can you prove your identity?

[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]

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.
...
It is IMPOSSIBLE to Identify any man with certainty.

Interestingly I dont ever recall calling any birth certificate or social security number mine. Seems they have tried to do ventriloquism and what amounts to forgery to create evidence of I, Myself having one even though my name isnt even remotely related--they just kept trying cos I wouldn't confess to what seems to be impossible. In my study of fingerprinting, forensics, police science, identification and such I found that it came down to your mouth. Why is it that police with State ID in hand still ask "Date of birth", "Last name". Can they not read? They want you to confess. Since "Lady Justice" is blindfolded, she's only taking oral testimony. Insiders say that face recognition doesn't work at all. They want you to confess a name, height, date of birth--something. Fingerprints between family members are probably so very similar that even fingerprinting is hardly useful even with computers unless they have a height, weight, name or residence to make a connection. Even if they can match fingerprints, who is to say that the particulars associated those fingerprints with the name or information wasn't doctored or coerced or forged?

Cops admitted to me that police regularly put false information into computers and make things up. He told me that I was smart by staying out of that system. If you consider stories about software called PROMIS how they are allegedly able to alter, modify, swap or replace details in most any case or police record..it becomes even more hystericialish.

There were some guys I'd maybe knew for 7 years. I was consistently kind, loving, honest, charitable. The conversation came up about "not really knowing someone" without them having "State ID". I replied that, if someone can show you love and kindness, never steal from you, never betray you in seven years and you say that you don't know because they dont have a piece of plastic issued by strangers hundreds if not thousands of miles away--piece of plastic that hardly-intellectual 16 y/o girls easily print and copy and fabricate to get in bars, then perchance there is something wrong with all of you?

**

I've met females and others that go to great lengths to tell me about themselves about "who" they are by telling me when they were born and that whether they're a "teacher" or a "doctor" or a "lawyer" and where they want to high school. They are probably astonished when they I tell them that I could car less what their last name is or what their DOB is or where they went to school. I'm more concerned about their personality. All of those things like degree, 'occupation' might have a habit of being used like cosmetics to cover up character defects or the like. I'd more interested in whether they'd tend to act like A traitor or liar or a loyal friend/companion. And whether they were at least reasonably honest? "I'm a doctor" could be akin to seven layers of perfume and a bunch of fancy jewelry and a big fat coat to hide knives, rashes and poisons underneath.

[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.

[David Merrill]

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.

Shalom,
mj

Looking at accomodation in context of endorsement one might say when challenged about making a demand for lawful money - I cannot accomodate you.

Your entire post is profound Michael Joseph but I encourage the reader to linger on those two words - affiliation and accomodation.

The Secretary of State threatened me thrice about using the Great Seal without any affiliation with state business. On the third threat the Secretary was in breach of contract (no trust) with a fellow on the territorial republic by sending his approval of corporate charter to me instead of him. I forwarded the papers to him, accepting the resulting trust and was therefore in position of state appointed trustee, in affiliation with state business and sure enough the Secretary accepted my corrections and published my $20M lien. I adopted the bastard child becoming of the state with the Secretary's malfeasance - note the notice on page 2 of the form. By sending the paper directly to the man on the land the Secretary would rent the veil by exposing the Secretary knows "this state" is a fiction living on the district. Note the Great Seal proclaims the land aka Territory.

Thank you Michael Joseph. Accomodation is even more interesting!!