can you prove your identity?

[David Merrill]

Lucifer bringing the world low?

I wonder if that is why so many accuse the NWO of Luciferianism?

[Pfunk]

Now I'm thinking of filing a complaint, I think he may have been giving false legal advice. They have been taught to ask for name, date of birth, etc. He even admitted he knew what I go by. I wanted to know why he had to ask if he already knew. He wouldn't answer that.

So I've been on this kick about "domicile". I think what is going on when they ask for that information is they are trying to make presumptions about domicile. Name, date of birth, etc. leads to presuming residence which leads to presuming domicile. If domicile is within their jurisdiction, then one is under the rule of their statutes. In terms of a biblical stance, I have found people to declare domicile within the kingdom of heaven on earth, or even the ocean. That way, God's law is the only form of law that can be used in court when a judgement is being made. If domicile isn't specifically stated, it is presumed to reside within the area of the residence.

That's where I'm at with it right now at least.

Now back to more research...

[David Merrill]

So I've been on this kick about "domicile". I think what is going on when they ask for that information is they are trying to make presumptions about domicile. Name, date of birth, etc. leads to presuming residence which leads to presuming domicile. If domicile is within their jurisdiction, then one is under the rule of their statutes. In terms of a biblical stance, I have found people to declare domicile within the kingdom of heaven on earth, or even the ocean. That way, God's law is the only form of law that can be used in court when a judgement is being made. If domicile isn't specifically stated, it is presumed to reside within the area of the residence.

That's where I'm at with it right now at least.

Now back to more research...

It may be what you describe is more like astrology. I admire that you do not set upon a fixed belief set.

[padreilluminato]

I believe it would be impossible for any man or woman to IDENTIFY themselves as a "thing", unless the "thing" is comprised of many, thus the identifier becomes one and the same.

Let take the BC for example, it was issued as an IDENTIFIER to be used for identification in a public arena, but what or whom is it identifying ?
Is it we are part of a "thing" if so, then one can only conclude you are identified as the "thing" one and the same.
If I am me, or one as a being, then I truly cannot identify myself to anyone, for me to reflect upon myself is not true identity, for the being is not reflective.

The only way an identity can take place if one (the being) is part of a collective of beings, and that collective make a majority in which the objective is to create 1 WHOLE, then one can conclude that you are part of that WHOLE and thus able to be identified with, NOT AS, but identified with.

So when Agents wants a date of birth and Name, they are not saying that is you, what they are saying, to which WHOLE do you apply, and in that case you make 1, part of something, called the PERSON.
The Identity is that which of the “thing” is to be IDENTIFIED.

Let take a dog and his so called owner. The Man calls the dog sparky, but sparky cannot identify himself, because the dog cannot self-represent, that would be impossible, but THROUGH the Man as his representative (Steward) the dog can be identified, but not as sparky, but THROUGH the man naming him sparky.

It is the will and intent of the legislature to be recognized through the NAME, not the Man as the name, they want to know which society (comprised of many to create a WHOLE 1) that you apply yourself to be part of.
If you identify with a thing” then you become one and the same, and if the thing is created by another, then one can surmise you are acting as one and the same, IN CONCERT as the thing.

They assume that one has to be part of a collective, and one as an individual is still part of a collective.
Individual
Driver
Employee
Employer

All of these are still part of the WHOLE. If one is given a Name, then the identity of oneself is lost, because another is identifying, and if you identify by a given, then you are still part of the collective, the WHOLE.

The statement of live birth or registration of life birth dictates given names. The name was given to a man or woman, but that does not identify the one it was given to, unless those given names were INCORPORATED into a whole, the given names take on a whole new PERSONA.
That SOLB or ROLB is PLEDGED into a fiction (body corporate) where the subrogation begins, the bloodline is severed and thus one takes on a PERSONA, a fictional IDENTITY.

That PERSONA reflects back to the “things” which is a collective, just like in Start Trek with the BORG, Picard was associated to the Alliances of federations, but once captured by the BORG, he was assimilated into the BORG collective, and thus took on a new PERSONA.
So can anyone prove their IDENTITY ?, Utterly impossible unless you are part of a whole, and the assumption is, you are always part of something else a SOCIETY, and you IDENTIFY with that CORPUS.

Break that assumption, DO NOT enter into commerce, let a body corporate handle the commercial transaction and thus you will have immunity and free of the “thing” that binds.


Peace

Padre

[Pfunk]

It may be what you describe is more like astrology. I admire that you do not set upon a fixed belief set.

Sorry David if I interpreted the astrology thing wrong, and if so where might I go to research it some more (keywords)? But here goes.

The way I see it, I have a gut feeling about things and my beliefs that words just can't describe. The English language is so limiting that the words to describe my belief system are ever evolving. I find keeping an open mind towards others allows myself to take bits and pieces here and there in an ever long battle to finding the exact words to describe my beliefs. Also as to the astrology thing, how is a party expected to appeal something if it was enacted before the party was born? how were they given proper notice when they weren't even here on earth, per say? I try to keep an open mind about "past lives" but as far as I'm concerned, I haven't experienced one yet. Maybe something will jog my memory one of these days, so as to why I keep the open mind. You never know. But really, if this is my first life/last life, how am I expected to be judged even before I'm on this planet? That is absurd. I'm really expected to read through ALL publications of past judgments against me before I was born? Come on! If it's what I have to do, that's one thing, so I'm not yelling at any of you, but really, how anti-productive is that? Here is something that I found that pretty much says to the man-made governments, and pardon my french, "F*CK OFF" and stop harassing me. You're saying, in an affidavit of truth, that in the past you have been forced to lie in order to contract with others and survive, who otherwise would not have been able to contract with you had they known the truth. You did this in order to survive. But now you are ready to take care of yourself. I haven't yet figured out how to file it, or if this is better saved for when you retire, or how to make life work without retiring, still being able to deal in commerce, and doing this sooner. My understanding is you would still be able to be a private contractor under this title, so I don't see why you couldn't make it work before retirement. You're basically "identifying" yourself as having nothing to do with their corrupt system, as you are part of another jurisdiction, peaceful, self-sufficient, and wish to be left alone. Imagine what the world would be like if we ALL had one of these....

