What's in a NAME?

[Anthony Joseph]

if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

- a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

- case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
true meaning and intent

- legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost

[Chex]

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.

So we the people are subjects while the state is the Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. This government needs an enema.

I see why.

Michael Scotto, a reporter for New York cable http://news.msn.com/us/ny-rep-threat...r-over-balcony Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm physically threatened NY1 political reporter Michael Scotto at the conclusion of an interview in the Capitol Rotunda following Tuesday night's State of the Union address http://www.ny1.com/content/news/2026...e-of-the-union

"So Congressman Michael Grimm does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances," Scotto said before tossing back to the station. But as the camera continued to roll,

Grimm walked back up to Scotto and began speaking to him in a low voice. "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy."

[Michael Joseph]

So we the people are subjects while the state is the Settlor/Creator is Sovereign. This government needs an enema.

I see why.

Michael Scotto, a reporter for New York cable http://news.msn.com/us/ny-rep-threat...r-over-balcony Staten Island Rep. Michael Grimm physically threatened NY1 political reporter Michael Scotto at the conclusion of an interview in the Capitol Rotunda following Tuesday night's State of the Union address http://www.ny1.com/content/news/2026...e-of-the-union

"So Congressman Michael Grimm does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances," Scotto said before tossing back to the station. But as the camera continued to roll,

Grimm walked back up to Scotto and began speaking to him in a low voice. "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy."

The way I see it the "We the People OF the United States" are not the same "people of the states". I think the people are destroyed for LACK OF KNOWLEDGE and ignorance. Again, I reference a banking agreement - men and women go to banks and open accounts every day and yet I will wager only about 1/2 of 1% actually read the Agreement.

Shalom,
MJ

[salsero]

if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

- a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

- case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
true meaning and intent

- legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost

See - we somewhat agree but it appears you do not follow it through. I fully agree a man can not cause harm to anything in the 2 or 3rd dimensions and vice a versa. Man has no place in any court to begin with. Court is for fictions. Those case sites have nothing to do with man, I agree. What we do not agree is who is the owner of any property here on earth. If everything was created by the Creator for all of his children to use, not own, then we men are USERS, we have control, possession and dominion but not ownership. Ownership is a man made - as a matter of fact, for those that read the bible, this is exactly what Satan wants - men to believe they own and can make claims - it all boosts the EGO or edging God out.

Since you posed the question - would I verify in open court what you say is your property is NOT your property? I would not have to because you would not get that far, but let's say the judge [the same judge you are in front of consenting for him to settle controversies] asked me salsero - is this Name Anthony's property? I would say NO! that Name he is claiming is not his property. he can use it but since he wants to make false claims, he must pay the piper.

In ANY COURT, man must consent to have the judge settle the controversy being brought in. This is why you are asked to swear to tell the truth, then STATE YOUR NAME. It is all a trick. If you think you are going to go in the state's court and run it and tell the judge what to do [I would never say never but the likelihood is very much against you but I would not say impossible - EVER] and run that court - good luck. As I stated, the reason why I BELIEVE that Karl and Glenn get away with what they get away with is due to "the system not wanting to be exposed. With Glenn Fearn, I see everything he does as UCC masked in common law. It does not make it wrong - if he is getting remedy - wonderful. whatever as long as one is getting his remedy.

[salsero]

if a man relies upon the 2nd dimension (paper, fictions), cites case law and shows "competence" (understanding) when using the language of "legalese" as (or in) the basis of said man's claim; then, said man, and his claim, is subject to and placed under the jurisdiction of: the 2nd dimension, case law and the realm of the language of "legalese"

- a man cannot cause harm to anything in the 2nd dimension and the 2nd dimension cannot harm man; only man can cause harm to man

- case law is the opinion of a foreign court and jurisdiction which is subject to interpretation case by case; and, ONLY the man who expressed said opinion can verify its
true meaning and intent

- legalese is a foreign language (copyright protected) used in membership by way of a privilege granted to those who join and pay dues to a private club (BAR)

again, only a man can claim something is or isn't his property; will you: salsero; verify in open court, that what i claim is my property is not my property?

now replace "salsero" in that last question with any entity or man choosing to challenge my claim

if you are in a court where a "judge" is "allowing" or not "allowing" you to do or say things, you are in the wrong court and you already lost

See - we somewhat agree but it appears you do not follow it through. I fully agree a man can not cause harm to anything in the 2 or 3rd dimensions and vice a versa. Man has no place in any court to begin with. Court is for fictions. Those case sites have nothing to do with man, I agree. What we do not agree is who is the owner of any property here on earth. If everything was created by the Creator for all of his children to use, not own, then we men are USERS, we have control, possession and dominion but not ownership. Ownership is a man made - as a matter of fact, for those that read the bible, this is exactly what Satan wants - men to believe they own and can make claims - it all boosts the EGO or edging God out.

