What's in a NAME?

[Michael Joseph]

I agree that only a man can make a claim. I further maintain that a man who has not made any claims is by his inaction implying that he desires to be ruled. Therefore like I have always maintained - DECLARE THYSELF.

Is this not a reasonable action - for man cannot read minds. So which is it? the only question left is what form of rule do you claim?

Quoting from Bob Dylan:

"Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far that not much is really sacred

Our preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the President of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked

An' all the rules of the road have been lodged
It's only people's games that you got to dodge
And it's alright, Ma, I can make it

.
.
.

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Do what they do just to be
Nothing more than something they invest in

While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize and say, "God bless him"

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole that he's in

.
.
.
.


Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares propaganda, all is phony"


=================

Do you recall YEARS back when I shared what I did to convene a jury to hear my case? Seems nobody understood - and I was dismayed - however it seems you get it!

=================

Thus saith Yehovah Elohim, in those days those that call upon my GREAT NAME shall be saved.

For Sampson has his eyes poked out and he has been made to grind the meal - but he shall return unto his former Husbandman and then, he shall be clothed with Power but not of his own - he again shall receive the seven Locks upon his head - Ref Isaiah 11:2 and Psalms 8.

2Ch 7:12 And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, "I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to Myself for an house of sacrifice.

2Ch 7:13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My People;

2Ch 7:14 If My People, upon whom My name is called, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2Ch 7:15 Now Mine eyes shall be open, and Mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place.

2Ch 7:16 For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that My name may be there for ever: and Mine eyes and Mine heart shall be there perpetually.

2Ch 7:17 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before Me, according as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe My statues and my judgments;

2Ch 7:18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have confirmed by covenant with David thy father, saying, "There shall not be cut off from thee a man to be ruler in Israel.'

=================


Yehoshuah, I know, Paul, I know, but who are you?

Please take your vowel: A, E, I, O, U, Y, R W, H

shalom,
MJ

[Anthony Joseph]

i do recall, yet i did not fully get it... then

it took a blunt, straight-talking, thick-"New York"-accented man [called Karl Lentz] to present it in the simplest of terms

move, hold and keep your court; and, make your claim

[Michael Joseph]

One man plants, another man waters and Yehovah gives the increase. This way no man can stand in his pride and say "Worship Me".

However, let me make this one distinction: You have no court if you have not perfected a claim. And how will you rule absent Law. And whose Law shall you make a USE of?

A claim is vital to establishing USE RIGHTS. Therefore, a court cannot exist without a prior claim. For tell me how should you hear a matter that you have zero jurisdiction to hear? Ponder the latter and then you will see the former.

I maintain, that no man should follow another. Make your own way - which is why I REFUSE to provide an algorithm for others to follow. Some men have slandered me for my position; however they do so to their own judgment - self fulfilling judgment "res judicata". For they place their trust in another man - which is a big NO NO.

=======================

I maintain Yehovah's Word should be followed and as such, I find direction here:

Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

Zec 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; For His own glory hath He sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple [pupil] of Mine eye.

Zec 2:9 For, behold, I will shake Mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their own slaves: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.

Zec 2:10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.

Zec 2:11 And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be My People: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.


Commentary: Do you believe verse 8?

Zec 4:7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.

Zec 4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

Commentary: v.10 reference the Seven Spirits of Elohim ==> Isaiah 11:2; Proverbs 8.


Hag 2:5 According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.

Commentary: v.4

Zerubbabel = Seed of confusion - which came out of confusion to make his stand with Yehovah
Joshua = Yehoshuah ==> check me out = Yehovah the Savior
Josedech = Yehotzadok = Yehovah the Righteous
LORD of hosts = Yehovah Sabbawah = Yehovah the Commander of the Heavenly armies

now lets read verse 4 again:

Hag 2:4 Yet now be strong, O one who came out of confusion, saith Yehovah; and be strong, O Yehovah the Savior, son of Yehovah the Righteous, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith Yehovah, and work: for I am with you, saith Yehovah the Commander in Chief:

Commentary: reference the Great book of Hebrews: Order of Melchizadok - our High Priest is Yehoshuah is Yehovah the Savior. By the way did you notice the Command to WORK? Works can not justify salvation, but if one refuses to work then that one will have one meager estate. This is true now and to come.

