can you prove your identity?

[Treefarmer]

I accept that you are called Shuftin. I also accept your apology.

You show the point exactly. I must accept you or not - that is IF, and only IF, I desire a relationship. You can only give what you can give. I must either accept or reject.

But IF my office is within another trust construct, then I must accept with conditions. Said conditions being are you in that same trust structure. So we are not discussing man to man - rather trustee to trustee. For if man to man, the fact that we are having a conversation is an implied trust.

A lady a the Feast of Tabernacles hounded me last year with the simple question: Why won't you give me your last name? My simple response "do I know you?" Meaning, do we have an established Trust? Otherwise get lost.

--------------------------

So the issue of Identity cannot be resolved even with DNA for that testing is subject to man's weakness. And again relies on a third party for I cannot see my DNA.

So then will we both go on now to Beersheba and Seven ourselves at the "Well of Oaths". Will we state an oath before God, such that we call on God as our witness? That begs the question do we have faith in the same God? And that takes us back into Trust boundary.

For the Israelite identity was IN Yehovah their Elohim. And Yehovah expressly told Israel - Do things in my name!

But we seek relationships, right? So then we must have a foundation or a place where said relationships may be developed. And that place is Trust. I trust you or I don't trust you.

And therefore Identity is of little consequence as it is but a candle beside the Sun of Trust. For you cannot identify yourself, and I cannot identify you and as such, I weigh your offer and accept or reject.

To the closed boundary called Estate: Is it Legal or Illegal? Goes to Legal Title and Trustee.

-----------------------------------

Now if we go to Scripture we have our closed boundary - the truth in identity is made by two witnesses. But that truth is established according to the Moral Code - Bylaws of the Scripture Trust - "Thou shall not bear false witness." For we appeal to a higher power, the Creator.

Pro 21:28 A false witness shall perish: but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.

Pro 19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
Pro 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.

Pro 12:17 He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Lev 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

So we see that the Law of Scripture is manifest in the Creation. In other words, we have only but to watch the Created to know the Truth for God is the Judge and the Judgment for lying or falsehood will manifest before our eyes.

Example: Daniel and those princes that sought to place him in the Lions Den. They created a trap to ensnare Daniel to his death. Therefore when righteousness was established BY THE HAND OF GOD - the Lions mouths lay agape - the king rolled back the stone and ordered those princes into the Lions Den. For they sought to end Daniel's life in dishonesty, by laying a trap. Therefore in righteousness their lives and the lives of their wives and sons/daughters were cut off.

For just as all of the Seed is Abel was cut off by Cain, so too would have been the seed in Daniel. Therefore those princes paid with all of their seed [family].

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

There are two intercessors in heaven: The Holy Ghost and Yehoshuah.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself [herself] maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.


There are TWO witness in the Heavens that are watching our every word for out of our mouths come Oaths with Full Liability before God. Therefore one is compelled to be honest in their dealings - to speak the truth. For the Trust is not in man, but in God.

But man has sought to throw off the bands of God and place himself, as God, in the Temple.

Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.


And therefore Identity is of little consequence as it is but a candle beside the Sun of Trust. For you cannot identify yourself, and I cannot identify you and as such, I weigh your offer and accept or reject. And therefore the greatest of all is Love. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. Therein is no malice or deceit only fair balances and righteousness and equity. And therefore we identify as "sons of God" or "Trees of Righteousness".


in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I am michael joseph.

Very well spoken michael joseph.
Thank you.

[Darkcrusade]

JESUS F**king Christ. Did you not read my post at all??? You "Mo' Fo." You "PROVE IT." The burden of proof is upon YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

Me, myself and I???

I need not PROVE anything at all. The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

F**k I made a mistake of posting with such retards.

YOU = I???

I have no defense against such stupidity such as YOU = I!!!

