Is a name property ??

[walter]

http://www.policeone.com/investigati...eign-Citizens/

"4.) Watch for Fraudulent Documents
Sovereign Citizens can be an investigative challenge. Much of their personal identification information, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, or vehicle tags are fraudulent documents. When asked to provide a name, they may respond that they don’t have a name.

They may identify themselves as “the representative of…(their legal name).”

If you do receive a name, it may be a “sovereign” name, compounded with “El” or “Bey” and intended to denounce their association with the name provided them by a government entity.

Be sure to document all known aliases."


This line says it all:

"the name provided them by a government entity."


Merriam-Webster
Definition of PROVIDED
: on condition that : with the understanding : if

Definition of IF
1
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

So there are assumptions and conditions associated with using the provided government issued NAME.

[shikamaru]

http://www.policeone.com/investigati...eign-Citizens/

"4.) Watch for Fraudulent Documents
Sovereign Citizens can be an investigative challenge. Much of their personal identification information, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, or vehicle tags are fraudulent documents. When asked to provide a name, they may respond that they don’t have a name.

They may identify themselves as “the representative of…(their legal name).”

If you do receive a name, it may be a “sovereign” name, compounded with “El” or “Bey” and intended to denounce their association with the name provided them by a government entity.

Be sure to document all known aliases."


This line says it all:

"the name provided them by a government entity."


Merriam-Webster
Definition of PROVIDED
: on condition that : with the understanding : if

Definition of IF
1
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

So there are assumptions and conditions associated with using the provided government issued NAME.

The thing is, I don't think government can force you to use any given identification or name.

They merely rely on declaration of one form or another.
They certainly look for your confirmation of a specific legal record to begin assessment of charges.

I still contend that a name is an account (Common Law: chose in action).

[Michael Joseph]

Is a name, an appellation property?

thank you for the enlightenment. I appreciate your comments. I shall respond to say that, I believe that, what is being protected within State is the Usufruct - which as you know is just the RIGHT [Property] to Enjoy [Property] held by another.

So then, consider that Usufruct is a Right which can be the Corpus of a Trust. Or if you like, the Res. So then, the Usufruct can be held in Abeyance. So then, if the Usufructuary is holding the Usufruct in Abeyance, then I am only left as a naked user.

I understand what that means! It means that I do not have an ability to contract lawfully because the Usufructuary is holding the Usufruct in Trust. This means that the ONLY weapon that can be used against me is me. My words incriminate me, when I say the Property is MINE.

When that happens, then a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST forms in Law because I have just Torted the Trustee. And since I have torted the Trustee in Construction, I am given the Liability! Therefore, the ABSOLUTE WORST THING I can do is to make a Claim in the Title because that would be a Tort. So then what is my duty to my brethren? Is it not to discharge my service? I mean if a court case is started where someone is complaining about something regarding the NAME, isn't this a claim in the Usufruct?

I mean it is clear to this writer that the NAME is Res of the State - a more perfect Union - begs the General Government. So then, if a court makes a claim in the NAME - Plaintiff is Beneficiary and what is lacking is a Trustee! So am I to argue?

To argue ANYTHING is the act of foolishness. One who argues is either insane or has something to argue about. So then if one defends, Defendant, then, in argument one becomes a Trustee in Tort. Therefore the only option is to ask for the accounting so that the "minus charge" might be returned to the Treasury as a "positive charge" to zero the books. See that this must happen, ELSE the case MUST go into Limbo.

I say Limbo, because the term CHARGE reveals all:


CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.

Since the Estate is the Usufruct - then the Usufruct would have to be used to settle the Charge. But the Person issuing the Charge is responsible for the Charge. As it should be! Because one in liability is responsible for his issue. Therefore, please with specificity show me where my name appears on the Federal Reserve Note? I'll wait. So then we deal in Honor! I didn't make the system, but I can already see why this is such a huge risk. A criminal could have his way with the Court if he understood how it works.

My case was indefinitely deferred - Limbo:

Notice is hereby given to the designated transfer agent that I, michael-joseph make claim to the escrow, as it pertains to escrow account numbers 10CR123456 and 10CR123457 in the amount of $1,000.00, in the escrow account name MICHAEL JOSEPH NAME. You are hereby given notice to transfer the funds to the injured party, and

Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and

I, michael-joseph, further claim the original organic depository trust number incun.1454.b5 and I claim assurance under said original organic trust agreement in the name of Yehoshuah, by electronic routing to claimed escrow account, MICHAEL JOSEPH NAME, escrow account numbers; 10CR123456 and 10CR123457 paid in advance by the United States Treasury, and


And I did not have a problem feeling I was being heard, because I was speaking from the only place I could without causing a Tort - End User. My claim was IN the Usufruct. I do not claim Titles or for that matter Property. Only that I have the Use by Agreement. So then, my duty is to Administrate my domain in Law and in Equity.

