes into circulation. Those notes can expand as the people continue to make their use. But in making their use, they increase the IOU. See that those notes REPRESENT an IOU. And the surety for those notes are those government bonds. Those notes even issue with an interest rate of return.

    The entire system is constructed for slavery. But it is easy to beat the serpent at his own game. Just stay out of debt. Live simple and quiet lives.

    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!

  10. #60
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Back on Topic. The question arises in who named the Thing. Mom and Dad named me - but the State gave me a Legal Name.

    Gen 5:1 This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created the man, in the likeness of God made He him;

    Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

    notice in v.1 the term "made He him" but in v2 we see "they were created". Seems like a ridiculous observation until you check the manuscripts:

    made (H6213)

    aw-saw'
    A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.


    created (H1254 )

    bara?'
    baw-raw'
    A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).


    Gen 5:1 This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created the man, in the likeness of God appointed He him;

    Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

    They were called "mankind". But we see that the 1st Adam [son of God] named his wife. Interesting, yes? When did he name her? AFTER THE BREACH OF TRUST. They disobeyed the first giving of the Law. They were now Outlaws. Naked in regard to their God.

    Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all who should live after her.


    Eve = Hebrew. Chavvah = Life, Life-spring. Showing that he believed God. ==> She would bring forth the Man Child - 2nd Adam - Jesus Christ. She carries the holy set apart seed [DNA].


    Ezra 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.





    Where did the Man receive a name? I am still looking for that name? But we see their [The Man and The Woman's] offspring [generations or heirs] were ALL named. A name therefore is a PERSON for it cannot and is not the man or woman but only a legal fiction that helps to identify the man or woman.

    But IDENTITY is not the same as BEING.

    Therefore all inherit in Adam/Eve in Persona which is but a mere fabrication. But those who inherit in Christ - receive Being which is real. For those who come to the Father, thru the Son may call themselves Sons of God and these share in the throne of Yehoshuah.

    Heb 2:10 For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

    Heb 2:11 For both He That sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of God: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

    Heb 2:17 Wherefore according to all things it behoved Him to be made like to His brethren, in order that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

    G3666 - made

    homoioo?
    hom-oy-o'-o
    From G3664; to assimilate, that is, compare; passively to become similar: - be (make) like, (in the) liken (-ess), resemble.


    Shalom,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-29-14 at 09:53 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!

Posting Permissions

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