Re: Self Determination

[Michael Joseph]

I imagine he was trying to claim "putative jurisdiction" and as such not being able to form VAN PELT - LEGAL NAME, he constructed another Trust, DAVID MERRILL. Yet, notice he Settled said Trust from perhaps implications or actions. Yet said trust cannot form in the Federal Reserve Districts because you David Merrill only handle Cash according to the exempting [saving] to Suitors Act. Or said another way, you use cash because of the law of necessity and you are without the Federal Reserve Districts (FRD). Therefore you have no trust in the FRD. Now, the Constitution that binds the judge is under Natures God. Yet, SAMELSON acts in repugnance to his Oath of Office. And in my opinion, is in breach of trust. The Ever Living will take care of that business.

One might argue he was upon the office of profit. Yet clearly you are without the FRD's.

But remember that DAVID MERRILL is the creation of the STATE - Judge is officer of State, yes or no?

Why David Merrill would you not act for DAVID MERRILL to show your complete incompetence and thusly require the STATE to take you in as WARD? This is what in fact they tried to pull off. By forcing an attorney on DAVID MERRILL. Which by the way, is okay, DAVID MERRILL was a creation of the State and the State can have attorneys for its Persons if they choose.

Yet, you show utter lack of trust in their CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST formations. But you chose to hang in there to "help" the court settle the books. Yet your time is precious. As is mine. I am valuable, as are you. And as such, pay me in gold or pay me with what you have, if you want me to perform in your play. Yet, I am absent the office of Trustee unless you abandon your office and appoint a Substitute trustee in me. Do you now trust in me? If that be the case then, I, as Trustee with the power, give the Order....

[David Merrill]

I imagine he was trying to claim "putative jurisdiction" and as such not being able to form VAN PELT - LEGAL NAME, he constructed another Trust, DAVID MERRILL. Yet, notice he Settled said Trust from perhaps implications or actions. Yet said trust cannot form in the Federal Reserve Districts because you David Merrill only handle Cash according to the exempting [saving] to Suitors Act. Or said another way, you use cash because of the law of necessity and you are without the Federal Reserve Districts (FRD). Therefore you have no trust in the FRD. Now, the Constitution that binds the judge is under Natures God. Yet, SAMELSON acts in repugnance to his Oath of Office. And in my opinion, is in breach of trust. The Ever Living will take care of that business.

One might argue he was upon the office of profit. Yet clearly you are without the FRD's.

But remember that DAVID MERRILL is the creation of the STATE - Judge is officer of State, yes or no?

Why David Merrill would you not act for DAVID MERRILL to show your complete incompetence and thusly require the STATE to take you in as WARD? This is what in fact they tried to pull off. By forcing an attorney on DAVID MERRILL. Which by the way, is okay, DAVID MERRILL was a creation of the State and the State can have attorneys for its Persons if they choose.

Yet, you show utter lack of trust in their CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST formations. But you chose to hang in there to "help" the court settle the books. Yet your time is precious. As is mine. I am valuable, as are you. And as such, pay me in gold or pay me with what you have, if you want me to perform in your play. Yet, I am absent the office of Trustee unless you abandon your office and appoint a Substitute trustee in me. Do you now trust in me? If that be the case then, I, as Trustee with the power, give the Order....

I appear to be having way too much fun with this new website - to ever get around to another video, to follow up. The last video ends as I was going in for that hearing where my alleged friend attorney whined to his fellow Barfly in the robe how he had been trying to reach me about my appointment with BARON while I told him that I had been checking Records regularly and could not find his written order. He read me my rights right there in the courtroom, encouraging the the DA to charge me with the class 5 felony of forgery - using the Great Seal and all - but he must have seen me smile because he was "threatening" to convene a jury for me...

