can you prove your identity?

[Chex]

Adhere to the agreements. Ok I get it now. (800)

It’s because at the age of majority (Transfer of rights at 1404 ) you are at the legally defined age at which a person is considered an adult, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of adulthood which require the presence or absence of attendant circumstances.

So it was my attendant duty and my lack of ostrich instruction that I failed to ask for the social security handbook that went with the application I signed at the age of minority (or infancy) for the social security card that I was to conduct the business over the Personal Jurisdiction of the name on the card.

I wonder if this is why they give a new born that much time to read the rules and regulations of the handbook. (1330)

[allodial]

Adhere to the agreements. Ok I get it now. (800)

It’s because at the age of majority (Transfer of rights at 1404 ) you are at the legally defined age at which a person is considered an adult, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of adulthood which require the presence or absence of attendant circumstances.

So it was my attendant duty and my lack of ostrich instruction that I failed to ask for the social security handbook that went with the application I signed at the age of minority (or infancy) for the social security card that I was to conduct the business over the Personal Jurisdiction of the name on the card.

I wonder if this is why they give a new born that much time to read the rules and regulations of the handbook. (1330)

Well or perhaps why they spent 12 years brainwashing and blinding the newborn and feeding it fluoride so its pineal gland functions minimally? The point being above that you could have walked away and prevented appearance of formation of any enforceable contract at 18 or 21 and probably still can. But to keep you from doing so, they baited you with vainglory, degrees, money, cars n hoez, empty promises of fame and fortune, plastic drinking permission and other trinkets and baubles figuring you'd not want to walk away.

[Michael Joseph]

Well or perhaps why they spent 12 years brainwashing and blinding the newborn and feeding it fluoride so its pineal gland functions minimally? The point being above that you could have walked away and prevented appearance of formation of any enforceable contract at 18 or 21 and probably still can. But to keep you from doing so, they baited you with vainglory, degrees, money, cars n hoez, empty promises of fame and fortune, plastic drinking permission and other trinkets and baubles figuring you'd not want to walk away.

Amen.

A SSN was issued to me and a USE was made in ME when I called it mine. I possessed it and the USE was fixed. I found that I don't have to ever claim it as it is not mine. Fact is I left it for I cannot annul it cause it is not mine.

Therefore I express my Trust in CHURCH. I am recognized in Yehoshuah [Scripture] and in State [508(c)(1)(a)] my identity is in my God. Because there is nothing and I mean nothing about me that cannot change and therefore my identity tomorrow can be unknown to you with certainty.

Alas I know the legal mind will go directly to Statutes and the like in order to prove me wrong - which is to make this writer laugh out loud. Even with the so called Papers in your hand - I still cannot identify you - but I can sure identify your office - that being Trustee/Subject/Citizen.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.

I am reminded again of a river. Tomorrow it looks exactly like a river, but the particles [atoms] that comprise the river are completely different. Therefore, is it the same river as yesterday?

Let me now take out my pen and pad and perform a SURVEY:

Name, DOB, SSN, DL, Address, etc.....

Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

-------

I asked a man recently - "how are you?" He proceeded to tell me all about his work life. Sad.

How do you Identify YOURSELF? I'll wait. Is it your thoughts? Can't see them! Please with Precision locate in time/space [pick any convenient coordinate system] your next thought. I should like to know where my thoughts reside.


-------

Vanity of vanities - and all is vanity. And they caused the Image to speak.

[allodial]

After skimming through this thread. Various opinions and views obviously abound. However I recall finding that if one swears an oath or made an general appearance before a notary a State ID might be required in one jurisdiction or another. However for making a special appearance State ID was not required. Something perhaps worth pondering. Perhaps without some obligation to you or by you there is no need for "ID". From observation, 'identity documents' tend to be about identifying or evidencing affiliation with a group or some organization. Illinois State ID, for example, evidencing affiliation with the State of Illinois, no?