Singh and Zingg, in recording the story of the well known feral child, Caspar Hauser, remark upon the effect of alcohol on his body when he was given a small quantity for the first time in his life at the age of about seventeen years. Caspar Hauser had been kept in a tiny dungeon in almost total darkness since infancy, without any human attention except the occasional washing of his body and cutting of his hair by an attendant whom he never saw because he was always drugged before receiving this minimum of personal attention. There is some reason to suppose that he may have been confined because he was a contender for some hereditary position which was being occupied illegally by one of his captors. Singh and Zingg observed: (153)

A certain person made the attempt to force some brandy upon him. Scarcely had the glass been brought to his lips when he turned pale, sank down, and would have fallen backwards against a glass door if he had not been instantly supported.

A few drops of beer made from malted wheat, though much diluted with water, gave him a violent pain in his stomach accompanied with so great a (sense of) heat that he was all over dripping with perspiration; which was succeeded by ague attended with headache and violent eructations (i.e. passing of wind).

It is significant that such a minute quantity of alcohol could have such a profound effect on his totally unaccustomed body. The effect of fermented grape juice on Eve's perfect body could conceivably have been even more dramatic and quite evident to Adam. Eve had no forebears to pass on to her the slightest measure of immunity to its poisoning effects, whereas Caspar Hauser's body had at least this much preparation that he was born of a line of forebears with centuries of experience of alcoholic beverages, even though he himself may never have touched it.

In his commentary on Genesis, Lange rejected the idea that there could be any analogy between the experience of Adam and of Noah though both "discovered" their nakedness as a consequence of ingesting a damaging substance. He wrote: "(It) does not justify us in concluding that (in Adam's case) it was a wine, but some other fruit perhaps, whose effect for the first man was too strong, being of an intoxicating or disturbing nature." *

* Lange, John Peter, Genesis: or The First Book of Moses, tr. Taylor Lewis, Grand Rapids, Zondervan reprint, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 245.

http://www.custance.org/old/seed/ch11s.html

Hate it when that happens. BAC.???

[Shuftin]

Hate it when that happens. BAC.???

My poison of choice is Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey straight [room temperature] with no ice. Unfortunately, when I drink malt liquor beer, I don't get drunk. I get absolutely stoned out of my gourd. Possible it is an allergic reaction, I don't know. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've brought horrible trouble on my head while being stoned on malt liquor. It took a while to make that association. Regular beer hardly effects me. Occasionally I still get stoned on malt liquor. I need to stay off the internet when I do.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

JESUS F**king Christ. Did you not read my post at all??? You "Mo' Fo." You "PROVE IT." The burden of proof is upon YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!!.

The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

Me, myself and I???

I need not PROVE anything at all. The burden of proof is upon YOU!!! Only YOU!!! And nobody else but YOU!!!.

F**k I made a mistake of posting with such retards.

YOU = I???

I have no defense against such stupidity such as YOU = I!!!

Thank You for that very succinct summation, brother Shuftin ...

[Chex]

MJ's quote "Would anyone here care to take up the argument of identity with me? I challenge anyone here to prove their identity.”

Maybe one can find themselves in here. Good Luck!

[David Merrill]

MJ's quote "Would anyone here care to take up the argument of identity with me? I challenge anyone here to prove their identity.”

Maybe one can find themselves in here. Good Luck!

Thanks for that link Chex!

My thoughts on identity self-amend with new information. I am think that I am an individual expression of God and the only identity that matters in the end is that. However my name David Merrill is my elemental expression of identity. Next comes a title VAN PELT to express lineage for heritage.

I think myself especially qualified to take up Michael Joseph's challenge after arguing this many times with a persecuting attorney mindset and even being jailed as the System forged the legal identity around me.

I am David Merrill.

What further proof do you need?

[Michael Joseph]

Thanks for that link Chex!

My thoughts on identity self-amend with new information. I am think that I am an individual expression of God and the only identity that matters in the end is that. However my name David Merrill is my elemental expression of identity. Next comes a title VAN PELT to express lineage for heritage.

I think myself especially qualified to take up Michael Joseph's challenge after arguing this many times with a persecuting attorney mindset and even being jailed as the System forged the legal identity around me.