So they put on handcuffs and put me in the Psycho Ward for two weeks. Then they dropped all the charges because they had no evidence or witnesses? Imagine that! I guess they do not consider this enough evidence!! What really got me is that Kaye BARON inspired the wildest fantasies by visiting me there, and upon a glance was perplexed that the STATE (as you put it) would pay her $2000 to evaluate me, a man who was obviously competent to stand trial. She already had the videos but thought they were CD's - she said she would enjoy them right away with popcorn and ice cream:


David Merrill (in a velcro turtlesuit): I hate you!


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. What really freaked Kaye out was that the judge threw me in the Psycho Ward because I was not cooperating with his order to get an independent psychological evaluation while in the same breath threatening me for that Order authorizing to pay her! I mean really! Go figure!!

[Metheist]

self determination within what frame?

I would imagine that frame being the frame that one is aware of.

And if one were to Claim said Right [Property] is that one Benefiting from the Use of a Law? or Bylaw? Whose Trust was that Law settled? In other words who is the higher power? If we are talking about man's law then there must be a singularity a beginning. And the question begging to be answered is Who was the Creator? Or said another way, who first performed the first Trust Deed? Was it the Pope in 1302 - Unam Sanctum?

If the Pope in 1302 forms the basis of Trust law with the Trust Deed of Unam Sanctum, if I claim the "Right of Self Determination" do I come under the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES?

Conversely, if one is aware, should one also be aware of "HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES" of awareness?

Perhaps I've blasphemed again...

[Michael Joseph]

Exactly my point. If a living soul should DECIDE to lower himself [masculine = femine for the purposes of this writing] into a lower estate by claiming UNDER a deficient status or estate, then that is the self realization or aware choice that has been made. But to be fully with the cognizance of choice one with the awareness would be sure to know the obligations of his choice, yes?

Is it the duty of an other man to make another aware? I say emphatically No. If one chooses to be ignorant, then let him be ignorant. Let him complain and writhe in the mire. When he stops complaining and pointing outward, then perhaps he can be helped to look inward to resolve his issues. Until then, let him eat the food with the hogs. Yet, if he will return to the Father's house he will be received with great joy.

If one with the aware condition decides to enjoin or engage a lower condition, then, yes, that one should be with the cognizance of the higher powers of that condition. This conversation of course goes to man wants a leader that he can see. A leader that will go before him and fight his battles for him and do all of the dirty repugnant work for him. That way man will be with a clean conscious and the dirty work is left to mans representative.

Man wants his delicious chicken sandwich, yet he does not want to engage his mind to realize the manner in which that sandwich is made ready for his consumption - to see the chicken farms where they are bred by the hundreds of thousands in horrific conditions - is not expedient to enjoying the delicious sandwich. Therefore, we shall leave that task to our representative, yes? So that we with the choice can enjoy the byproduct of our intention - the delicious sandwich - and our conscious remains clear. Is that being aware?

Yet, this model is impossible in a society because the so called representative comes "out of" the Society to lead a repugnant ignorant public. Therefore the representative lies to the Public feeding back to the Public the impossibility of solving all of their problems. An irrational game, yet the public has been controlled for a little over a Century with Irrational Thought patterns. Feed the Self whatever it wants is the irrational thought of this day - it promotes peace. What then when the candy store runs out of candy?

Aware of what? My being? Do my thoughts ripple thru your mind like the waves on a pond caused by a singular pebble dropped within it? No, then don't respond. Yes, then engage and prove my point. We are ALL aware and we all are like little pebbles being dropped into a pond and our actions are as the waves and those waves "interact" with each other to change the pre-existing condition.

So what then of choice? Choice framed when and where? Of course you and I are both aware beings. With the Choice to decide - how will we shape our destinies. We shape our destinies by our singular choice. Our Choice to do or not to do a thing impacts others.

I choose, therefore I am aware. I choose, therefore I am with the responsibility and obligation.

I reject the notion that the frame is conditional to ones awareness. Is a 16 year old aware of the ramifications of endorsing the Federal Reserve System? Yet he chooses to work and get a paycheck and have a banking account and endorse the Federal Reserve System and thusly he is with the Responsibility and the Obligation of that Choice - even though said choice was made in ignorance. The boy Acted and implied his trust. The boy is aware that he is getting some increase; yet, he is unaware of the nature of the trust he has enjoined.