I don't believe that mankind has gotten to a point where the collective consciousness is all gone astray - so I don't see the cause as lost. In the end, I am a king on this earth and a priest. Which makes me a servant.

Thank you for your response, you offer meat at the table. By the way, why is it paid in advance by the U.S. Treasury? Because the U.S. has the Liability as the Usufructuary!

Would you like to press charges against me? If so, I shall be glad to receive the accounting so that I can review the books and help you settle the matter upon your own estate! Therefore, I agree that man does form a State unto himself; however, it is not good for man to be alone - therefore I agree that man unites in Trust.

Now we seek a level playing field, yes? Placing the Usuruct in Trust is at great risk, because now I have no way to pay. I can only make a demand and hope the Clerk performs - Redemption is not up to me. I am without that Right as IT IS NOT MY ESTATE.



Shalom,
MJ

[Michael Joseph]

It is a simple matter in my opinion: if I will not be the Usufructuary in Tort, then my accuser must pay the charges. That ain't gonna happen thus the case goes off in Limbo land. What is left is the accounting. Since the Judge/DA ain't gonna give that to me, then a resulting trust forms and I will take the reigns and drive this buggy:

"Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and"


Again, I take the liability for myself, I am not recommending anybody do the foregoing. You understand of course that I am telling whoever is reading these words that if they go down this path, to take full liability because it is only in full liability that you will find your remedy. Apostle Paul wrote [paraphrasing] "we are set at liberty but we are not to flaunt our liberty in front of those who would stumble in its application".

Now then anyone who would make a claim in that Name must have the Titles or the License to make such claim. Since attorney's are Licensed they can operate in that Name according to Law, but if I will not argue, then what is left is settlement. Therefore, recognizing that my name is not on the Note and that my Image is not on the coins be it silver, gold or just plain old copper [don't forget the quarters, dimes and nickels], then I am making a use of property that belongs to another. I believe you would call that a RIGHT and specifically that Right is called USUFRUCT.

And since a Right = Property and property can be held in Trust. I BELIEVE the Usufruct is currently being held in Abeyance. Therefore, the only thing left is to settle the books. I can't claim Rights or Property. BECAUSE THE ESTATE IS NOT MINE. I can only help to settle the books.

In operation of law, I have an access easement into the State called Legal Name. True Name is an illegal alien - therefore, in my opinion - signing anything in True Name within the United States boundaries and borders is an illegal act - making said act illegal or frivolous.

I am NOT a name. A name is a tool, a convenience that I am called. Therefore if I got up in front of the court and said my name is michael joseph WELL they would just Re-Style the case - STATE vs. MICHAEL JOSEPH.

Why? Because they are forming a Constructive Trust in my Tort. Therefore they don't give a crap what I think my name is or what I am called today or tomorrow. They have a living being standing before them arguing therefore said living being is in Tort and therefore since he thinks he is the Trustee - well then let him pay the bill. I witnessed a case once where the DA told the Judge .....well shoot I have that transcript.....


5 MR. BOWMAN: Judge, the state is contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer.

You comprehend now? They don't give two cents [insert your favorite expletive], what you think your name is, the Court is there to hear a matter in FIRST MIDDLE LAST - and you can argue till your hearts content that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter - but the Court does have the Right because the State CREATED that Numbered Name. Ref. seal atop of Birth Cert and Seal atop of DL, etc. So then if you make any argument - it wasn't me - etc. Then you are just wasting your time. I grant mistakes happen and technical aspects do occur - people make mistakes - however I am concerned with Law and Equity.

My concern is such that I only need to help to settle the account. I model the NAME in two ways:

1. A trust vessel
2. An account

You might say an accounting of the Trust Corpus. Since I am only concerned with the Use - I have no other rights as I do not have standing. As such, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CHARGE THE ESTATE - then let them! This in psychology is sometimes called "Fogging".

Think of a tennis match. You serve to me. If I argue [return volley] then we have a game. There will be a winner and a loser. If however I let the ball sail past me "into the fog" - well then there is no game. In fact seeing that I am in the fog, you don't even know I am there. As such, call me whatever you want to call me - I don't give two cents.

I am a child of Elohim. Even my body. What does it say Gen 2:7. And Yehovah Elohim formed man with the "adamah" dust of the earth. Ref. Gen 1:1 - In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. So then, the body that I make a use of is not mine. Said body is a temple but it does not belong to me. I have the Use and I steward said body, but it is not my body! I did not make it!

