What's in a NAME?

[Freed Gerdes]

Thanks for your clear delination, Salsero. I admit my error: I have no claim on THE NAME. It is a legal fiction created by the state, for their benefit. What had me buffaloed was their 'claim' on the name, which carries with it the strong presumption that the user of the name is a debt serf, an employee of the socialist government corporation, and thus subject to jurisdiction under Roman (contract, lex mercatoria, UCC) law. Obtaining that jurisdiction is the entire purpose of the state's claim on the name. The state created it (first), thus they own it, and I can only use it; I have no right to tell the trustee what to do with his property. More importantly, I am not the beneficiary of the trust, and I have no obligation to use THE NAME. But now there is a problem; the 2nd dimension legal fictional jurisdiction that overlays the real world. I the natural man (people, not person) cannot contract with corporations; I must act within the office of a corporate person. So how to get electrical service, phone, bank account, etc? The whole purpose of the state claiming THE NAME is to establish their right to tax the property held by THE NAME. Just using THE NAME carries the presumption that 'you' (the people who acts as accommodation agent for legal person THE NAME) are a card-carrying employee of the trust, and that all you acquire in THE NAME belongs to the government.

Suppose that I create another NAME for my use, not owned by the government. I can easily file for a dba with the state, and that corporate person will be recognized, and the legal system will recognize that I own it (I recognize that I did not create the legal system, so let's say that I own the exclusive interest to use this new corporate person, at least free of any presumption that it suffers from some prior claim by the government). It will also fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC legal system, but without all the baggage of the presumption that I am a US citizen, ie, debt slave. This should greatly simplify proving the claim that 'I am not a US citizen, subject to your jurisdiction.' I (as agent for the NEW NAME), am still subject to the UCC, but now only for actual contracts, thus shedding all the presumptions associated with using the NAME that the state has assigned to me (think of it as going off the grid). I perceive that the use of a NAME provides the contracting parties with the basic presumption that certain rules (the UCC) are in effect, and that your NAME has agreed to accept service of process there. But at least creating your own NAME would take the government's interest out of the contract. Then you get the DMV to issue an identity card in your own NAME, and you drive on that. Now there is no presumption that you are in contract with the state or federal rules, codes, and regulations. Only common law applies.

My understanding of the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 is that the US government pledged all its assets to the bankers as security collateral for the debt. But the US corporate government did not own all the property in America. By using the debt obligations created by the endorsement of private bills of exchange (FRN's), the corporation perfected its claim on more and more of America, but it does not have a claim on privately held property. Some have said here on this blog that the people are deprived of money, thus cannot 'buy' anything. The stated benefit for the debt slaves is described by the corporation as being indemnified from having to actually pay for anything, ie, join us in this bankruptcy fraud (but we get to tax you for the privilege). But there is lawful money. Today it begins to look like a black market, but by using lawful money you can buy property and discharge all debts on it, including previous claims to it held by the corporate government. But if you put that property into YOUR NAME, you just re-create the government's claim on it, and they will still want to tax it... and you will have to take positive steps to rebut their presumptions. So maybe put it in the NAME you use that acknowledges God's trust, ie, your given name.

btw, Doug Casey calls FRN's "I owe you nothing"s. He calls Euro notes "Who owes you nothing"s... only gold is honest money, honest weight.

ps to Chex: gold is not currently money, due to the usurpation of fiat everywhere, but gold is wealth. It represents stored labor and resources in the real world.

Freed

[Michael Joseph]

Freed:

That is called DECLARATION OF TRUST and TRUST AGREEMENT. And yes the IRS fully recognizes that you will no longer be under 1040 rules. In fact you will fall under 1041 - Complex Trust. Learn it and you don't even need Lawful Money. you can reduce the tax burden to as low as five percent. Nevertheless, Lawful Money is the ticket in conjunction with Trust.

DECLARE THYSELF.

[Michael Joseph]

study what went down just prior to Hitler taking power and you will most likely see some very similar patterns forming in America. Very similar indeed.

[Anthony Joseph]

people...

who can make a claim but one with living voice?

do you claim property or ownership/title?

the former is expressed in living voice, the latter must be expressed by way of paper

i care not of ownership or titles; my claim of property stands as true and verified until someone will step forward and disparage and/or deny my living voice claim

end of story

[Michael Joseph]

And now back on target. IDENTITY is impossible to prove. Therefore TRUST must be expressed or implied. As it were I can tell you trust by watching what fruit your produce.

The premise is quite simple really:

Rom_6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

This is IMPLIED TRUST. Since Identity cannot be proved. But I will not beat that horse anymore. Some folks THINK they can prove it - but they only fool themselves. With their images - which prove nothing at all.


Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

Heb 13:13 Let us go forth therefore to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek the coming one.

Heb 13:15 By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips confessing to His name.

Shalom,
MJ

[Michael Joseph]

people...

who can make a claim but one with living voice?

do you claim property or ownership/title?

the former is expressed in living voice, the latter must be expressed by way of paper

i care not of ownership or titles; my claim of property stands as true and verified until someone will step forward and disparage and/or deny my living voice claim

end of story

title and ownership are derivatives of Property. A law dictionary proves that easily. Title is a MEANS showing just possession. Ownership is in dominion which is who has the Right to Property.

I don't know your claim - what is it? Please elucidate it upon a candid world. Man cannot read minds.

THEREFORE,

DECLARATION OF TRUST [INDEPENDENCE] AND TRUST AGREEMENT [CONSTITUTION].

DECLARE THYSELF.


Shalom,
MJ

P.S. I have never head a dead man talk so I am unsure what you mean about a living voice. I jest of course but it is nevertheless humorous to me.

[Anthony Joseph]

what i claim is my property (that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others) is true, simply because i speak it

if someone wishes to disparage or deny what i; a man, claim... come forward now and be heard

"living voice", i agree, is a redundant phrase; except that, in the 2nd dimension realm, fictions have a "voice" on paper

in common law, "voice" means only one thing; a man who speaks [cf. viva voce]

[Michael Joseph]

what i claim is my property (that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others) is true, simply because i speak it

if someone wishes to disparage or deny what i; a man, claim... come forward now and be heard

"living voice", i agree, is a redundant phrase; except that, in the 2nd dimension realm, fictions have a "voice" on paper

in common law, "voice" means only one thing; a man who speaks [cf. viva voce]

okay I see your point - a court "speaks" thru its records....as it were. However in the end, men/women produce the record. Words do not magically appear absent an intelligent mind.

This is why I vehemently oppose evolution. However, consider INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and COPYRIGHT. Are these not written expressions with certain property rights associated therein and thereof? Is not the creator allowed to profit from those rights? For a workman is worthy of his hire.

Common Law comes from Scripture. All trusts must first be spoken into existence. And God said....and God spake....etc. However a kingdom of priests all agree that there exists a King. And it ain't them! They all abide in one law under the law giver. And the law giver is sovereign!

Shalom,
MJ

[Anthony Joseph]

great

where have i infringed upon "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and COPYRIGHT" through my offerings?

[salsero]

when did i ever claim ownership?

what evidence would you bring in open court to verify that what i claim is in error - can a piece of paper verify itself?

when did i say i would go in the "state's" court and be ruled over by a "judge"?

when i bring my court to a public courthouse, it will be the rules of my court (which i create) that the magistrate will follow and hold the parties to as a witness independent of the tribunal

the unwritten common law is the highest law on this land - contract wisely

you do know that you are participating on a site which is named 'saving to suitors' club, right?

not only do i believe i have an inherent right to a common law remedy, so do the people who wrote the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 which still stands today...

[cf. "...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of AmericaDiversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.]

exercise your inherent right; and, be competent

Honestly, I wanted to learn more about the FRB then anything else - this is why I joined. I appreciate David and his very hard work. I am at a cross roads man v person. the 12 USC 411 has to do with a person, not man. But I am not at that point of being ONLY man. The person must give up everything - a release of claim and interest in the person. I am not there today.

You think I want to argue, I really do not want to. I have asked questions and have yet to receive answers. How do you go into your court? Have you been successful in going to your court in the public courthouse? You create the court and the magistrate will follow and hold the parties to as witness per your say so? The highest law on the land is GOD"S LAW. This is the only law that matters and this Law pertains to man.

What makes you think you have any rights to begin with in regard to Man's laws. We live in a demoCRAZY - where majority rules. Go figure a majority of idiots have a say about others.

So let me ask a point blank question: Have you actually gone into court and made it yours? Have you had the magistrate actually do what you told him to do? Please tell us what exact type of case you have dealt with regarding Common Law and have won?

I see I missed a question you had: IF I WERE IN COURT, ANY COURT, YOURS OR THEIRS, and I was asked to question you about your proof of claim - anything you may claim for that matter, this is what I would do: When you are asked to swear to tell the truth and then asked your name, I would interrupt and state: Magistrate I have evidence to prove that Anthony made a false claim to property that he does not own. THe evidence I have is the BC. It is a certified copy with state seal and state authorized signer signed this document - Your honor what are you going to do to this belligerent, an enemy of the state who dares make false claims to property he does not own? Your honor, you realize the country is bankrupt and has no backing of the INTERNAL currency, therefore in the 1930s all titles were seized and thus all property is vested in the state where citizens, residents, men are mere users per the senate record.

Again for the final time - I would never say never that common law will not work - the odds are simply against it. I stated previously that Glenn Fearn uses the common law case law everywhere in his documents. The man is very smart, I do have respect for him. But he fully admits he IS a belligerent. I see his work as I DARE YOU TO CHALLENGE ME, YOU WILL OWE ME $1,000,000 IN SILVER. To me this is nothing more than UCC.

I challenge anyone here to take a listen to Marcus. These videos are long and I have to say at times boring but boring because he is trying to drill it in our heads. We are Servant Kings and if you are Christian - he quotes the Bible through out constantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysESwj1w10

[salsero]

Thanks for your clear delination, Salsero. I admit my error: I have no claim on THE NAME. It is a legal fiction created by the state, for their benefit. What had me buffaloed was their 'claim' on the name, which carries with it the strong presumption that the user of the name is a debt serf, an employee of the socialist government corporation, and thus subject to jurisdiction under Roman (contract, lex mercatoria, UCC) law. Obtaining that jurisdiction is the entire purpose of the state's claim on the name. The state created it (first), thus they own it, and I can only use it; I have no right to tell the trustee what to do with his property. More importantly, I am not the beneficiary of the trust, and I have no obligation to use THE NAME. But now there is a problem; the 2nd dimension legal fictional jurisdiction that overlays the real world. I the natural man (people, not person) cannot contract with corporations; I must act within the office of a corporate person. So how to get electrical service, phone, bank account, etc? The whole purpose of the state claiming THE NAME is to establish their right to tax the property held by THE NAME. Just using THE NAME carries the presumption that 'you' (the people who acts as accommodation agent for legal person THE NAME) are a card-carrying employee of the trust, and that all you acquire in THE NAME belongs to the government.

Suppose that I create another NAME for my use, not owned by the government. I can easily file for a dba with the state, and that corporate person will be recognized, and the legal system will recognize that I own it (I recognize that I did not create the legal system, so let's say that I own the exclusive interest to use this new corporate person, at least free of any presumption that it suffers from some prior claim by the government). It will also fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC legal system, but without all the baggage of the presumption that I am a US citizen, ie, debt slave. This should greatly simplify proving the claim that 'I am not a US citizen, subject to your jurisdiction.' I (as agent for the NEW NAME), am still subject to the UCC, but now only for actual contracts, thus shedding all the presumptions associated with using the NAME that the state has assigned to me (think of it as going off the grid). I perceive that the use of a NAME provides the contracting parties with the basic presumption that certain rules (the UCC) are in effect, and that your NAME has agreed to accept service of process there. But at least creating your own NAME would take the government's interest out of the contract. Then you get the DMV to issue an identity card in your own NAME, and you drive on that. Now there is no presumption that you are in contract with the state or federal rules, codes, and regulations. Only common law applies.

My understanding of the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 is that the US government pledged all its assets to the bankers as security collateral for the debt. But the US corporate government did not own all the property in America. By using the debt obligations created by the endorsement of private bills of exchange (FRN's), the corporation perfected its claim on more and more of America, but it does not have a claim on privately held property. Some have said here on this blog that the people are deprived of money, thus cannot 'buy' anything. The stated benefit for the debt slaves is described by the corporation as being indemnified from having to actually pay for anything, ie, join us in this bankruptcy fraud (but we get to tax you for the privilege). But there is lawful money. Today it begins to look like a black market, but by using lawful money you can buy property and discharge all debts on it, including previous claims to it held by the corporate government. But if you put that property into YOUR NAME, you just re-create the government's claim on it, and they will still want to tax it... and you will have to take positive steps to rebut their presumptions. So maybe put it in the NAME you use that acknowledges God's trust, ie, your given name.

btw, Doug Casey calls FRN's "I owe you nothing"s. He calls Euro notes "Who owes you nothing"s... only gold is honest money, honest weight.

ps to Chex: gold is not currently money, due to the usurpation of fiat everywhere, but gold is wealth. It represents stored labor and resources in the real world.

Freed

All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name. No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid. Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this. The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully. This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

[Anthony Joseph]

i do not hold or subscribe to the defeatist viewpoint that "we live in a demoCRAZY - where majority rules"

i am preparing a claim to move in my court presently

you; salsero, have no first hand knowledge of what you claim regarding the Name (my property) and the BC (a piece of paper with no vocal chords)

your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?

only man can make a claim of property in a common law land; everything else you speak of is conjecture and the facilitation of defeatism through fear

God's Law is common law, that's the point; the unwritten law of right and wrong:

- harm to a man
- injury to a man's property
- breach of a valid and lawful contract

everything else is in the land of "legalese" where i do not wish to "reside"

[salsero]

i do not hold or subscribe to the defeatist viewpoint that "we live in a demoCRAZY - where majority rules"

i am preparing a claim to move in my court presently

you; salsero, have no first hand knowledge of what you claim regarding the Name (my property) and the BC (a piece of paper with no vocal chords)

your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?

only man can make a claim of property in a common law land; everything else you speak of is conjecture and the facilitation of defeatism through fear

God's Law is common law, that's the point; the unwritten law of right and wrong:

- harm to a man
- injury to a man's property
- breach of a valid and lawful contract

everything else is in the land of "legalese" where i do not wish to "reside"

I will conditionally accept your statements upon prove that:

1. We do not live in a democracy or as I live to state it - demoCRAZY where the majority rules, bad or good have nothing to do with it.
2. With your statement, salsero you have no first hand knowledge regarding ... do you have first hand knowledge that I do not have first hand knowledge?
3. From your own statement, I am preparing a claim to move forward - that you have first hand knowledge.
4. my "claim", if I made such a thing is without merit.
5. you verify your claim.
6. [once you hold your own court] the judge will even allow you to speak after the fact you state "your name" and for the record, when you speak on the record, who hold those records?
7. that at any time I would intermeddle and speak or even act as trustee for the state. Intermeddling has a big price called surety-ship. I can only speak for me and not the entity I use.
8. please tell us where is common law land is located
9. that any man can NOT make a claim anywhere. Hillary will be the president in 2016 is a claim. I just made it. People make claims of what they believe all the time. I must live in a democrazy.
10. Fear - please tell how you possibly interpreted fear. [if anything it is liberating to finally come in to God's world and not into man's paper fiction]
11. God's law is common law. Where on earth did you get this from? God's Law is Supreme - how on earth can you bring a claim in in court here in the USA, saying it is your court, then ask a judge, who is a man to make a judgment on another man or person. ONLY GOD IS OR CAN BE THE JUDGE, as I have found NO WHERE GOD PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO ANY MAN TO JUDGE ANOTHER MAN. If anything, there is a scripture that states judge not lest you be judged.
12. man contracts - please state how.
13. that you do not reside in the land of legalese

Paisan I do not wish to argue with you, really. You like the bible, this is very good. I wish you would take some time to listen to Marcus and his video series. He really brings up some excellent biblical points that will leave you to MAKE A DECISION - who do you serve? Man or God. There is no half way. CHOOSE. It will get this MY PROPERTY thing in a different context for you. I can not write a book here.

Because I know you are very sincere with this thinking, I honor that but I do not agree. As I have said, WE ARE FORCED to do commerce out of necessity and we do this through an entity we USE.

Again here is the link for Marcus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSR...Y1ZxJB&index=1 and also if you are so inclined check out notacitizen.com

Again, if none of this resonates with you, that is fine with me, as we are all on our own journey. When you move your court, please let us know how that worked out for you.

[Anthony Joseph]

some of your questions ask to prove a negative; sorry, i don't do that

some of your questions come from a belief that we are at the mercy of the "powers that be"; sorry, i don't believe that

some of your statements come from a belief that man is NOT the highest standing on earth; sorry, i don't believe that

some of your statements presume that something called 'state' has rights and can make a claim of property in the third dimension; sorry, i don't believe that

[Freed Gerdes]

All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name.

The state does claim the NAME; they claim ownership of the assets held in the NAME, which they pledge to the IMF as collateral. But more obviously, the state is a corporation, so the NAME created by them is a corporation (actually a limited liability corporation, or LLC). I get it that the state does not own me, the man, but they have interposed themselves between me and my right to contract, claiming legal title and leaving me only equitable title to any asset I buy. But there is a Constitutional nation in the geography of the US, and the Fed govt is just a legal overlay on that. And the only connection between the two is the presumption of voluntary servitude, ie, being a 'US citizen' rather than an American Citizen. Prior to the bankruptcy trust being created, ordinary Citizens owned assets in their given names. Is that not possible now? Apparently it is not possible if your NAME has been claimed by the fed govt, without your consent...

No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid.

[COLOR="#000000"][COLOR="#FF0000"] The state says that I can have the 'benefit' of using the NAME to contract with other legal entities, which as you say is almost required in this modern age, but I only act as agent for the LLC when I do use it. I am me, and the NAME is just an imaginary shell which I can put on to operate in the 2nd dimension, the imaginary plane of Roman law/contracts. If the judge asks my name, I will give him my given name, and state that I am people, not person.

Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this.

Wait! I claim that I do have an option, that I am not forced to use the NAME owned by the state, I am allowed to accept the benefit of not paying for it when I use the NAME. I am only forced to use the NAME if I intend to pay in their private, false currency. If I pay in lawful money, I can buy an asset which the state cannot claim ownership to (see 12 USC 95 a (2)), and I can title it in my own name. The title is only evidence of ownership; as AJ says, I the living man makes the claim of ownership. And he acquires this claim through applying his labor to modify some part of God's creation to make it more suitable to his purposes. Money is a representation of exchangeable labor; FRN's are a representation of promised future labor.

The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully.

The new name would be an LLC recognized by the State, not the Fed govt. North Carolina has a Constitutional government outside the US Federal government. So the new name is a State citizen, not a US citizen. And obviously it would have to be somewhat different from the NAME claimed by the fed govt, which I could then quit using.

This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

Yes, I understand that the living man has no standing in a Roman court; the judge is not a judge at all, he is an administrator, authorized only to resolve contract disputes between corporate entities, one of whom is making a claim of a contract violation. My view there is that the state is making a claim against its own property, and trying to con me into accepting liability for this violation. But I am not a corporation, and my actions can only be limited by common law; as a sometimes beneficiary of the NAME, I will give my permission for the judge, as acting trustee for the trust, and in his capacity as a fiduciary agent for the People, to resolve the corporation's internal bookkeeping conflict in whatever way seems easiest to him, and I will grant him my sovereign immunity so that he will not face personal liability for doing so. Now the problem with this position is that the judge will want to be swayed by the preponderance of implied contracts associated with the NAME, which, as you note, it is almost impossible to avoid, as they now pervade every aspect of our lives (the Federal government is a partner in your marriage, remember those kinky three-way vows?). There is a presumption that you the natural man have benefited from the socialist corporate government policies, so you have undertaken liabilities associated with this invisible contract. Must rebut this entire mass of presumptions.

Freed