Identify vs distinguishing or making distinctions between one or another?

There are those that hold that the "old you" died with time passage and that the "new you" is essentially new all the time--but its your mouth that might make the association with the long, gone past. "What school did you go to?" "How old are you?" "Are you from around here?" "Do you have a social security number?" "Whats your date of birth?" "Whats your sign?" "Where were you yesterday?" "Are you a writer?" "What was your SAT score?"

Isn't it interesting how so very many seemingly innocuous social fixations exist which encourage one to bear witness against oneself and/or to limit oneself?

Are you six feet tall or is your body six feet tall when in standing position? Or is it six feet long? Are you a red-head or is the hair on your head red? Is it your body anyway? If its not your body how is 'your' hair red? Are you your body or are you in your body? Are you a carpenter or are you a living soul that has can express skills of a good carpenter through your body? *points at picture on the wall* Is that you? If it is, pretty amazing how a some ink on a piece of paper can move a mass of flesh and bone around the house and make it talk, aint it?

How much do you weigh? How much do souls weigh? How much does a personality weigh? If you have a wife and your wife's body and your body are made twain how many feet do you have? Do you have a diploma? Is it in your hands now? If its not in your hands right now how can you having it? Do you have your hiking boots? No you left them at home? Ok if you don't have them cos they are at home how do you have a diploma when its hanging on the wall at home ten miles away?

*points at screen in cop car* Is that you? If it is, amazing how a bunch of dots on a computer is you. *turns off screen* Did you just die cos I turned off the screen cos your freakin' gone? See how much power I have? I made you disappear! Did all those dots just abandon a body in the backseat? Since the body was abandoned by those pixels, should take it to the police station and register it?

What color is the sky? Blue you say? Then why is Patrick in China saying sky black and starry (its midnight there)? How can Patrick be *in* China? Is China the landmass the dirt and soil or is it the people that call themselves "China" or is it the borders on the map? How can Patrick be inside all of those people at once? (Hope he doesn't catch a disease, right?) How can Patrick be inside of the map on the wall? If China is a landmass and if Patrick is walking around on the surface, wouldn't Patrick be upon China rather than in China? Or is he *gasp* dead? Or maybe he's stuck in a mudhole up to his neck and thusly *in* China? But how can he type on that iPhone if he's stuck inside of China (the landmass)? If China is imaginary how can Patrick be *in* something imaginary? Is China a tribe? Does this mean that Patrick is a member of the China tribe? Are tribes real or imaginary? Is Patrick imaginary?

(Doublethink. Newspeak. Cognitive Dissonance.)

[Chex]

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.” True. But you have an entity to run until you revoke. Do you want to revoke is the question?

[Sabo]

But you have an entity to run until you revoke. Do you want to revoke is the question?

And for some of us, the question is 'How?'

[allodial]

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.” True. But you have an entity to run until you revoke. Do you want to revoke is the question?

Having an entity vs BEING the entity. Something about Stockholm Syndrome and 'last names'.

[Michael Joseph]

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.” True. But you have an entity to run until you revoke. Do you want to revoke is the question?

I cannot revoke what I did not create. Let me put it like this: I liken the LEGAL DUMMY [given name + SURNAME] to be a limited liability vessel. Call it company - or trust vessel - or whatever you want to call it - Person - I care not. All corporations, LLC's etc are just fancy names for Trust. The United States, under "This Constitution" picks up the liability. I have never seen "the Constitution" so I don't have much to say about "the Constitution"

Since I did not create LEGAL DUMMY I cannot annul or revoke it as you say. What I can do is stop using it. Let me be very careful now as I am about to incorporate the term USE in a legal sense and not in a common sense.

When I act in the NAME = LEGAL DUMMY, then a USE is made in me, as Trustee, fbo another. Now another trust is created between the so called government, as grantor/beneficiary and me now as Trustee. But see that I too can benefit from the transfer of the estate.