As to your blasphemy, you take that up with your Creator. Even if I could Judge you, what then? Am I with the Power to effect my judgment?

We are informed that the Kingdom of Heaven is within and without. I change myself by my choice and I impact others by my change. Self awareness of the realization that I indeed need to change. Where said change is realized within the construct of my conscious thought.

I now await all of the gainsayers to report back to me according to Plato, I am asleep. I await your proof. Yet please undergird my position and respond to this open door. I'm waiting....

[Metheist]

I just checked in to see what condition my condition was in...

[Michael Joseph]

I just checked in to see what condition my condition was in...

Methinks you be "Fogging" this issue. Dude, the Lebowski reference is excellent.

Duderonomy 2:5
5. Respect everyone's point of view. It's just, like, their opinion, man.

Rofl....

----------------------------------------------
Yet,

I do not think we can discuss the Self without going to Philosophy. And inevitably we are going to end up at Origins. What is the Self and who Created it? Those questions beg for something greater than Us and someone that is without us; yet, perhaps that one, is also within us. Or said another way dwells with us in our Intellect - Spirit. The Self being the True me - Nephesh as the Hebrews say [crossing over].

Yet the Self also goes to Identity. And Identity goes to construct. Identity where and per whose terms. Shall I use a name to identify my Self? That name is an operation of mathematics / law = model - that lowers my True Self - Soul. If I use a name to "help" me with relationships, then my name is amongst other names. Is not a name a claim? Of course it is. Yet, we live in Society so we need a way of dealing with each other and names seem to be a practical solution. Yet see that a name is a persona and as such a means to belittle man - a mask. I heard a clerk say more than once - "Can I have your name, Sir?" Will I grant an agency over my Self to another?

Then I heard another speak of a Legal Name. Is that the Self? Or is this just a choice to further degrade the Self? Legal to what construct? Legal goes to Trust. So then who holds the titles in and for that Legal Name?

Now man has lowered his Self with a name and now there is a further Choice to use a Legal Name. The Self is without the naming convention - the name is just a label to belittle - the Self is Supreme and Divine. All Souls are Mine sayeth YHVH. Yet if the choice is made to belittle one's self, then the idea of diversity comes into play. All souls belong to YHVH as Creator - then vested in Yehoshua, as Trustee - we as Owners - owners of what - Owner goes to who has the Right of Use - we do with Choice. Yet, if the Creator decides to Act against his creation - He hardened Pharoah's heart - The Creator is with that Ability as Creator.

Diversity goes to Construct. Diversity from what?

Exploring the so called Right of Self Determination.....Who granted that Right? Was it a man or are man's conventions just reflecting the greater light. Sort of like the moon reflects the light of the sun - said another way - are man's writings just reflecting the idea that the Right of Self Determination is a grant from the Creator we are with Choice to choose ye this day. Life or Death - Jeremiah 17:5 or 17:7.

Therefore man is without the ability to grant Divine Rights, yet man can recognize that those Rights = Property = Ability to Use exist. As such, do I require a Society to recognize my path? Yes and No.

The question remains, what are your express intentions and how will you live at peace with your neighbor absent trespass? Mistakes happen; yet, will you express your willingness to come to the table with Standing to show your Responsibility and Accountability?

I heard one say - nonsense. Why must I be compelled to do such a thing? Do you live alone on an island? Or do you interact with others daily? I'll wager the latter. Now the question only remains how will you express this Self Determination? And tell me how do you plan on identifying your Self?

[Frederick Burrell]

Perhaps you could just experience the Self. Takes it out of the intellectual realm, which can get so wordy and never come to a place of knowing. This I would think would be the difference between experiencing something and just intellectualizing about it. Frederick Burrell.

"Are you experienced" Jimi

Frederick Burrell

[Metheist]

I do not think we can discuss the Self without going to Philosophy. And inevitably we are going to end up at Origins.