See now CAPACITY, which is to say : Persons with particular duties and obligations - One God - many offices.


shalom,
MJ

[Anthony Joseph]

it is learning through critical thinking rather than the ROTE method

i agree with you regarding "algorithms" or "templates"

make a claim - establish the law - convene your court

speak it in living voice, for there is no proper claim otherwise

[Michael Joseph]

it is learning through critical thinking rather than the ROTE method

i agree with you regarding "algorithms" or "templates"

make a claim - establish the law - convene your court

speak it in living voice, for there is no proper claim otherwise

Genesis chapter 1 verse three "and God said"

[shikamaru]

I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.

Check out Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan concerning the concept of a person .....

My opinion: the name is simply a designator for a container. The container is the legal concept of person.
Last names did not become all the rage with governments until more organized systems of accounting develop to satisfy goverment's need for taxation and military enlistment.

The name is a designator of an account to handle debits and credits whether such pertains to legal charges or commerce.
An account is a chose in action or the right of the creditor to sue for debts owed.

Let us also not forget the association known as the body politic. The birth certificate serves as evidence of induction of a being into a political body. Citizenship is a status (of servitude) as well as an office within a (public) corporation.

[Chex]

My opinion: the name is simply a designator for a container. The container is the legal concept of person.
Last names did not become all the rage with governments until more organized systems of accounting develop to satisfy goverment's need for taxation and military enlistment. The name is a designator of an account to handle debits and credits whether such pertains to legal charges or commerce. Let us also not forget the association known as the body politic. The birth certificate serves as evidence of induction of a being into a political body. Citizenship is a status (of servitude) as well as an office within a (public) corporation.

La Carreta restaurants in Merrillville. http://www.yelp.com/biz/la-carreta-merrillville

The raids were part of a larger investigation that targeted Mexican restaurants in cities across Indiana, including El Rodeo eateries in Indianapolis, Lafayette, West Lafayette and Richmond.

Law enforcement officials were tight-lipped about what they are investigating, but they have made no arrests and filed no criminal charges as of yet.

The Marion County Sheriff's Office assisted with the raid of an El Rodeo restaurant Monday in Indianapolis, which a police report said stemmed from a grand jury investigation.

Officers took pictures of nine employees and seized cash, business documents and the cash registers, which they turned over to the grand jury, according to the case report.

Arnulfo Gonzalez, the registered owner of both restaurants, did not return messages for comment Tuesday and Wednesday.

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/state-excise-police-raid-abruptly-closes-la-carreta-restaurants/article_b4b91ce3-f4bf-56a4-8ea5-c5897d4c0403.html

[Anthony Joseph]

statutory/administrative "Grand Jury" = controlled by BAR members ["judge", "D.A.", etc.]

common law grand jury = independent "4th branch" of government; not controlled by BAR members or other branches of government


Jury Trial = controlled by BAR member "judge"

trial by jury = judges; magistrate (usual black robed one) independent of the tribunal (A-claimant, B-wrongdoer, C-jury) and merely bears witness to the outcome; and, keeps order, making sure the rules of court established by claimant (not the black robed one) are followed

[Freed Gerdes]

Salsero, can you please expound upon the concept that the state owns my body? I can see that the state records the NAME (and then enters it into the Trust, liening it with debt for the state's benefit). Now the state makes the claim that my NAME must comply with endless codes, rules, and regulations, which are merely corporate rules (municipal law), enforceable only through Roman law (based on the debt contract which the state created for me by usurping my NAME, and then hoping I would confirm their presumption). My NAME is a corporate person, thus under the rules of corporations, but I want to use it for my benefit, not for the state's benefit, so I would like to get free of the Trust. The state cannot own the people, first because it is a corporation, and people are natural persons, and second because of the 13th Amendment. So debt slavery can only be voluntary. I am interested in un-volunteering, which I must do only due to presumptions of the trustee. Now if I am the beneficiary, which the unwritten contract for social security says I am, then I can certainly void the presumptions and tell the trustee to dissolve the trust. What say you?

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.

I have no objection to being owned by the Creator, but I have a lot of objection to being owned by the state. I say my NAME is mine to use, free of the state's interest. Where does the state get the right to own my property? Who has a higher right to the complete control and use of my NAME, and where did they get that right? All power of the government derives from the consent of the governed...

