can you prove your identity?

[motla68]

Is the name the real issue in regards to separating oneself from the state. It would seem that presumption that you are somehow fall under their jurisdiction would seem to be the issue. MJ has already shown that silence is not the answer they will just give you a new name ie. John Doe and proceed with the prosecution. Many have stated that to claim the name is a trespass and hence you are guilty for using the name. But this does not seem to be the bottom line for is John Doe guilty of the trespass. No. So it would seem that the name is not the linch pin holding there case against you together. FB.

Sorry off topic. So I guess we must concede that MJ statement is true. we cannot prove our identity.

I have found it to be solved by a simple phrase so far: " I do not consent to be recognized by that name ". Unless they have literally branded your body how could they prove consent otherwise without wet ink signatures of your " mark " or a certified copy thereof?

I have a right to self determination as my mind changes learning more without needing approval of a piece of paper telling me otherwise.
The COLB is recording when we were a child, well, we are no longer children anymore.

[Michael Joseph]

Is the name the real issue in regards to separating oneself from the state. It would seem that presumption that you are somehow fall under their jurisdiction would seem to be the issue. MJ has already shown that silence is not the answer they will just give you a new name ie. John Doe and proceed with the prosecution. Many have stated that to claim the name is a trespass and hence you are guilty for using the name. But this does not seem to be the bottom line for is John Doe guilty of the trespass. No. So it would seem that the name is not the linch pin holding there case against you together. FB.

Sorry off topic. So I guess we must concede that MJ statement is true. we cannot prove our identity.

Thank you for that - the thread is not about separation it is about Identity.

[Michael Joseph]

I have found it to be solved by a simple phrase so far: " I do not consent to be recognized by that name ". Unless they have literally branded your body how could they prove consent otherwise without wet ink signatures of your " mark " or a certified copy thereof?

I have a right to self determination as my mind changes learning more without needing approval of a piece of paper telling me otherwise.
The COLB is recording when we were a child, well, we are no longer children anymore.

Please continue Motla68 as you are leaving out a HuGE chunk. Your statement is Vague at best. A name CANNOT identify a man. That is an impossibility - so I refuse to be identified by that name is absurd and the judge knows it. So does anyone else who has even taken a moment to consider identity. Yet, i guess that statement does show your intent to "self govern".

Therefore each man and groupings of men [State or Corporations] are left with Trust. Implied or Express.

So you handle certain papers - how did you get them? Why did you get them? I can already hear the Civilians roar - by Necessity. Get used to the conflict is all I got to say; but I digress; those papers DO NOT identify a man - they identify a man's Person. And this concept is probably at least 5500 years old or older. Yet the concept of the Person is recorded by the writer of the Great Book of Job.

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man

The Right of Self Determination has nothing to do with Identity. Control is established to resolve this problem thru State - man ACCEPTS the position IN Cestui Que Vie Trust and thus also accepts being Governed.

I say michael joseph, am I, yet I cannot prove it. Will you trust me that I am an honest man? Or do you need a second witness?

[John Booth]

"As such, when asked a question from an Attorney that I do not like - my response - I have no trust in you. They get it. Why others can't see it, is beyond me."

that is a brilliant example. I see it.

You say and act in concert with who you are, and display your identity. It cannot be duplicated.

What can be repeated though, is the opportunity to engage again in circumstances of your liking and control due to the recognition of where your trust is.

Thank you for this thread, identity is a fundamental tautology in this arena. And if your first principle is flawed then all heck breaks out.

[Michael Joseph]

"As such, when asked a question from an Attorney that I do not like - my response - I have no trust in you. They get it. Why others can't see it, is beyond me."

that is a brilliant example. I see it.

You say and act in concert with who you are, and display your identity. It cannot be duplicated.

What can be repeated though, is the opportunity to engage again in circumstances of your liking and control due to the recognition of where your trust is.

Thank you for this thread, identity is a fundamental tautology in this arena. And if your first principle is flawed then all heck breaks out.

Thank you John Booth I am happy to see that someone has finally expressed back to me what I was trying to hard to show. I had to park a lot of tradition at the door before I could see this simple truth. Identity goes to Foundation - if you house is on sand and you think some sort of "name" builds your identity - well there you go. Enjoy that. I used to think the same way. But not anymore.

In the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I remain. Which is a WAY OF LIFE.


shalom

P.S. Why do I know that simple expression works? Heheh. I have had it used on me three times now by Attorneys. So I took notice of its power and started to dig to comprehend its meaning and now I have it and it is mine. "I have no trust in you" simply means: "I do not desire a relationship with you, and I do not have a relationship with you; and, stop talking to me."

If we continue in discourse well then, that is an implied trust - isn't it? It is so simple.

[David Merrill]

The COLB is recording when we were a child, well, we are no longer children anymore.

I don't remember it getting like this in high school. Well, before I mentioned it anyway. That is as interesting to me; how immature it seemed before I mentioned it all sounded immature, trying to sound profound or whatever - space each other out for a moment! Then we got right into the heart of it - identity.

This author - Joseph VINING really has a way with words. I think we need to look at a few pages from his apology to help understand what John Booth said:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1...ngpreface1.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7...ngpreface2.jpg


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2...gstanding1.jpg
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4...gstanding2.jpg
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/215...gstanding3.jpg

When using the Person, then you can have the positive ID. Interestingly, when you lose the Person, your cause becomes a Class Action, according to VINING. Our Cause all blends together, like what MJ is saying - quite lucidly too. Without our identity, we are just the same generic cause - eat, sleep and excrete. If we don't do that the invariable result is death. Our common cause is to stay alive.

