Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 165

Thread: What's in a NAME?

  1. #81
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Salsero, etc. are ALL fictions!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    =====

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

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

    Therefore dear reader a name is a Person.


    Shalom,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-31-14 at 02:33 AM.
    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!

  2. #82
    I did not write the following; however, I think it speaks to the issue at hand. The man who wrote this has accomplished remedy because he does what he says and is consistent.

    ================================================== ================================================== ============================
    Thomas Jefferson



    "The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, .....



    'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' . . .."



    "That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead;



    This here would seem to explain why the word "usufruct" is so powerful when spoken in the courts where it has an effect equal to that of a priest throwing holy water on a demon or that equal to garlic or a cross being put before a vampire.



    The word "usufruct" itself pertains solely to the LIVING and NOT to the DEAD! And the courts can only see and recognize the DEAD, such as artificial entities like "persons."



    I have had a few people say that what I have done by recording the release of claim and interest to the name and having unconditionally surrendered all claims and interest to the United States as usufructary, that they believe I have actually given up my right to my estate.



    Well there are two flaws in their belief.



    One, they seem to believe that the State can somehow magically hold your living estate in trust. The State is merely a fiction and no fiction can hold nor control anything that is real pertaining to anything that is life and living. It can only hold what is also just fiction. What I am saying here is that any interests being held by the Name Estate is all just artificial property that was created on paper that has no real attachment to anything that is real. That paper merely gives an illusion as if attaches to real property. The only attachment between fiction and reality is merely one's own belief that comes from their mind, but is not reality. So in this respect I gave up nothing that exist within the living world. I merely surrendered all claims and interest in what only exist within the DEAD world that pertains solely to anything that is artificial, and not real!



    Two, let us just ASSUME here that the State which is a fiction actually could hold anything real that pertains to the living where the State could hold that in a trust, such as the artificial entity Name Estate? Even "IF" this could be the case I still did not give up anything real pertaining to the real world that was given to me by the Creator as might right of dominion over it. The key word these few people appear to miss here is "usufructary."



    The surrender to everything was made to the United States as USUFRUCTARY, which means even "IF" that artificial entity could hold my real living estate in trust, this surrender only establishes the United States as being the entity holding everything in trust where that entity is the usufructary that is liable for settling all claims and dues on behalf of that Name Estate where it is merely acknowledged that everything is held in trust by the United States and that entity is the usufructary responsible for settling everything out of that estate.



    It would be equal to the same thing as what the signatories on the Declaration of Independence did where they all pledged everything into that trust. By unconditionally surrendering all to the United States as USUFRUCTARY you have pledged everything into that trust to be held in that Name Estate where by everything being pledged into that entity all claims must be settled out of that estate by a trustee of that estate which can only be a "public/State Official" serving the State as an elected or appointed official or an authorized employee of any agency of that government entity.



    So either way the result remains the same where everything whether real or artificial is all pledged into that trust where nothing is claimed by me as being mine where I cannot be held liable for that Name I use.













    Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution, The Stewardship Doctrine:

    II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their Contemporaries

    B. Generational Sovereignty and the Land – The Earth as Tenancy-in-Common - Thomas Jefferson's Usufruct


    The most succinct, systematic treatment of intergenerational principles left to us by the founders is that which was provided by Thomas Jefferson in his famous September 6,1789 letter to James Madison. f116 The letter was Jefferson's final installment in a two year correspondence with Madison on the proposed Bill of Rights. f117 Given the importance of this letter as background material for the bill of rights, f118 and its independent value as a brilliant statement of intergenerational equity principles, it serves as the natural starting point for a discussion of the founders' views on specific intergenerational issues.

    Jefferson begins his letter by asserting that:

    "The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' . . .." f119

    Since Jefferson explicitly bases his entire philosophy regarding generational relations upon this "self-evident" principle, f120 it behooves us to examine closely the precise language employed to express the principle. Of most importance is the single word: usufruct.