Which, ironically, is where "opinion" comes in. And, opinion, is where confirmation bias (I call it "conformation" bias) comes in.

What is the Self and who Created it?

Just take it easy, Man.

If you get a thousand people, you may indeed come up with a thousand different answers, but one prevailing attitude: They all believe they are right, and yet cannot prove it.

Those questions beg for something greater than Us and someone that is without us; yet, perhaps that one, is also within us. Or said another way dwells with us in our Intellect - Spirit. The Self being the True me - Nephesh as the Hebrews say [crossing over].

Those questions beg for the creator to make itself known, in a full-disclosure sort of way. Or, said creator can leave said created self in the dark, floundering around, while finding said creation a source of great entertainment, much like the "Truman Show," all while demanding (again according to opinions of interpretation of a sole communication purportedly left behind many centuries ago, with no software upgrades or bug reporting system, or even a help desk number where "users" can get help, especially with connectivity issues: "My blacktooth is not picking up this frequency")

I can only testify that the summons I have issued were returned as "undeliverable."

Yet the Self also goes to Identity. And Identity goes to construct. Identity where and per whose terms. Shall I use a name to identify my Self? That name is an operation of mathematics / law = model - that lowers my True Self - Soul. If I use a name to "help" me with relationships, then my name is amongst other names. Is not a name a claim? Of course it is. Yet, we live in Society so we need a way of dealing with each other and names seem to be a practical solution. Yet see that a name is a persona and as such a means to belittle man - a mask. I heard a clerk say more than once - "Can I have your name, Sir?" Will I grant an agency over my Self to another?

Then I heard another speak of a Legal Name. Is that the Self? Or is this just a choice to further degrade the Self? Legal to what construct? Legal goes to Trust. So then who holds the titles in and for that Legal Name?

Now man has lowered his Self with a name and now there is a further Choice to use a Legal Name. The Self is without the naming convention - the name is just a label to belittle - the Self is Supreme and Divine. All Souls are Mine sayeth YHVH.

So YHVH just lowered himself by incorporating a name? I don't get the "lowering" by using a name. Why not "raising?" I thought that the "Messiah" was given a name above every name? Wouldn't that be raising, instead of lowering? (Although he wasn't given the name that was prophesied...)

Yet if the choice is made to belittle one's self, then the idea of diversity comes into play.

Again, if using a name is "lowering," then how does this apply to us, but not to the "creator?"


[QUOTE=Michael Joseph;104]

All souls belong to YHVH as Creator - then vested in Yehoshua, as Trustee

Isn't this a claim? I would imagine that you, MJ are the claimant for this thread, anyway, but the ORIGINAL claimant, who is that? Why has the right to cross-examine, or continued communication, ceased?

- we as Owners - owners of what - Owner goes to who has the Right of Use - we do with Choice. Yet, if the Creator decides to Act against his creation - He hardened Pharoah's heart - The Creator is with that Ability as Creator.

This is where I get confused, because if the Creator can decide to act against his creation, then why not just a little communication from said Creator? And, further, can said creator write on stone tablets, and on the wall of a palace, but with the most important writing, the one that the purported creation is supposed to rely on for centuries upon end, the same Creator, at the time of such writing, decided to work through "agents" instead of taking time out of his busy schedule of being entertained by his creation...

The logic isn't there for me, nor is the faith, since the logic is so, well, illogical.

Diversity goes to Construct. Diversity from what?

Exploring the so called Right of Self Determination.....Who granted that Right?

Who needs to? I say who I am. Who's stopping me? You've seen judges agree that I can call myself whatever I want, and you've seen them agree that I am the man, rather than the legal name.

But, why do I need their agreement? (or the creator's agreement, although to get response for any reason would be a definite change)

[As a side note, the performance review seems a little late for me also... (It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this the judgment) Couldn't we kinda have a few sessions as we go along, and kinda tweak things, so that the end meeting wouldn't be so one sided?]

Was it a man or are man's conventions just reflecting the greater light. Sort of like the moon reflects the light of the sun - said another way - are man's writings just reflecting the idea that the Right of Self Determination is a grant from the Creator we are with Choice to choose ye this day. Life or Death - Jeremiah 17:5 or 17:7.