http://familyofsanders.info/Declaration.php



My job right now requires me to have a drivers license. If I do this and identify myself as this,
(I'm spiritual so this sits well within my moral standards)

A) Can they fire me for no longer having a drivers license as I wouldn't be required by law anymore?

B) Is there a potential suit involved? (I could care two sh*ts about losing it and suing as I aspire to have my own business and this teaching job is a dime a dozen until I reach my capital goal, which I'm close too anyways)

The reason why I'm so adamant about all this is because I know what's best for me as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. Being paranoid about me harming someone else sounds like their problem, not mine. I want to fix this harassment with the easiest, simplest remedy possible. This right now seems like it to me, but I'd like to see what others think before I identify myself with this before I'm ready...

[allodial]

Lucifer bringing the world low?

I wonder if that is why so many accuse the NWO of Luciferianism?

Illumin---

[allodial]

One interesting thing about the whole issue of identity is that a birth certificate can serve to identify or pertain to 'identifying' in the sense of associating a name or entity with a particular 'date' (consider the distinction between 'day' and 'date'). JOHN HENRY DOE identified with 1/1/1950 compared to JOHN HENRY DOE identified with 9/11/2001.

[Chex]

It may be what you describe is more like astrology. I admire that you do not set upon a fixed belief set.

What book is this from?

I'm sure anyone who knows admiralty can relate to this:

check this out vessels :

As the high court of admiralty has a special jurisdiction as a respect to a variety of matters connected with merchant shipping and the government is also involved in complications with foreign governments through the same medium its important to examine what constitutes a “British ship” and what general rules are the owner and masters and are expected to comply.

In order for a ship to be a British ship it must be wholly either to natural-born British subjects or to “denizens” – that is a person to whom a partial citizenship has been conceded by letter-patented from the Crown -or to bodies corporate, established under, subject to the laws of, or having their principal place of business in a British possession.

Unless the ship be a small one, or be used for mere river or coasting navigation it must be duly registered.

This is the part I like:

The “certificate of registry” states the name of the ship and of the port to which she belongs, her tonnage and build, the name of her master, and the name and description of her registered owner.

bodies corporate: makes you wonder?

[osbogosley]

About the 1907 supreme court citation: I talked with Patrick this morning and he is looking for the case as well. He
thought we could find it in http://tjsl.libguides.com/content.php?pid=109983

This is Shepards United States Citations. Has to do with shepardizing a case.
I'm looking, hope you give it a try also.

[allodial]

It should be no surprise that the Torrens System is utilized by the United States of America and that such system is applied for both the registration of vessels and the registration of real estate.

The idea of a system of land title registration originated with Sir Robert Torrens of Australia, and has generally become known as the "Torrens System." Sir Robert Torrens was a business man who had been a Collector of Customs in charge of shipping. In this position he became familiar with a law under which ships were registered, under the practice of which the registry showed the name or names of the owners of the vessel and all liens and incumbrances against it. It was required that all liens or claims be noted on the registry, so that any inspection would show briefly and simply the condition of the title. Later Sir Robert Torrens became Registrar-General of South Australia. His experience with shipping led him to believe that the principle of registration of titles could be applied to land as well as ships. In 1857 he introduced a bill providing for the registration of land titles. This bill became a law in South Australia January 27, 1858, and went into effect on July 1, 1858. The idea spread rapidly. British Honduras in Central America passed a Land Registering Act the same year, 1858. Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria followed in 1861. New South Wales in 1862, New Zealand in 1870, West Australia in 1874, Fiji in 1876. Other British colonies have since adopted the system

The System In England

While we have said that the idea of a system of land title registration spread rapidly, it must also be said that the speed does not seem to have been maintained. A Land Registry Act, known as the "Lord Westbury Act," was passed in England in 1862. The law was a failure and was repealed in 1875. Only 411 titles were registered in the 13 years. It has been stated by Mr. Torrens and others that the law did not follow the original Torrens Act, but diverted from it in many essential features. The Act of 1875, which repealed this law, was known as the "Lord Cairns Act."

It simplified the system and corrected many of the mistakes of the old law. It failed, however, to provide an assurance fund out of which losses could be paid. This defect was a serious one - compensation for loss to the injured through error or otherwise was lacking. Under a new act in 1897, an assurance fund was provided, the national treasury making good any deficiency. Registration became compulsory in the County of London by the same act. The records show that 3,825 titles were registered in England and Wales in the 20 years from 1875 to 1895, and that in the following 10 years, 91,284 titles were registered in London alone.

England evidently did not get a workable Torrens system until nearly 40 years after her colony, South Australia, had one. The system, however, had to struggle against conditions peculiar to English land ownership. The law of entail prevails, and many English freeholds are inalienable, the owner in possession having only a life interest. Great landed estates exist and a large proportion of the land is in the hands of comparatively few persons. England was jealous of its customs and the lawyers were opposed to changes. However, in spite of the handicaps, the Torrens system seems to have been successfully adopted.