    The legal concept of usufruct can be traced back at least as far as ancient Roman law f121 and has changed little over the centuries. In Jefferson's time, as now, "usufruct" referred to "the right to make all the use and profit of a thing that can be made without injuring the substance of the thing itself." f122 It was a term used to describe the rights and responsibilities of tenants, trustees, or other parties temporarily entrusted with the use of an asset -- usually land. f123

    Under the common law, the doctrine of usufruct is closely conjoined with the doctrine prohibiting waste, defined by Blackstone as "a spoil or destruction in houses, gardens, trees, or other corporeal hereditaments, to the disheison of him that hath the remainder or reversion." f124 Taken together, these two doctrines provide that a tenant (or other caretaker / interest holder) is entitled to the beneficial use of the land and its fruits, but is prohibited from prejudicing future interest bearers by using the land in a way that destroys or impairs its essential character or long term productivity. f125

    Jefferson's philosophy that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living at least partially reiterates the biblical/Lockean paradigm of the earth as intergenerational commons, the fruits and benefits of which should be accessible to every member of every generation. f126 He takes the position that no landholder has a natural right to control the land or dispose of it after his or her death. The land is entailed to the larger society; it reverts to the larger society upon the holder's death. Society may choose to pass the land on to beneficiaries or assignees chosen by the original landholder, but there is nothing in natural law which requires this. "By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or moveable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it." f127

    Society, as trustee of the earth, reasonably expects the natural estate to be returned undiminished at the end of each landholder's tenure. Jefferson maintains that each individual, and each generation collectively, has the obligation to pass on his, her, or its natural estate undiminished and unencumbered to later generations:

    "... [N]o man can by natural right, oblige lands he occupied... to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead rather than the living, which would be the reverse of our principal. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." f128

    For Jefferson, "eating up the usufruct" means extinguishing the next generation's ability to share equitably in the benefits of a natural resource. No individual or society has authority to cause such extinction, whatever personal or collective rights they may allege. f129


    it continues

  3. #83
    from: The Stewardship Doctrine:
    Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution

    Footnotes:

    113 See Schlickeisen, Rodger. "Protecting Biodiversity for Future Generations: An Argument for a Constitutional Amendment," 8 Tulane Environmental Law Journal (1994) 181, 201 ("It was. . . impossible for the drafters of the Constitution to anticipate that within a mere two centuries an exploding population with incredible nature-devouring technology would fundamentally threaten the future welfare of the nation.") Accord, Jim Gardner, "Discrimination Against Future Generations: The Possibility of Constitutional Limitation," 9 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 29 (1978) 46. But see Worster, Nature's Economy 47-50 (discussing John Bruckner's A Philosophical Survey of the Animal Creation (1768) (in which he warns that transformation of the American Wilderness was breaking the "web of life" and "the whole plan of Providence"); Rev Nicholas Collin, "An Essay on Those Inquiries in Natural Philosophy, which are at present Most Beneficial," 3 Transaction of the American Philosophical Society 24 (1793) (requesting the American Philosophical Society to support the protection of little-known birds, apparently on the verge of extinction, until naturalists could discover "what part is assigned to them in the oeconomy of nature.") Jefferson was elected into the Society on Benjamin Franklin's motion in 1786. Benjamin Franklin to Jefferson (October 8, 1786) Boyd at X: 437.



    114 Burke, Bobbs-Merrill p. 108 (". . . [O]ne of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated is, lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters, that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the inheritance by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of society, hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of a habitation . . ..").





    115 Jonathan Shipley, A Speech Intended to Have Been Spoken by the Bishop of St Asaph . . . (1774), in Paul H. Smith, comp., English Defenders of American Freedoms, 1774-1778: Six Pamphlets Attacking British Policy (Washington, D.C., 1972), 40. Re Shipley's relations with Franklin, see Carl Van Dopren, Benjamin Franklin (New York, 1938) 413-17, 481-82, 717.




    116 Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789, Boyd XV, 392-98. The letter has been extensively studied by Jefferson scholars; I make no attempt to fully recapitulate that scholarship in this article. Some of the better known treatments include: Koch at 62-96 (Ch. 4 - "The Earth Belongs to the Living"); Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York, 1968) 77-86; Mayer, David N. THE CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville, 1994) 302-308 "The Earth Belongs to the Living"; Peterson, Merrill, "Thomas Jefferson's 'Sovereignty of the Living Generation,' Virginia Quarterly Review 52 (1976) 437-44 and "Thomas Jefferson, The Founders, and Constitutional Change," in J. Jackson Barlow et al., eds., The American Founding: Essays on the Formation of the Constitution (Westport, Conn., 1988), 275-93; Garry Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (Garden City, N.Y., 1978) 132-48; Stanley N. Katz, "Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America," Journal of Law and Economics 14 (1976) 467-88, "Republicanism and the Law of Inheritance in the American Revolutionary Era," Michigan Law Review 76 (1977) 1-29; and Charles A. Miller, Jefferson and Nature: An Interpretation (Baltimore, 1988), chap. 5, esp. 161-64.