My mom and dad did not make it. My body is subject to the FIRST GRANT from the King. Such that Yehovah Elohim formed The Man - Flesh. Therefore FLESH is subject to that First Feudal Clog and all other estates in Usufruct are subject to the First Grant in Flesh. Therefore my flesh is not granted to me by mom and dad- but subject to the Creator - therefore even my flesh forms a QUALIFIED ESTATE - subject to the Original Grant from the Creator/Settlor.

So, then while I may have the Use to Occupy, the Temple called the flesh body, is not my own. Simple, yes? You may call me michael joseph, I may or may not answer; however, in my purest essence, I am a child of El Elyon. I was before I am now. I now only occupy a pot fashioned for me by another. Therefore I am with the Usufruct = The Right to Enjoy Property vested in Another. Now then: read and understand why I bow my knee to Yehoshauh:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)

Joh 1:2 This Word was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him came into being not even one thing that hath come into being.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being by Him, and the world knew Him not.

Joh 1:11 He came unto His own [possessions = all the worlds peoples], and His own people Israel received [to themselves] Him not.


Do you now understand the beginning such that you comprehend the end? - paraphrasing from Book of Thomas

Shall we now setup a level playing field? A man who does not work shall not eat.

Why does man seek to cast off the bands of Yehovah and Yehoshauh? This creates a false balance. There is an illusion that this makes a peace.

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations tumultuously assemble, And the peoples meditate on vain things ?

Psa 2:2 Why do the kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers have gathered by appointment, Against Yehovah, and against His Messiah? saying,

Psa 2:3 "Let us break Yehovah's and Messiah's bands asunder, And cast away Their cords from us."

Peace comes from a People who agree to obey a given set of laws - if you want to call them Norms of Society - I don't care. But said Norms must be equitable to all and must be fair. So with a common law - we shall all agree to contract. But is there a common law? I THINK NOT. There is this state and that state and this state and the other state......and the heads in trustee in Administration - apply in immunity - with rights at the table - but is there peace? HARDLY. Can there be a common law between parties where one refuses to take full liability? - NO.


Shalom,
MJ

[Keith Alan]

It is a simple matter in my opinion: if I will not be the Usufructuary in Tort, then my accuser must pay the charges. That ain't gonna happen thus the case goes off in Limbo land. What is left is the accounting. Since the Judge/DA ain't gonna give that to me, then a resulting trust forms and I will take the reigns and drive this buggy:

"Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and"


Again, I take the liability for myself, I am not recommending anybody do the foregoing. You understand of course that I am telling whoever is reading these words that if they go down this path, to take full liability because it is only in full liability that you will find your remedy. Apostle Paul wrote [paraphrasing] "we are set at liberty but we are not to flaunt our liberty in front of those who would stumble in its application".

Now then anyone who would make a claim in that Name must have the Titles or the License to make such claim. Since attorney's are Licensed they can operate in that Name according to Law, but if I will not argue, then what is left is settlement. Therefore, recognizing that my name is not on the Note and that my Image is not on the coins be it silver, gold or just plain old copper [don't forget the quarters, dimes and nickels], then I am making a use of property that belongs to another. I believe you would call that a RIGHT and specifically that Right is called USUFRUCT.

And since a Right = Property and property can be held in Trust. I BELIEVE the Usufruct is currently being held in Abeyance. Therefore, the only thing left is to settle the books. I can't claim Rights or Property. BECAUSE THE ESTATE IS NOT MINE. I can only help to settle the books.

In operation of law, I have an access easement into the State called Legal Name. True Name is an illegal alien - therefore, in my opinion - signing anything in True Name within the United States boundaries and borders is an illegal act - making said act illegal or frivolous.

I am NOT a name. A name is a tool, a convenience that I am called. Therefore if I got up in front of the court and said my name is michael joseph WELL they would just Re-Style the case - STATE vs. MICHAEL JOSEPH.

Why? Because they are forming a Constructive Trust in my Tort. Therefore they don't give a crap what I think my name is or what I am called today or tomorrow. They have a living being standing before them arguing therefore said living being is in Tort and therefore since he thinks he is the Trustee - well then let him pay the bill. I witnessed a case once where the DA told the Judge .....well shoot I have that transcript.....