Again, for me, this goes to relevance. If this is truly relevant, then so is up to the minute, real time communication. No talky, no walky...

Therefore man is without the ability to grant Divine Rights, yet man can recognize that those Rights = Property = Ability to Use exist. As such, do I require a Society to recognize my path? Yes and No.

And yet the pope grants such rights to the monarch of London.

The question remains, what are your express intentions and how will you live at peace with your neighbor absent trespass? Mistakes happen; yet, will you express your willingness to come to the table with Standing to show your Responsibility and Accountability?

I heard one say - nonsense. Why must I be compelled to do such a thing? Do you live alone on an island? Or do you interact with others daily? I'll wager the latter. Now the question only remains how will you express this Self Determination? And tell me how do you plan on identifying your Self?

I see this dance all the time. Honor is developed and built. Demand for honor, when no honor has been extended, is something that I am adverse with...

[Michael Joseph]

I can experience my Self - Soul all the day long, yet, I cannot prove to you anything about my own experiences they are my own truths - or said another way - true for me and noone else as I cannot prove the existence of my Soul. Is it like a River? A river looks the same from day to day, yet it is composed of different Hydrogen and Oxygen matter at any given time. Therefore while it looks the same it is in fact ever changing. Consider now your Self. It is not static it is dynamic and couple the Eve to the Adam - the Spirit and the soul - one can Create too - by Choice.

Is the act of Creation the act of Self Determination? I think so. A choice to do a thing. The thought first impregnating the mind to think and create. I can conceive it, I can do it.

Which, ironically, is where "opinion" comes in. And, opinion, is where confirmation bias (I call it "conformation" bias) comes in.

Agreed. And that leads to Re- Ligions. And religions lead to separation - dividing the assembly. Who is with the real truth. And said separation is good for those who seek to divide man as that one enjoys the power vested in him by his following. Yet, you cannot escape Origins. I however, leave it up to you to resolve Origins.

If you get a thousand people, you may indeed come up with a thousand different answers, but one prevailing attitude: They all believe they are right, and yet cannot prove it.

Exactly the point. Prove you have a soul. Prove there is a God. Prove you were created. You can't do it, neither can I, yet I experience. And my experiences cannot be proven. Therefore the Self Determination is an outward expression of Choice.

If I choose to Not be Under a certain construct of Laws, will not my actions imply my trust? If the opposite then I am one confused man.

Those questions beg for the creator to make itself known, in a full-disclosure sort of way. Or, said creator can leave said created self in the dark, floundering around, while finding said creation a source of great entertainment, much like the "Truman Show," all while demanding (again according to opinions of interpretation of a sole communication purportedly left behind many centuries ago, with no software upgrades or bug reporting system, or even a help desk number where "users" can get help, especially with connectivity issues: "My blacktooth is not picking up this frequency")

I can only testify that the summons I have issued were returned as "undeliverable."

Here I have no response. As again, out of respect, I refuse to trespass upon you. Absent judgment, I remain upon my own expressions and I refuse to impose my expression upon you absent you asking me for it and engaging me in question or request.

So YHVH just lowered himself by incorporating a name? I don't get the "lowering" by using a name. Why not "raising?" I thought that the "Messiah" was given a name above every name? Wouldn't that be raising, instead of lowering? (Although he wasn't given the name that was prophesied...)


Again, if using a name is "lowering," then how does this apply to us, but not to the "creator?"

Okay, I accept that rationale. Let me re-phrase - who gives issue to the name that men are called? Is it not mom and dad? Who gave issue to the Messiah's name? Was it not the Creator? I believe the Creator said 'you will worship me where I place my name'. Yet that sort of strays from this discourse.

Mom and Dad named me. Yet the State also created a name for me. But noone made me use the State's name. That was my own Choice - my own Self Determination. The State's name belongs to the State. Back to Survey. When the Child was born was there not a Survey upon the Child? Of course there was. And the Survey formed the basis of the new Birth - Trust Certificate. Yet, the Child is still with the ability to Chose his own Self Determination.