    117 See also TJ to Madison, 20 Dec. 1787, 31 July, 18 Nov. 1788, 15 Mar., 28 Aug. 1789, in Boyd at 12:439-43; 13:442-43; 14:188-89, 159-61; 15:367-68. Jefferson's interest in intergenerational equity at this time was inspired in part by a conversation which took place between himself, Thomas Paine and the Marquis de LaFayette in February, 1788 - a conversation prompted by James Wilson's arguments in the Pennsylvania ratification convention disputing the need for a bill of rights. Sloan? Koch? P. 82-83.


    118 Jefferson's letter was written just a few weeks before Congress passed the Bill of Rights -- approximately two years before the Bill of Rights was fully ratified by the states. See Ellis p. 123-25 (describing Jefferson's influential role as bill of rights proponent).


    119 Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. 63 (emphasis in original).



    120 The reference to intergenerational rights as "self-evident" recalls the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .." Jefferson would continue for the remainder of his life to characterize intergenerational obligations in this way. See Jefferson to Thomas Earle, September 24, 1823 ("That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; . . . that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another . . . . these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer").



    121 See, e.g. W. Hamilton Bryson, "The Use of Roman Law in Virginia Courts," 28 American Journal of Legal History (1984): 135-46; Sloan , p. 82 ("Like a trusted family counselor, Jefferson drew up a deed of settlement ensuring future generations the right to benefit from the common property, and the means he employed . . . was familiar doctrine to eighteenth-century Anglo-American lawyers.")



    122 Sir Robert Chambers, A Course of Lectures on the English Law, Delivered at the University of Oxford, 1767-1773, ed. Thomas M. Curley, 2 vols. [Madison, Wis., 1986], 2:85.


    it continues

  4. #84
    123 By using the terminology of tenancies to describe the relations between generations, Jefferson endorses a metaphor at least as old as the Old Testament. See Part I-A-2, above. In later writings, Jefferson explicates and embellishes this landlord-tenant analogy. See, e.g. TJ to John W. Eppes, Monticello, June 24, 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson vol. XIII, 269-270 ("Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. . . . . [T]he case may be likened to the ordinary one of a tenant for life, who may hypothecate the land for his debts, during the continuance of his usufruct; but at his death, the reversioner (who is also for life only) receives it exonerated from all burthen.").



    124 2 Blackstone, COMMENTARIES at 281.



    125 The legal doctrine of usufruct/waste bears strong resemblance to Locke's prohibition against spoilage or destruction of "the fruits of nature." See Locke, Second Treatise, 31 and 46 and Part , above. It seems likely that Locke based his prohibitions, at least in part, upon these accepted legal doctrines.



    126 See Part I-A-2 (on the biblical doctrine); Part I-A-5-Locke-2 (on Locke's views).



    127 TJ to McPherson (13 Aug. 1813) LofA, 1291; See Koch, Jefferson and Madison, 64 (paraphrasing Jefferson's views on natural law and the land: "The portion of the earth occupied by any man ceases to be his with his death, and reverts to society.") Compare Blackstone, Commentaries, 2:3 10, 11, 12 (once a proprietor dies, "he ceases to have any dominion: else, if he had a right to dispose of his acquisitions one moment beyond his life, he would also have a right to direct their disposal for a million of ages after him; which would be highly absurd and inconvenient. . . . [Inheritance then is] clearly a political, establishment; since the permanent right of property, vested in the ancestor himself, was no natural, but merely a civil, right"); Lord Kames [Henry Hume], Essays upon Several Subjects Concerning British Antiquities . . . , 3d ed. (Edinburgh, 1763), 130 n. *, 144 ("in early times property was not much distinguished from what is now called usufruct").



    128 TJ to Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. , at (emphasis added). See also TJ to Thomas Earle, September 24, 1823, L and B 15:470-71 (declaring, "That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; . . . that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, . . . . . [T]hese are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer . . ."). Herbert Sloan, while apparently disapproving Jefferson's convictions, characterizes them accurately: "The earth may belong to the living, but the living enjoy only its usufruct, only its current product. That qualification is critical, for it forbids the living generation to commit waste, and thus each generation becomes a mere tenant for life, empowered only to enjoy the fruits of the estate, not to dispose of it in its entirety. . . . [E]ach generation will serve as a custodian charged with the duty of passing on intact what it receives from its predecessors. The impression such a project creates is decidedly conservative. . . His answer is to . . . husband existing resources." Sloan, Principles and Interest, 60. In his assertion that the rights of the collective society cannot exceed those of constituent individuals, Jefferson may have been influenced by Locke, Second Treatise, 135.