5 MR. BOWMAN: Judge, the state is contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer.

You comprehend now? They don't give two cents [insert your favorite expletive], what you think your name is, the Court is there to hear a matter in FIRST MIDDLE LAST - and you can argue till your hearts content that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter - but the Court does have the Right because the State CREATED that Numbered Name. Ref. seal atop of Birth Cert and Seal atop of DL, etc. So then if you make any argument - it wasn't me - etc. Then you are just wasting your time. I grant mistakes happen and technical aspects do occur - people make mistakes - however I am concerned with Law and Equity.

My concern is such that I only need to help to settle the account. I model the NAME in two ways:

1. A trust vessel
2. An account

You might say an accounting of the Trust Corpus. Since I am only concerned with the Use - I have no other rights as I do not have standing. As such, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CHARGE THE ESTATE - then let them! This in psychology is sometimes called "Fogging".

Think of a tennis match. You serve to me. If I argue [return volley] then we have a game. There will be a winner and a loser. If however I let the ball sail past me "into the fog" - well then there is no game. In fact seeing that I am in the fog, you don't even know I am there. As such, call me whatever you want to call me - I don't give two cents.

I am a child of Elohim. Even my body. What does it say Gen 2:7. And Yehovah Elohim formed man with the "adamah" dust of the earth. Ref. Gen 1:1 - In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. So then, the body that I make a use of is not mine. Said body is a temple but it does not belong to me. I have the Use and I steward said body, but it is not my body! I did not make it!

My mom and dad did not make it. My body is subject to the FIRST GRANT from the King. Such that Yehovah Elohim formed The Man - Flesh. Therefore FLESH is subject to that First Feudal Clog and all other estates in Usufruct are subject to the First Grant in Flesh. Therefore my flesh is not granted to me by mom and dad- but subject to the Creator - therefore even my flesh forms a QUALIFIED ESTATE - subject to the Original Grant from the Creator/Settlor.

So, then while I may have the Use to Occupy, the Temple called the flesh body, is not my own. Simple, yes? You may call me michael joseph, I may or may not answer; however, in my purest essence, I am a child of El Elyon. I was before I am now. I now only occupy a pot fashioned for me by another. Therefore I am with the Usufruct = The Right to Enjoy Property vested in Another. Now then: read and understand why I bow my knee to Yehoshauh:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)

Joh 1:2 This Word was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him came into being not even one thing that hath come into being.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being by Him, and the world knew Him not.

Joh 1:11 He came unto His own [possessions = all the worlds peoples], and His own people Israel received [to themselves] Him not.


Do you now understand the beginning such that you comprehend the end? - paraphrasing from Book of Thomas

Shall we now setup a level playing field? A man who does not work shall not eat.

Why does man seek to cast off the bands of Yehovah and Yehoshauh? This creates a false balance. There is an illusion that this makes a peace.

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations tumultuously assemble, And the peoples meditate on vain things ?

Psa 2:2 Why do the kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers have gathered by appointment, Against Yehovah, and against His Messiah? saying,

Psa 2:3 "Let us break Yehovah's and Messiah's bands asunder, And cast away Their cords from us."

Peace comes from a People who agree to obey a given set of laws - if you want to call them Norms of Society - I don't care. But said Norms must be equitable to all and must be fair. So with a common law - we shall all agree to contract. But is there a common law? I THINK NOT. There is this state and that state and this state and the other state......and the heads in trustee in Administration - apply in immunity - with rights at the table - but is there peace? HARDLY. Can there be a common law between parties where one refuses to take full liability? - NO.


Shalom,
MJ

I'm reminded of this, Matthew 5:25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

There are the directions on how to handle controversy - don't have one. Reach agreement before it goes into the public.

[walter]

5 MR. BOWMAN: Judge, the state is contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer.

Why don't you have to show ID in court?

[walter]

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gou...CCQ1991_A.html
Civil Code of Québec


TITLE FIVE
LEGAL PERSONS

CHAPTER I
JURIDICAL PERSONALITY

DIVISION I
CONSTITUTION AND KINDS OF LEGAL PERSONS

298. Legal persons are endowed with juridical personality.

Legal persons are established in the public interest or for a private interest.

1991, c. 64, a. 298.

299. Legal persons are constituted in accordance with the juridical forms provided by law, and sometimes directly by law.

Legal persons exist from the coming into force of the Act or from the time prescribed therein if they are established in the public interest or if they are constituted directly by law or through the effect of law; otherwise, they exist from the time provided for in the Acts that are applicable to them.

1991, c. 64, a. 299.

300. Legal persons established in the public interest are primarily governed by the special Acts by which they are constituted and by those which are applicable to them; legal persons established for a private interest are primarily governed by the Acts applicable to their particular type.

Both kinds of legal persons are also governed by this Code where the provisions of such Acts require to be complemented, particularly with regard to their status as legal persons, their property or their relations with other persons.

