What's in a NAME?

[Michael Joseph]

Salsero:

In my humble opinion the NAME is not my property as I have looked at the Certificate and I find a State SEAL upon it. That is enough for me. As such, I see a trust, as beneficiary of another trust. Now each trust has its own actors and Administrations but the one at the bottom of the so called proverbial totem pole is subject to everything above it - even international treaties that the United States might enjoin itself unto.

In a sense we are talking about Usufruct. And a mere user can only make a use in privilege. And a privilege is not an established Right. Or let me say this that absent a Claim which establishes Property there can be no Property = which is to say Rights of Use. Estates are therefore INTERESTS in Property.

Therefore, the subjects buy, sell, trade and exchange Estates but they have NO ACCESS to Property. And therefore, Property CANNOT be alienated without the State because the subjects are NOT ALLOWED to play at that level. Meaning they, the subjects, have no Claim, therefore they lack Property and therefore they have ZERO RIGHTS and only Civil Rights which amount to mere privilege. And privileges can always be revoked.

Padelford clearly showed this to be fact - for we find that a State can tax its subjects to death - if necessary - so that the State can continue. Subjects ARE NOT SOVEREIGN. The Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. When I had my day in court - I actually was so stupid as to tell a DA who had a huge smile on her face that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. She assured me she had it. I pondered for a bit and then I realized that indeed THIS MATTER concerned the Property held by the State. Therefore the licensed lawyers have full authority to hear any matter in the NAME and I realized that I stood adversary. So I backed off that claim and then I found peace. ALL SMILES. I gave away the stone and walked away from that anchor.

Said another way, I have no trust in the horses of Egypt. But I do recognize the fact that the 56 who pledged HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME and the subjects have nothing to add - except loyalty to those who gave them a government. WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT DID YOU GIVE US - A republic if you can keep it. And they setup the Trust Agreement for themselves and their Heirs. This of course is Trust 101.

People can call these chattels tools or whatever they would like but in the end of the day, if one benefits in Estates formed by others, then that one is SUBJECT to the administration of those who hold the Property whereof those Estates are formed. In reality the subjects only deal with Estates that are interests in Property owned by others.

Notice the Estate is even Recorded in an ASSET REGISTRY within a County held in a State. Don't let me get started on UCC. If one indeed has his/her own Property, then there is a Claim, and there would exist a Registry held in their State/Kingdom and there would be a Court which would be foreign to other States. I don't need to go on. I believe I have made my point.


In True trust the King is the biggest SERVANT of ALL for the Property in reality belongs to the Creator and the King Administrates the Property for all who abide within the Kingdom. Man is told to take dominion yet, in true trust Yehoshuah is King of kings. So we see vassal kings UNDER the King of kings. Even our bodies and souls belong to Yehovah.

Oh one more thing. Both parties stand naked but the one with the Might is looking for Consent in ACTION. This is IMPLIED TRUST. And I can testify there is no better remedy than a man standing and speaking what comes from his own heart.

Jer 17:7 Blessed is the strong man that confideth in Yehovah, and whose confidence Yehovah is.

Jer 17:5 Thus saith Yehovah; "Cursed be the strong man that confideth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from Yehovah.

We are with CHOICE....with that I take my leave.

Shalom,
MJ