    129 The practical problem which Jefferson addresses in this passage is actually that of long-term national debt. However, the starting point for his analysis is the idea (axiomatic to Jefferson) that the creation of natural resource inequities is illegitimate and unsupportable.



    130 Jefferson was not very different from his contemporaries in this respect. The founders, who for the most part did not live their lives sheltered in cities or suburbs; tended to be more attuned than their modern counterparts to the land and its health. One commentator notes that "Like most of the 95 percent of Americans who, according to the census of 1790, lived in "rural territory," Jefferson depended directly on the land for his livelihood. . .." Miller, Charles A. Jefferson and Nature: An Interpretation (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: 1988) 13.



    131 TJ to Eppes, 269-270



    132 As evidence of Jefferson's special concern for long-term soil productivity, see his Commonplace book pp. 166-67 (criticizing tobacco plantations because "Little food of any kind is raised by them; so that the men and animals on these farms are badly fed and the earth is rapidly impoverished" and contrasting them with wheat farms -- praised by Jefferson for "cloathing the earth with herbage, and preserving its fertility"); and Jefferson to Lafayette, April 11, 1787, THE PORTABLE THOMAS JEFFERSON 421-23 (recommending composting practices -- and long-term agricultural leases which would reward such practices - for the improvement of the soil quality and agricultural productivity of France).

    133

    134



    135 TJ to Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. , at (emphasis supplied). Compare Algernon Sidney, DISCOURSES CONCERNING GOVERNMENT (London, 1698) ch III, sec 29, pp. 391-392 ("The king was never master of the soil . . . [N]o man can give what he has not. Whoever therefore will pretend, that the king has bestowed this propriety, must prove, that he had it in himself"); Clark Wolff, "Contemporary Property Rights, Lockean Provisos, . . ." 810-814 (" If the right to destroy or degrade such resources could not legitimately have been acquired or transferred, then it cannot now be legitimately claimed.")




    136 See Browers, Michaelle L., "Jefferson's Land Ethic: Environmental Ideas in Notes on the State of Virginia," 21 Environmental Ethics 43 (1999) 43 (stressing "Jefferson's conception of the intimate relationship between the natural and political constitution of America and his vindication of both"); id. at 54 ("Jefferson's ethic regarding how one should behave toward property/land also embodies an ethic regarding how one should act toward nature. To spoil or waste any part of God's creation is a sin. Our covenant with nature is both an obligation to use our natural resources well and to protect it in the sense of not destroying it in a wantonly or wasteful manner. We must improve the land because our virtue as a people depends to a large extent upon the relationship between citizens and the land."); id. at 57 ("Jefferson [offers] an environmental vision that combines conservationism and a notion of responsible stewardship . . ..")



    137 See Part I, infra; Sloan, Principles and Interest . . ., 75 ("Jefferson's 6 September 1789 letter said nothing about the nature of inheritance that had not been said before. The notion that the earth belonged to the living was thus anything but novel in the late eighteenth century. In fact, its roots can be traced to the Christian Middle Ages.")(citing Janet Coleman, "Property and Poverty," J.H. Burns, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c. 350-c.1450 (Cambridge, 1988), 617-25, 643-46.)



    138 See Blackstone, Commentaries, 2:3 ("The earth therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, exclusive of other beings, from the immediate gift of the creator.") See also Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 396 ("It is wrong to say that God made Rich and Poor; he made only Male and Female; and he gave them the earth for their inheritance"); Herbert Sloan, Principles and Interest, 75 (mentioning that the earth-as-commons theme played a significant role in the political theory of Locke, Sidney, Thomas Spence, William Ogilvie, William Paley, and Paine.)



    139 James Madison to Jefferson, February 4, 1790, Boyd XVI, 131-34; Koch 16:147-49; Smith, I: 650, 652-53 ("Our hemisphere must be still more enlightened before many of the sublime truths which are seen thro' the medium of Philosophy, become visible to the naked eye of the ordinary Politician.")


    140 Id. at 650. See also Madison to Jefferson, Feb 14, 1790, Smith, I: 653-54 (referencing "so great an idea as that explained in your letter of September.")