Therefore in any court - Judge as Administrator, State as Beneficiary, Defendant as Trustee.



Shalom,
mj

[allodial]

To expand upon that.. John Henry != JOHN HENRY DOE != DOE JOHN H != JOHN H DOE. Michael Joseph appears to be asserting that he has neither culpability nor fiduciary duty for or concerning {ENTITY}. And rather than revoking the ENTITY he has or would terminate or quit such fiduciary duty or culpability. Seems such has to do with fiduciary relationships.

[Michael Joseph]

To expand upon that.. John Henry != JOHN HENRY DOE != DOE JOHN H != JOHN H DOE. Michael Joseph appears to be asserting that he has neither culpability nor fiduciary duty for or concerning {ENTITY}. And rather than revoking the ENTITY he has or would terminate or quit such fiduciary duty or culpability. Seems such has to do with fiduciary relationships.

I propound that if I act in and for any vessel trusting in the United States, then my Trust can be either express by signature bond or implied by my actions and therefore my trust relates me as fiduciary. In Affiliation or Accommodation.

For it is the TRUSTEE going to Jail - else I have no trust in you. I am just me, Minister about my Ministry in CHURCH in CHIEF, in Yehoshuah by Yehovah. And my TRUST is recognized by State in 508(c)(1)(a); yet I, michael joseph am unidentifiable except to say "I trust in Yehovah" and my trust is known by my actions - I try to keep his Law, in Love.

Therefore, I decrease and Yehoshuah increases. Therefore, my family name is really of no importance except to be known within my Family in terms of my inheritance and my grant. Said inheritance and grant will all be made in the Private behind a Trust veil. Again, said trust is made in Church and I am Minister in Corporation Sole.

For example: The Mayor of the City of Savannah is Corporation Sole. The sole member = The Mayor; the Ministry is the City of Savannah. I have a ministry and my ministry benefits not only my Posterity and The Church, but also the Public.

Shalom,
mj

michael joseph is not equal to [!=] Michael Joseph; My claim is not in name, my name means nothing, my claim is in God, I call on the Character of God and attempt to walk in The Way of Life.

In the end, where is your Trust? Your name is well not really important. "We try John Doe all the time."

If I Trust in the System at Large and I have received the benefit of the estate, then I am with fiduciary. Okay so let's get this right, whose NAME is it again? Whose SSN is it again? If not mine, then why do I allow a USE to be formed in me? Answer is: I don't USE the NAME or the SSN or the DL, etc, etc.



------

FROM PADELFORD


[14.] 3. Supposing this not to be a tax for inspection
purposes, has Congress consented to its being laid?
It is certain that Congress has not expressly
consented. But is express consent necessary? There
is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There
is nothing in the practice of men, or in the
Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations,
or the Law of nations that says so.

Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life.

A tender of bank bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills
are objected to. To stand by, in silence, and see
another sell your property, binds you. These are
mere instances of the use of the maxim in the
Municipal Law. In the Law of Nations, it is equally
potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty
binds a Nation. (Vattel, ch. 16, sec. 199, book 1.
See book 2, sec. 142, et seq. as to usucaption and
prescription, and sec. 208 as to ratification.


*54 Express consent, then, not being necessary, is
there any thing from which consent may be
implied? There is-length of time. The Ordinance
was passed the 24th of January, 1842, and has been
in operation ever since. If Congress had been
opposed to the Ordinance, it had but to speak, to be
obeyed. It spoke not-it has never spoken: therefore,
it has not been opposed to the Ordinance, but has
been consenting to it.

[15.] 4. Say, however, that Congress has not
consented to the Ordinance, then the most that can
be maintained is, that the Ordinance stands subject
to “the revision and control of Congress.” It stands
a Law-a something susceptible of revision and
control-not a something unsusceptible of revision
and control as a void thing would be.


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

Even the lawyers building their house on Precedent, know that implied trust can be gained in silence; for one sleeping on his rights has none.