I am David Merrill.

What further proof do you need?

Hereinafter The TERM "you" or "your" means The Forum Participants.

Consider the "mindset" of almost ALL of the respondents to this thread - that of a DEFENDANT. Why is that? Consider now if the tables are turned and you a prosecuting an action? How now will you establish identity upon someone who defends by such means? Will you label an office, such as Defendant and await someone to show up? How will you be sure you are not dealing with one who has come to "cloud" the proceeding? Will you use force? If so, how can you be sure you are right?

The Answer lies in the ACTIONS of the one before you which IMPLIES their TRUST.

When I used to run a Civil Engineering Firm, I would from time to time hold pre-construction meetings. Invariably such that the meeting had order, I would ask each man to state his Name and his Role. Because I don't give a [insert language here] what you call yourself, I want to know your Title and your Office. Title and Office go to Role in the Drama. In the foregoing, your identity to me is of little concern. Because I am concerned about the OFFICE and ROLE. For if you claim to be Surveyor, I am going to get upset if you act as an Engineer! See now the workaround the IMPOSSIBILITY of full assurance of Identity?

If you think that you can form an argument, in Logic, such that I may with complete assurance know you are the Prosecutor, [or you may know, I am the Prosecutor] each and every time I am compelled to answer to you [or you are compelled to answer to me], then I await the responses. Perhaps there is a genius in our mix who will solve this Ageless problem.

Shalom,
mj

[Shuftin]

This is a cut-n-paste from another website.

Re: Booked as "John Doe"
by Shuftin » December 9th, 2011, 2:16 am

I am unfamiliar with the Stop & Identify law, or what might be the Law of the Street in LA
it is unlawful to arrest someone simply to ID them in many States.

I just did an independent study of this subject in the Georgia Statutes a month or so back. Damned if I DID NOT keep notes, oh well. So from memory, for now.

Police officer: "I need to 'Identify' you." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem. But to the Georgia Statutes I went. Yes, a Person is required to "Identify" himself/herself upon demand. But still!!! A police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem. Back to the topic. To "Identify" yourself means just that, to "Identify" yourself. How does one "Identify" oneself? Easy. "I am the owner of this house," "I am the owner of this business," "I am the owner of this car," etc., etc., etc., "I am your worst nightmare," etc., etc., etc. Pursuant to Georgia Statute, you have just "Identified" yourself. To "Identify" yourself pursuant to Statute does not require a Christian "Name" composed of a first middle and last name.

Police officer: "I need to know your 'Name'." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem. But to the Georgia Statutes I went. The term "Name" is listed 2,514 times in the Georgia Statutes. Of these 2,514 times that the term "Name" is listed in the Georgia Statutes, not once was it spelled out that a "Name" is composed of a first middle and last name. Whenever the term "Name" is used in the Statutes, it is listed as "A Name", "The Name", or "His/Her Name," always in the singular. This is why I was conducting this independent study. My singular "Name" is Shuftin, should I choose to give it.

And by the way. A "Name" need not be given unless a citation is written. A citation needs be applied to a "Name." Meaning??? No citation, no "Name" required.

Hopefully I will inspire others to conduct their own independent research into their own respective State Statutes on this subject.

Police officer: "I need you to roll down your window." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need to see your ID." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to step out of your vehicle." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to step to the back of the vehicle'." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to empty out your pockets." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to turn around." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.
Police officer: "I need you to put your hands behind your back." First of all, a police officers "NEEDS" are not your problem, no more than a crackheads "NEEDS" are your problem.

For merriment I can keep on going. But this direction to taking us towards "Consent." Conclusion #1, police officer's are a damned NEEDY bunch of bastards. Conclusion # 2, crackheads are easier to get along with.

[Darkcrusade]

A biological father identifies me as his son, being the seed of my father my father and I are one.

Moma's baby, Daddy's maybe

[osbogosley]

I need you to identify yourself: Look in a mirror and say, "Yep, thats me."