All souls belong to YHVH as Creator - then vested in Yehoshua, as Trustee

Response by Methist: Isn't this a claim? I would imagine that you, MJ are the claimant for this thread, anyway, but the ORIGINAL claimant, who is that? Why has the right to cross-examine, or continued communication, ceased?

I admit that is a claim based in part to my lack of knowledge. And based upon the Scripture, which I believe to be truth. Yet, I cannot prove either one to be truth. it is my belief based on experience. Yet, your experiences may be different. So I choose to live and let live. I cannot save you nor you me. So why should I trespass upon you with my belief systems.

Yet, I have studied extensively Origins without - philosophers - and within - my own experiences and my own determinations based on my observations. And I have realized I cannot 1) identify myself and 2) know beyond origins 3) fathom that matter can just become absent an expression of will.

Therefore, I reject that we are absent a Creator. But I think that we can see a glimpse of the Creator in other men - as the Creator dwells with man's spirit.

This is where I get confused, because if the Creator can decide to act against his creation, then why not just a little communication from said Creator? And, further, can said creator write on stone tablets, and on the wall of a palace, but with the most important writing, the one that the purported creation is supposed to rely on for centuries upon end, the same Creator, at the time of such writing, decided to work through "agents" instead of taking time out of his busy schedule of being entertained by his creation...

The logic isn't there for me, nor is the faith, since the logic is so, well, illogical.

I accept that those are your view and beliefs I shall respect them.

Who needs to? I say who I am. Who's stopping me? You've seen judges agree that I can call myself whatever I want, and you've seen them agree that I am the man, rather than the legal name.

But, why do I need their agreement? (or the creator's agreement, although to get response for any reason would be a definite change)

[As a side note, the performance review seems a little late for me also... (It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this the judgment) Couldn't we kinda have a few sessions as we go along, and kinda tweak things, so that the end meeting wouldn't be so one sided?]

Well I see this in another light. I would rather not appear before a judge. Why should I? That is unless I have injured another man or woman or public property. There is no cause to appear. As I do not trust in that. My trust is in the Divine. And my Self Expression is as Priest before Men. Walking in the middle path.

Yet consider the enforcement officer, and his confusion. If you say so what, that's his problem, then enjoy the strife as you will have to deal with his problem. yet there seems to me another way. To Self Express ones position before the fact seems like a better path. But that's just me.

And yet the pope grants such rights to the monarch of London.

The Pope [door] and its Cardinals [hinges for the door] is another thread altogether. Their claim is that they are speaking for God. Therefore the re-write the Scripture and call it a Testament. Acting as Trustee for a Dead Grantor. I find the Pope repugnant. Yet, again, that is for another thread.

I see this dance all the time. Honor is developed and built. Demand for honor, when no honor has been extended, is something that I am adverse with...

Honor is developed and extended to those who render honor to another. If you expressed a new Trust into Existence - a new Society - and you, as Trustee spoke for your estate - then you would be extended honor as you have come to the table with your 'piece of eight'. Else, you might just do nothing and complain about the way you are not honored.

Do I expect the US to honor me? No. Yet, I walk in peace and honor the US by not trespassing upon its jurisdictions and venues.

When I was told not to come back to the courthouse unless I had an appointment, I comprehend. That is a private venue. I was trespassing. And I will not be going into any Court house of the US again, unless I am granted an invitation. And if said invitation is extended, then I shall come speaking for my family and estate as friend of the court to help the court settle the matter before it.

However, in reality, if I should desire I will go where I want to go, because it depends on the Survey and I have just as much right to the Land as another. I AM to the Faithful Son - All that I have is yours.

So therefore, my Self Determination is in the Scripture. Or to be precise is in the Creator. And I walk as an expression of that Determination. Expression of Divine Trust.

[Metheist]

And to that, I would say that we are on the path of searching. (and awareness of our discoveries, severally)