My birth certificate issued (I assume) in the summer of 1976 (I was born in August allegedly)- is NOT written in all capitals as proposed by freeman lore. My birth certificate reads Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx........ Is this strawman thing a sham?
My birth certificate issued (I assume) in the summer of 1976 (I was born in August allegedly)- is NOT written in all capitals as proposed by freeman lore. My birth certificate reads Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx........ Is this strawman thing a sham?
Not a sham. ALL UPPER CASE is a convention for constructive trusts.
The date when you were born causes me to wonder if the convention of ALL UPPER CASE nomenclature on a birth certificate has integrated into American culture with METRO global municipal policy with the implementation of SDR's as currency? Perhaps that is just because I am reading my new (original) Terrible 1313 Revisited by Jo HINDMAN...
Michael Joseph has a bit more formal trust law reading than I do. I understand that the birth certificate will assign the TRUST to the State as initial trustee and if you do not understand your identity you will mistakenly replace the proper trustee whenever you identify yourself to be LAST, M FIRST like on your driver license. Ergo we suggest you would sign with True Name only and clarify to the officer that you are not using the card to identify yourself; at least not to identiy with the FIRST MIDDLE LAST constructive trust. You are just showing the card for competency and insurance policy purposes - your name is like you signed it.
I was born at night... but it wasn't last night.
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter1.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter2.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter3.pdf
It is.Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
You need to understand how the term strawman is legally defined.
Strawman redemption is a lot of garbage for the most part. I'm uncertain if the people who use the terms could define either strawman or redemption.
I didnt see the name thing thread earlier before I started this one, so my bad.
I need to distance myself from the above document apparently. The above document is in debt, owes an incredible amount of child support because said person surrendered his unalienable right to marry for the privilege to do so and now is paying the price for said action. (I THINK I am beginning to understand this)
However, my initial question - the legal entity represented on this paper is recorded incorrectly? Xxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxx as opposed to XXX XXXX XXXXXXX? Clerical error?
I think it is interesting to note that the parent's education is brought into question on said document.
more to the story - the above legal entity also plead guilty in court to a DUI he was totally innocent of (what a bunch of crap) just because a policy officer asked if said person had had anything to drink, which respondent stated "Yes, one with dinner at Chili's several hours ago". Long story short, the man didn't understand things like "subject matter jurisdiction", "standing", "writs", "corpus delecti", etc and instead of challenging jurisdiction or evidence of a plaintiff, said person allowed himself to come under the jurisdiction of the court and policing powers of the state. Ignorance and fear created a situation where said person will have to renew his license in a few weeks, so it would behoove me to learn as much as I can before doing so. I would LOVE to hang out with a full on suitor who walks the walk and just observe how one handles his day to day affairs.
Maxim of law: Confession trumps evidence. Commit that one to memory.
Be more careful with whom information is divulged.
Never reveal anything to a policy enforcement officer.
That is procedure, legal definitions, and statutory construction and interpretation.
You can learn all of that on your own, plus the information is freely available either on the Internet, library, or archive.
A license is permission to commit or omit an action that would otherwise be illegal, unlawful, a trespass, or a tort.
I didnt see the name thing thread earlier before I started this one, so my bad.
I need to distance myself from the above document apparently. The above document is in debt, owes an incredible amount of child support because said person surrendered his unalienable right to marry for the privilege to do so and now is paying the price for said action. (I THINK I am beginning to understand this)
My question is: What is inherently illegal, unlawful, a trespass, or a tort about a man and woman coming together in matrimony?
A marriage license brings the marriage (and its fruits) under police powers of the State with its administrative courts.
A marriage license is a three party general partnership between the man, woman, and the State.
A license is not a contract however (despite having many quasi-contractual elements). A license is a SERVITUDE.
I'll let others answer this one. They are more versed on true name and such.
If one will unite in Marriage of ESTATES then one will be making a USE of State Property - but All rights, titles and interests are in the State, in Abeyance for want of a proper claim in Equity - which is to say for the PUBLIC benefit and not for one's private gain. The latter claim for private gain is Usurpation of the Public Trustee and therefore a License must be issued. For one to make a Use of Public Property for Private Gain is to make one a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE which is to say a Trustee de son Tort - which is to say a Usurper.
But notice that is EXACTLY what 99.999999999% of the men and women are doing so in effect governing law need only be the UCC because there is a level field Public Trustee contracting in FEE with Trustee de son Tort which is to say Constructive Trustee.
Since the Public Good is the Usufruct then the NAME, being Public is a vessel to bring the Good to the Public - For ye are as a City on a Hill. What is private about that?
One who is with the benefit is with the Liability. If the NAME is for the Public but you gain a private benefit then you have the liability. If you benefit the Public with the Use of the NAME then the Public is with the benefit.
There is no need to license one who is upon proper use of Ceasar's property. Even the NAME is a Corp Sole. For it is the issue of some State so it is like this:
The Mayor of the City of Savannah is a Corp Sole. The Mayor is the single office which is occupied by a single man or woman. The City of Savannah is the Ministry - Public in its Nature.
FIRST MIDDLE LAST of the State of Florida. Pray tell whose seal is upon the BC? Will you make a private use of FIRST MIDDLE LAST - if so enjoy those liabilities - new BILLS issue each season to ......
Well you get the point....I withdraw. But one last thing: I heard an attorner say one time "I shall fear no evil for I shall dwell at the trough of the taxpayer for ever and ever." Consider. This too is why the false priests were so angry at Yehoshuah Messiah [Jesus Christ] for He declared the Public Trust - give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give unto God what is God's. The false priests had grown rich at the TROUGH of the Constructive Trustee - taxpayer.
Shalom,
Michael Joseph
Last edited by Michael Joseph; 12-21-12 at 07:14 PM.
The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.
Lawful Money Trust Website
Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST
ONE man or woman can make a difference!
I still have a hard time grappling with it in my head how I can distance myself from that sheet of paper. If I do so, wont the policy enforcers then accuse me of trying to create a new/false identity or just label my alias?
The conditioning runs deep ya know
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote