What's in a NAME?

[salsero]

I can not address CN. However, please take note of what your actually wrote and what it means. Every PERSON has a right to the respect of HIS NAME. A person is a fiction and if HE claims that name, HE is provided a benefit to have it respected subject to the laws, statutes, etc of CN.

A PERSON who uses a NAME other then HIS is liable for any resulting confusion or damage. GREAT!. You were given a name by your parents, ie John. This is YOUR name. JOHN DOE is a ction created by the state.

[salsero]

no man, woman or 'government' has a right to disparage or deny the right of people (man) to be secure in their property [cf. 4th amendment "... persons, houses, papers and effects...]

can you have a 'person' without a name?

no one has a right to interfere with your property [cf. person, name]

property is NOT 'Ownership' or 'Title'; it is that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others at this time; and, until i say other wise

someone must come forward and verify a higher claim to said property than yours

come forward now; i will accept all claims to said property, verifiable under oath or affirmation in open court; and, the record will reflect what is true and who makes the highest claim

No, you can not have a person without a Name except by general reference. The Name is the "thing" that gets securitized and thus is a person. If parents do not name their baby, the hospital will do it for them. BABY SMITH. All property must have a title so that the state can recognize it.

I disagree, the state not only has the right, it is its property.

We kind of agree but our wording is different. I agree a man must come forward and state he has a higher claim but the issue is not about that property being yours, it is an issue that everything on the planet belongs to the Creator and we are just mere users of said property, with right of use, control, enjoyment and possession but not ownership.

Man through his consent is subject to the state jurisdiction. Without man's consent and agreement, there is no jurisdiction.

There mere fact is the kourt will not move forward until you, man provides the kourt a name should give you a first clue.

I, a man am here for that matter does not give the kourt jurisdiction. I, a man who you can call John provides an open door for the court to ask the plaintiff if he would like to amend the complaint aka John.

I am here for that matter and as a friend of the kourt, I believe that I can help the kourt settle the matter with passably this usufruct compliant certified certificate.

If you can provide evidence that you own that Name you are using, I would most welcome that information. Anything done in that property or Name automatically vests within the state, as the state is the beneficial owner of said Name. We are naked users. But we must remember as owner, who obtains the benefits, is too subject to the liabilities.

Anything is possible or not where remedy is concerned. If you have been successful with Karl's method more power to you.

[Anthony Joseph]

a Name is a gift and a tool - property

simply because you write it down on paper as 'John Henry Smith', does not automatically divest you of said property; nor does it invest in another

if a valid contract is entered into using the Name, said contract is the law; contract wisely

if a claim is made against your person/name, your property (person/name) incurs injury unless said claim is true and verifiable

in common law, the realm of man, a claim must be made in living voice

your person is not you, it is your property; and, if someone trespasses upon your property, that someone is liable

[Keith Alan]

Well, here's a thought: I think if you respond to a name, then you're accepting that designation. If you're using a name, and you give it to someone, and they accept it, then there is agreement about the name.

Think about it. "Can I please have your name? "

"Yes, you can call me Keith."

"Thanks, Keith."

Agreement. Consent. Law.

[Anthony Joseph]

"Can I please have your name?"

"my name is my property, however, at this time you may call me ______"

simply answering when called is not a divestment of property

[salsero]

"Can I please have your name?"

"my name is my property, however, at this time you may call me ______"

simply answering when called is not a divestment of property

Final comment and then I wish you the best.

Can I please have your name? my response would be - what makes you think I own such a thing? Please identify yourself: I am from the Pre-existent Father, a Son in the Pre-existent One. or I am a self-aware flesh and blood living soul - do you rebut this? A piece of paper can NEVER identify a man. A piece of paper is an IMAGE of the real property. Does one prefer to live in a house or have a piece of paper re-presenting the house?

What evidence can you provide to this group that YOUR name is YOUR property?

THe evidence I have that proves that Name is not mine but I am a MERE USER of said property begins with the BC. The BC certificate I requested had a letter sent that stated BC FOR JOHN SMITH. No where on that BC is MY signature. It has a state seal signed by an official trustee for the state. It is a certified COPY where the state retains the original document - held in trust where the state receives benefit. I, a man can not have that original document. PERIOD. If I were the owner of MY PROPERTY NAME, then the state must turn that document over to me.

There is other evidence that the name has been created for the benefit for the state and that MAN wrongly makes claims against that property or estate. But the above gets the ball rolling for those this info resonates.

If we were living pre-1930s, I would agree with you. However, we are not. I do not believe the common law is 100% dead, but lets just say after the Erie RR case -1938, public policy is the ruling system. Again, I would never say 100% bringing up common law in a jurisdiction would NOT work, I am saying the odds are against it. As far as those that support common law, in my opinion, the reason why you may get a free pass and the case would be dismissed is due to THEY do not want their trade secrets exposed. It is easier to let one slide then risk many.

If common law is working for you in everything - Mazel Tov. I wish you the very best.

And I agree with you - simply answering when called IS NOT a divestment of property. The state has NOT given up any rights to its property, it is a simple matter of who is consenting to be surety to the claim being made.

Tony

[David Merrill]

I believe that our family bible is good evidence of names. My name is David Merrill as it is written.

[Anthony Joseph]

i don't have to prove what i claim to be my property is my property

someone must come forward with a claim to what i claim is my property

until then... my claim is supreme

when the STATE OF XXXXX or the United States decides to speak, please let me know

[Anthony Joseph]

I believe that our family bible is good evidence of names. My name is David Merrill as it is written.

i believe you; and, the name of your person is...?

[David Merrill]

i believe you; and, the name of your person is...?

I have no person. If having a person ever serves my best interest then it is likely I would choose the one I invented when I was twelve by applying for and receiving a Social Security Number. Until having a Social Security Number serves my best interest, I have no Social Security Number.

I have no last name.
I have no birth certificate.
I have no person.

until then... my claim is supreme

Exactly. If you find me using a person, the chances are that I have one.

[Anthony Joseph]

I have no person. If having a person ever serves my best interest then it is likely I would choose the one I invented when I was twelve by applying for and receiving a Social Security Number. Until having a Social Security Number serves my best interest, I have no Social Security Number.

I have no last name.
I have no birth certificate.
I have no person.



Exactly. If you find me using a person, the chances are that I have one.

my point exactly...

you have these tools (person, SSN, BC, Last Name, etc.) at your disposal if you choose to use them

no one else has a right to use these tools, created for your specific use, as you would, when and if you choose to use them

these 'things' are your property

no one else has a right to administer or take your property without your consent

[salsero]

my point exactly...

you have these tools (person, SSN, BC, Last Name, etc.) at your disposal if you choose to use them

no one else has a right to use these tools, created for your specific use, as you would, when and if you choose to use them

these 'things' are your property

no one else has a right to administer or take your property without your consent

I said the last comment I made would be the last - but I can't help myself lol

Use is not the same as ownership. I have every right to use, control, possess but not own. Only the Creator has that right. What evidence do you have to prove that "things" - the DL, SSN, house, car, person, BC, last name etc is YOUR property? Those "things" are held in the "public trust" - it is true you have exclusive use of but those things are not yours.

I agree no one has the right to administer or take the property you are using without your consent. By providing the Name in any jurisdiction, your provide that consent.

And we can thank FDR for the removal of substance in order to PAY for things rather than use private internal script/ debt securities called FRNs.

Paisan, so far you have not answered the question I have asked: What evidence can you provide that proves you own a name or any "thing".

A response that "someone must come forward with a claim to what i claim is my property - until then... my claim is supreme - when the STATE OF XXXXX or the United States decides to speak, please let me know" is not responding to what I asked.

Let me give an example: If you are in a mortgage foreclosure situation, the name will be charged in the action. Do we agree up to here? If this is the case, then how would your claim that house is my property - let a man come forward with a claim to what is my property? It is the same thing with a car or even a bank account - we can look to Cyprus for that reasoning. If I am the owner of the bank account, then the State can NOT go into that account, including the IRS and take anything out of it. When you own something, it is your property to the exclusion of someone else and no one can take it. You can have exclusive use of something without owning it OR even be held liable for it - YAY!!!

These are just some observations. Tony

[Anthony Joseph]

i did answer the question

my property is my property because, i say so; i am able and willing to voice it - paper means nothing

if someone else wishes to voice a claim, let them come forward and do the same

if a man or woman does so, fine

if we cannot settle the matter privately, it is brought before a jury in the public and there we have a chance to win our claim based upon who has the best proof and evidence; and, the customs and beliefs of the people who are seated as jurors [judge]

a non-living entity has no vocal chords and cannot voice a claim; when you voice your claim and there is silence from the "other side" you win

or

you can play in the paper world and be subject to words written on paper

[Michael Joseph]

a rock star is nothing absent fans. In this system Law is but an illusion of right. In this system Rights are established by Force. One might look at nature to proclaim that law to be true. But are we not called to rise above the laws of nature and place nature UNDER our dominion?

This is why I lack all trust in the world systems. I seek a heavenly citizenship - and as such I proclaim myself to be a pilgrim just passing thru.

In the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I remain your faithful servant unto the Kingdom of El Elyon. [The Most High God]

[Anthony Joseph]

seek your brother out in private to settle any claim (only the living can make claim)

if he does not listen, bring witnesses and try again

if he still does not listen, bring it to the church (where at least two or three are gathered in His Name) [compare to jury]

a man cannot harm "United States"
a man cannot harm "STATE OF XXXX"
a man cannot harm "IRS"

no voice, no claim, no case

does this sound like "trust in world systems"?