Freed

[Chex]

One man plants, another man waters and Yehovah gives the increase. This way no man can stand in his pride and say "Worship Me". I maintain Yehovah's Word should be followed and as such, I find direction here: MJ

http://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/ThisWeeksMessage.aspx

[salsero]

Salsero, can you please expound upon the concept that the state owns my body? I can see that the state records the NAME (and then enters it into the Trust, liening it with debt for the state's benefit). Now the state makes the claim that my NAME must comply with endless codes, rules, and regulations, which are merely corporate rules (municipal law), enforceable only through Roman law (based on the debt contract which the state created for me by usurping my NAME, and then hoping I would confirm their presumption). My NAME is a corporate person, thus under the rules of corporations, but I want to use it for my benefit, not for the state's benefit, so I would like to get free of the Trust. The state cannot own the people, first because it is a corporation, and people are natural persons, and second because of the 13th Amendment. So debt slavery can only be voluntary. I am interested in un-volunteering, which I must do only due to presumptions of the trustee. Now if I am the beneficiary, which the unwritten contract for social security says I am, then I can certainly void the presumptions and tell the trustee to dissolve the trust. What say you?

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.

I have no objection to being owned by the Creator, but I have a lot of objection to being owned by the state. I say my NAME is mine to use, free of the state's interest. Where does the state get the right to own my property? Who has a higher right to the complete control and use of my NAME, and where did they get that right? All power of the government derives from the consent of the governed...

Freed

I would not be able to expand on the concept that the state owns anyone's body. So Freed maybe you can answer this for me: What evidence do you have to prove that Name is yours? I have shared with the group the evidence I have to prove that Name is not my property; HOWEVER, I am authorized user of that property. How does the State usurp YOUR Name? If your parents named you John Michael, that is YOUR given name. The family Name is Smith. Smith is made up the family unit, with mom, dad, Mary, Jack, Jill and John. Smith is not exclusively YOUR NAME. It is a family name. I agree the Name John Smith is a non-incorporated person, subject ONLY to the jurisdiction thereof when one consents or claims to own or have some interest in that property or Name. I use the Name for the purpose of conducting commerce for the state's benefit for its property called a Name. In directly, I, the man receive the benefit; however, it is state's property that I USE, that receives the discharge and acquittal, not me the man, because I have nothing to do with it. Man is free of the Trust. It ain't his unless he wants to make a claim against it and then he consents to be surety for the estate. I agree the State can not and DOES NOT own people. I would suggest you look up the definition of natural persons. The 13th A permits for voluntary servitude not involuntary. I AM JOHN SMITH is a voluntary consent to act as surety or executor of the estate. Yes debt slavery can ONLY BE VOLUNTARY. You are not the beneficiary, the state is the beneficiary and thus under the rules of usufruct, the one who benefits must be subject to the liabilities. Please provide evidence you are the beneficiary? If you accept eh benefits, you accept the liabilities. That is what I say. THat is the contract. I do not think we TELL the trustee or executor anything but we do inform the executor. We give notices. We rebut the presumptions. Absolutely. You have no authority to void anything. It ain't yours to begin with.
Excellent - you are a child of the Most High. The state does not own anyone unless they consent. Consent makes the law. WHen you say your Name, the state basically says thank you, Mr. Surety. The state get the right to own its property because it holds the original title to that property or name you believe is yours. You are sent a certified copy. The state has a higher right and loves when you think you have the higher right. Basically you are nothing but chattel. The state got the right through 1. holding original title 2. by being paid for beneficial use BY the United States through the SSA and 3. You can not get hold of that COLB 4. ALl you get is something called a CERTIFIED BC basically for your USE.
All power of the government is derived from those who are a party to that society. A free man is NOT a part of that society UNLESS he consent and thus is subject to the benefits along with the liabilities that society offer. God created man free, not encumbered.
I like to be challenged this helps me get my head around all this - it ain't easy but if you continue to seek, earnestly, you will find.