It is a great book but the concluding chapters - that is what I heard the book is about. So it is an apology for what MJ is saying, written from the attorney/court side of the whole issue of identity; Legal Identity - The Coming of Age of Public Law.

[motla68]

Please continue Motla68 as you are leaving out a HuGE chunk. Your statement is Vague at best. A name CANNOT identify a man. That is an impossibility - so I refuse to be identified by that name is absurd and the judge knows it. So does anyone else who has even taken a moment to consider identity. Yet, i guess that statement does show your intent to "self govern".

Therefore each man and groupings of men [State or Corporations] are left with Trust. Implied or Express.

So you handle certain papers - how did you get them? Why did you get them? I can already hear the Civilians roar - by Necessity. Get used to the conflict is all I got to say; but I digress; those papers DO NOT identify a man - they identify a man's Person. And this concept is probably at least 5500 years old or older. Yet the concept of the Person is recorded by the writer of the Great Book of Job.

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man

The Right of Self Determination has nothing to do with Identity. Control is established to resolve this problem thru State - man ACCEPTS the position IN Cestui Que Vie Trust and thus also accepts being Governed.

I say michael joseph, am I, yet I cannot prove it. Will you trust me that I am an honest man? Or do you need a second witness?

Is it really that I left something out OR is it that you do not "trust" that it can be that simple? The rest is you fill in the blank what you give permission to be called, friend, envoy, living soul, take your pick. I should not have to think for people on every post like this. If that is the case it is not a brain trust, it is a paper trust or the silver platter trust. People have to be left there to make their own connections sometimes or else how does anyone ever learn? - teach them to Learn how to self teach. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for life, is that not technically how it should go morally speaking? [ self govern so that we do not need a nanny government outside ourselves ]

Offers of labels are given to us everyday, when your children call you Dad, could you not rebut the mistake of that and give permission to be called father?
A man should be able to think on their feet without a piece of paper giving them approval to do so.

Thank you for adding that verse by the way. Check out / deconstruct flattering, it may or may not be a surprise to you.

[motla68]

I don't remember it getting like this in high school. Well, before I mentioned it anyway. That is as interesting to me; how immature it seemed before I mentioned it all sounded immature, trying to sound profound or whatever - space each other out for a moment! Then we got right into the heart of it - identity.

This author - Joseph VINING really has a way with words. I think we need to look at a few pages from his apology to help understand what John Booth said:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1...ngpreface1.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7...ngpreface2.jpg


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2...gstanding1.jpg
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4...gstanding2.jpg
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/215...gstanding3.jpg

When using the Person, then you can have the positive ID. Interestingly, when you lose the Person, your cause becomes a Class Action, according to VINING. Our Cause all blends together, like what MJ is saying - quite lucidly too. Without our identity, we are just the same generic cause - eat, sleep and excrete. If we don't do that the invariable result is death. Our common cause is to stay alive.

It is a great book but the concluding chapters - that is what I heard the book is about. So it is an apology for what MJ is saying, written from the attorney/court side of the whole issue of identity; Legal Identity - The Coming of Age of Public Law.

Yes, you are on the right track with this. Soon I will be putting up a new thread with a slight parallel path to this thought, but instead of Class Action it is more like Probate, returning the instrument with name to the source for indemnification. Now to get this straight I am not talking about an account somewhere funds are pulled from, talking about a forgiveness of debt here.
Stay Tuned!

[Michael Joseph]

Is it really that I left something out OR is it that you do not "trust" that it can be that simple? The rest is you fill in the blank what you give permission to be called, friend, envoy, living soul, take your pick. I should not have to think for people on every post like this. If that is the case it is not a brain trust, it is a paper trust or the silver platter trust. People have to be left there to make their own connections sometimes or else how does anyone ever learn? - teach them to Learn how to self teach. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for life, is that not technically how it should go morally speaking? [ self govern so that we do not need a nanny government outside ourselves ]

Offers of labels are given to us everyday, when your children call you Dad, could you not rebut the mistake of that and give permission to be called father?
A man should be able to think on their feet without a piece of paper giving them approval to do so.

Thank you for adding that verse by the way. Check out / deconstruct flattering, it may or may not be a surprise to you.

This is what I mean by the rest of the story. You leave the novice just dangling. Remember there will be many who will read this thread some time down the road...experience levels differ.

Yet you say " I do not consent to be recognized by that name ". But you fail to state the operation of thought construct that allows you to make that statement. I know I am making a demand upon you, so be it. Not for my edification but for the newbie?

I mean the newbie probably carries all sorts of chattels that carry that NAME. And I for one know it takes much study to even see the construct. I tried my best to describe it the other day to a woman. I was just happy with myself for the analogy that was given me. I was rolling along thinking "man this is really good; of course she must see" - only to look up and see the look on her face - total confusion.

shalom,
mj

[motla68]

This is what I mean by the rest of the story. You leave the novice just dangling. Remember there will be many who will read this thread some time down the road...experience levels differ.

Yet you say " I do not consent to be recognized by that name ". But you fail to state the operation of thought construct that allows you to make that statement. I know I am making a demand upon you, so be it. Not for my edification but for the newbie?

I mean the newbie probably carries all sorts of chattels that carry that NAME. And I for one know it takes much study to even see the construct. I tried my best to describe it the other day to a woman. I was just happy with myself for the analogy that was given me. I was rolling along thinking "man this is really good; of course she must see" - only to look up and see the look on her face - total confusion.

shalom,
mj

For the benefit of all I give this to be a permanent link for the forum:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...=1201#post1201