    141 Sloan, PRINCIPLES AND INTEREST at 5.



    142 Lev. 26:14, 32, 35.

    143 Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 399 (emphasis in original).

    end

  5. #85
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    I will admit that the term USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation - and I have observed this first hand. I think it is clear that many folks can have a claim upon the same Thing. Meaning all claim of or in the Earth but none can trespass the other so these are mere overlays. Think Biology 101 - it starts with a skeleton then a liver, etc. Overlays exist upon a X,Y cartesian cordinate system [the earth] but the claim is on the Z axis. Each claim has a different Z coordinate so they are parallel and do not trespass. They Co-exist in theory anyways.

    Shalom,
    MJ
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-31-14 at 03:41 AM.
    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. #86

    yarash

    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".

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    I will admit that the term USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation
    No doubt USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation.

    So once you comprehend this and know that the Title/Name is not YOURS, and you know it is in fact held by the State/United States, and you refuse to CLAIM that Title/Name or any interest therein, you now leave the prosecutor or attorney holding the bag for all the liability for their having brought that CLAIM of reversionary interest in that Title/Name which IS property of the State/United States!
    Do you really want ATTORNEY AND CLIENT representation?

    C.J.S. Volume 7, Section 4: ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. "His/Her first duty is to the courts and the public, NOT to the CLIENT, and whenever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.".
    Now that's scary.

    Read that here, http://www.notacitizen.com/pipermail...ay/004843.html

    Remember the Credit River decision where an honest judge rules honestly on money matters now get this handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit River Township Hall? Now I am starting to see what a grad jury can accomplish.

    Americans no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property. Now how can this be?

    What's in a name? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ns-seabed.html

    Now this is deep.

    Power of the Grand Jury - In a stunning 6 to 3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, see United States -v- Williams. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...21#comment-221
    Last edited by Chex; 01-31-14 at 01:23 PM.

  8. #88
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    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.

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

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

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

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

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

    =====

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

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

    Therefore dear reader a name is a Person.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. #89
    [QUOTE=Chex;12864]No doubt USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation.

    Do you really want ATTORNEY AND CLIENT representation?



    Now that's scary.

    Read that here, http://www.notacitizen.com/pipermail...ay/004843.html

    AN attorney can only represent a person. An attorney CAN NOT represent a man. I am not sure you understood this part. An attorney's first duty is to the court, then the public, then the person. AS AN OFFICER of the court it is the attorney's oath and liability to protect the property of the US. Under CJS vol 7, vol 4, the man is considered a ward and a ward is a person. A person is property. And that property is owned by the state which the attorney is oath bound to protect. Do you see?

    The only thing you all are not comprehending - and I am trying to remove the brush from the path or our conditioning - because I too in the beginning I did not "get it" because it is against everything I was told or understood is the fact that if I CAN'T OWN THE NAME OR PROPERTY, ok what is the alternative? And this is where usufruct comes in.

    It is a a troubling feeling to know everything I worked for, a house, car, bank account, etc I CAN NOT OWN BY OPERATION OF LAW. The US is under state of emergency, we have all evidence of the finial on top of the flag, endless executive orders, the debt, Homeland security, NUMEROUS ATTORNEYS, IRS, courts system, the FRB, etc. THe Barry-kare law has ZERO to do with health care. It is not different then the SSA, medicare and now barry-kare, it has to do with the state attempting to rein or bring back those FRN. In Maryland there is a tax on roof rain water, please what do you think this is all about?

    Anyway guys, I know many of you are sincere with remedy, so I am going to CHALLENGE you all to at least take a look into what I am writing about. I had looked into the Tim Turner thing, moved on to UCC, Equity, Common Law, just about everything under the sun, this PEACEFUL INHABITANT process is the only thing that makes sense and works when you are consistent and BE a PI.

    I am not saying that common law or UCC, public policy or anything else is not good to have knowledge - it is excellent to have knowledge of this FOR THEM TO ADMINSTRATE THEIR PROPERTY. THEY ARE OATH BOUND RECEIVING A PAYCHECK TO PERFORM, we are just men who do not interfere with matters that do not concern us. Do you see?

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    i agree; this is precisely what i have been attempting to convey

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [cf. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation (that means in living voice with full liability), and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] (emphasis mine)
    Prove you are a party to the Constitution? I can prove you are not.
    The right of the people [fiction] to be secure in their persons [fictions] , supported by oath or affirmation [a piece of paper] .... and the persons or things to be seized. Are you a person? This applies to persons. If you a person, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

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

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

Posting Permissions

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