[Anthony Joseph]

what man or woman can verify a claim of: vested interest in; or, the right to administer, another man's property (the Name)?

i don't have to prove the Name is my property; it's my property because i say it is (i speak in living voice); and, my right of use (means property) of the Name is exclusive of all others

someone else must verify the claim (in living voice) that the Name isn't my property; a futile task which would be laughed out of court, if you know how to hold a court of record

please provide any evidence that a man or woman could convince a jury, under oath or affirmation in open court, that your Name is not your property

'UNITED STATES', 'STATE OF XXXXX', 'IRS' etc. do not have vocal chords; only man can make a claim

property does NOT mean ownership or title; it means 'exclusive right of use'; our grant from the Creator in covenant is to subdue the earth and have dominion so long as we do not interfere with another man's grant to do the same - do unto others...

a fiction cannot make a claim to property (no voice); and, we cannot harm a fiction nor do we have any inherent obligation to a fiction - contract wisely

[salsero]

what man or woman can verify a claim of: vested interest in; or, the right to administer, another man's property (the Name)?



i don't have to prove the Name is my property; it's my property because i say it is (i speak in living voice); and, my right of use (means property) of the Name is exclusive of all others

someone else must verify the claim (in living voice) that the Name isn't my property; a futile task which would be laughed out of court, if you know how to hold a court of record

OK you are going to hold your court of record, please tell me why is any judge going to allow this? Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64) "No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it." YOU, the living man is not a part of their society. Here is a direct quote from a SCOTUS decision PROVING you, the "citizen, man, person, resident, etc is not a party to bring a claim into their court, you are not a party to the constitution. What rights do you have in their court? The courts can only deal with persons who, with the consent of man, falls under the jurisdiction thereof. The state owns the name, the US has bought interest in that property and is the protected purchaser under UCC 8-303.

please provide any evidence that a man or woman could convince a jury, under oath or affirmation in open court, that your Name is not your property So the man is going to convince a jury of his peers? Who are this man's peers? Or a jury of US citizens that are required to follow the judges' instructions? This common law stuff is pase - thanks to 1. the bankruptcy and 2. the Erie RR decision of 1938. We are under public policy statutes. Now I have to be honest with you, do I see the POSSABILITY OF COMMON LAW WORKING IN COURT? Yes, but it has nothing to do with common law whatsoever, it has to do with the fact that the US is under a state of emergency which means that we are in war. The finial on the flags in the court room scream war, the attorneys, the executive orders, etc. The mere fact a common law plea may get some traction is the fact that the court does not want "citizens" to ask too many questions and the case MAY be dismissed as not to take a chance let the people know the truth.

I can very easily prove that Name, I USE IS NOT MY PROPERTY. I hand over the BC and ask a simple question of the jury [this would never be allowed - but I am just giving an example]: Does the jury see I have this certified BC in hand? Did I sign it? Did I put an official stamp from the State on it? Who put the stamp and signed this document? A fiduciary of the State. Therefore, if it were my property, I would sign it, I would put MY stamp on it. The paper, the stamp, the signature, etc are not MINE.

'UNITED STATES', 'STATE OF XXXXX', 'IRS' etc. do not have vocal chords; only man can make a claim I agree 100%.

property does NOT mean ownership or title; it means 'exclusive right of use'; our grant from the Creator in covenant is to subdue the earth and have dominion so long as we do not interfere with another man's grant to do the same - do unto others... Blacks 6th ed: Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one....The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. I did not put the entire definition - but lets pick out a few words here: Person, ownership, estate - are you a person? ownership vests in the state, estate property is from "a dead person" - the IRS manual 6209 goes into detail about what forms W-2, 1099, W-4 and 1098 tax class. It is evident, if one is receiving one of these forms, there must be a presumption of some estate. Now the question is whose estate and who is the beneficiary, executor, and grantor?

a fiction cannot make a claim to property (no voice); I agree 100%. and, we cannot harm a fiction nor do we have any inherent obligation to a fiction - contract wisely

I agree 100% but contract, per THEIR law is not up front, it is deceptive and presumptive - you can volunteer into servitude.

Let us to agree to disagree on this one. And honestly, if what you are doing is working for you, I think that is great and wish you the very best.

[Keith Alan]

Infants do sign the instrument when they make their mark on it.

Edit -- The person named thereon is an unincorporated association, best I can figure. The infant is not the person, but he does have a secured interest in it. The certificate is issued as evidence of that security interest.

[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