1991, c. 64, a. 300.

DIVISION II
EFFECTS OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY

301. Legal persons have full enjoyment of civil rights.

1991, c. 64, a. 301.

302. Every legal person has a patrimony which may, to the extent provided by law, be divided or appropriated to a purpose. It also has the extra-patrimonial rights and obligations flowing from its nature.

1991, c. 64, a. 302.

303. Legal persons have capacity to exercise all their rights, and the provisions of this Code respecting the exercise of civil rights by natural persons are applicable to them, adapted as required.

They have no incapacities other than those which may result from their nature or from an express provision of law.

1991, c. 64, a. 303.

304. Legal persons may not exercise tutorship or curatorship to the person.

They may, however, to the extent that they are authorized by law to act as such, hold office as tutor or curator to property, liquidator of a succession, sequestrator, trustee or administrator of another legal person.

1991, c. 64, a. 304.

305. Every legal person has a name which is assigned to it when it is constituted, and under which it exercises its rights and performs its obligations.

It shall be assigned a name which conforms to law and which includes, where required by law, an expression that clearly indicates the juridical form assumed by the legal person.

1991, c. 64, a. 305.

306. A legal person may engage in an activity or identify itself under a name other than its own name. It shall give notice to the enterprise registrar by filing a declaration to that effect in accordance with the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises (chapter P-44.1) and, if the legal person is a syndicate of co-owners, apply for the registration of such a notice in the land register.

1991, c. 64, a. 306; 2000, c. 42, s. 1; 2002, c. 45, s. 157; 2010, c. 7, s. 164.

307. The domicile of a legal person is at the place and address of its head office.

1991, c. 64, a. 307.

308. A legal person may change its name or its domicile by following the procedure established by law.

1991, c. 64, a. 308.

309. Legal persons are distinct from their members. Their acts bind none but themselves, except as provided by law.

1991, c. 64, a. 309.

310. The functioning, the administration of the patrimony and the activities of a legal person are regulated by law, the constituting act and the by-laws; to the extent permitted by law, they may also be regulated by a unanimous agreement of the members.

In case of inconsistency between the constituting act and the by-laws, the constituting act prevails.

1991, c. 64, a. 310.

311. Legal persons act through their organs, such as the board of directors and the general meeting of the members.

1991, c. 64, a. 311.

312. A legal person is represented by its senior officers, who bind it to the extent of the powers vested in them by law, the constituting act or the by-laws.

1991, c. 64, a. 312.

313. The by-laws of a legal person set out the contractual relations existing between the legal person and its members.

1991, c. 64, a. 313.

314. A legal person exists in perpetuity unless otherwise provided by law or its constituting act.

1991, c. 64, a. 314.

315. The members of a legal person are liable toward the legal person for anything they have promised to contribute to it, unless otherwise provided by law.

1991, c. 64, a. 315.

316. In case of fraud with regard to the legal person, the court may, on the application of an interested person, hold the founders, directors, other senior officers or members of the legal person who have participated in the alleged act or derived personal profit therefrom liable, to the extent it indicates, for any damage suffered by the legal person.

1991, c. 64, a. 316.

317. In no case may a legal person set up juridical personality against a person in good faith if it is set up to dissemble fraud, abuse of right or contravention of a rule of public order.

1991, c. 64, a. 317.

318. The court, in deciding an action by a third person in good faith, may rule that a person or group not having status as a legal person has the same obligations as a legal person if the person or group acted as such in respect of the third person.

1991, c. 64, a. 318.

319. A legal person may ratify an act performed for it before it was constituted; it is then substituted for the person who acted for it.

The ratification does not effect novation; the person who acted has thenceforth the same rights and is subject to the same obligations as a mandatary in respect of the legal person.

1991, c. 64, a. 319.

320. A person who acts for a legal person before it is constituted is bound by the obligations so contracted, unless the contract stipulates otherwise and includes a statement to the effect that the legal person might not be constituted or might not assume the obligations subscribed in the contract.

1991, c. 64, a. 320.

[shikamaru]

Why don't you have to show ID in court?

Because declaration works just as good, if not, better ....

[Michael Joseph]

Why don't you have to show ID in court?

Open says me. I have never seen a man in a North Carolina courtroom be compelled to show cause in regard to identity. It is impossible for a man to identify himself - impossible. But I have already been down this road - in these forums.

[Michael Joseph]

Because declaration works just as good, if not, better ....

Yes, even better than KNOW Thyself is DECLARE Thyself. Therefore we ALWAYS do a "Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement".

Shalom,
MJ