Since you posed the question - would I verify in open court what you say is your property is NOT your property? I would not have to because you would not get that far, but let's say the judge [the same judge you are in front of consenting for him to settle controversies] asked me salsero - is this Name Anthony's property? I would say NO! that Name he is claiming is not his property. he can use it but since he wants to make false claims, he must pay the piper.

In ANY COURT, man must consent to have the judge settle the controversy being brought in. This is why you are asked to swear to tell the truth, then STATE YOUR NAME. It is all a trick. If you think you are going to go in the state's court and run it and tell the judge what to do [I would never say never but the likelihood is very much against you but I would not say impossible - EVER] and run that court - good luck. As I stated, the reason why I BELIEVE that Karl and Glenn get away with what they get away with is due to "the system not wanting to be exposed. With Glenn Fearn, I see everything he does as UCC masked in common law. It does not make it wrong - if he is getting remedy - wonderful. whatever as long as one is getting his remedy.

[salsero]

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

There is not evidence that the infant or person is a trust. However, there is evidence that the Name, person, etc is an estate. The estate is owned by the state and the US has beneficial interest in that property. This is all provable. Where I was confused at first like many people -- its all about separating the fiction from the real. This ain't easy. Man has nothing whatsoever to do with the fiction. NOTHING. It is a very hard concept to get passed because the unreal parallels the real. This Satan has full authority to trick and deceive, we the people. Paper is only an image of the real. It is not the real. The title to the car, the infant, house, licenses, etc are all paper. Do you want to travel in the car? Do you want to live in the house? Do you want to be the man? Then paper has nothing to do with the real.

The BC is a usufruct compliant certified certificate for the purposes of indemnification of the State's property Name, WHEN USED PROPERLY. It is that simple. If it is YOUR name, then you are liable. If it is the State's Name, then the state is liable. Again folks, I have no issue with Common Law - the problem is long ago and far away - after the Erie decision, common law, equity all got mixed up in admiralty and we are under public policy statutes. THINK - how does the state get away with this and still not violate the 13th A?

Karl's process seems to work in England and Canada - great. We are here in the USA, home of Hillary for 2016, Barry-kare, Nancy P and Harry R. Does anyone really believe there is hope - we can believe in - for amerika?

I am not really here to convince folks to buy this concept or not. One should do what works for himself and then that is the correct path for you.

[salsero]

Infants or persons sign the instruments as that infant - are making false claims and are held as surety. Man or persons that sign By: or For: John Smith separates the one signing as being that entity. I agree the infant is an unincorporated association or organization. It is still property. An infant is a person, individual, taxpayer, executor, fiduciary, creditor, debtor, etc. These are all fictional titles that describe a fiction. the State can only deal with fictions, not men. The state has no jurisdiction over men, without his consent.

Man does NOT have any interest in that infant's estate. We must learn to separate the fiction from the real. The only "interest" if you want to call it that, is that BC is a usufruct compliant certified certificate TO BE USED FOR INDEMNIFICATION PURPOSES FOR THAT PROPERTY OR NAME OWNED BY THE STATE. By MERE coincidence, MAN too is indemnified because of his proper use of said certificate.

[Anthony Joseph]

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

[David Merrill]

I prefer to think of an estate as marked by some kind of monument. - Like piles of stone or the Law of the Flag on the Libel of Review:

Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of God and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to God. Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:27.

Years ago one intrepid suitor elaborated... [Paleo-Hebrew letters for Yehovah and Yehoshuah etc. did not transfer to the quote.]

[Michael Joseph]

David,

In my opinion, this is exactly right. Man is without this entire construction. Here is an excellent poem I believe....Kipling...

"The Liner, she's a lady"

[Chex]

Years ago one intrepid suitor elaborated...

Dec 2003 http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306

Now I remember where I first read it, then had to know more about it, http://admiralty.uslegal.com/jurisdi...tors-clause-2/.

[Michael Joseph]

Genesis 1:27 So Elohiym created man in his [own] image, in the image of Elohiym created he him; male and female created he them.]

Parse out the Hebrew and you will discover an interesting problem. Elohim created THE MAN [eth ha aw-dawm] in his image; [SEMICOLON] male and female he made mankind [aw-dawm]

The scripture tells us that only ONE was made in the Image of God and that is Yehoshuah. Mankind is transformed into that image slowly when mankind becomes repentant and his mind is renewed in Christ. The Man of course is Jesus Christ or Yehoshuah which translated means Yehovah the Savior. This is why the Son could say "If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father."

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I Am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, if not through Me.

Joh 14:7 If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also: and from now ye know Him, and have seen Him."

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I Am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak, I speak not from Myself, but the Father That dwelleth in Me speaketh them, and His works that I do, I do not from Myself, but the Father That dwelleth in Me doeth them.

Joh 14:11 Believe Me that I Am in the Father, and the Father in Me: or else believe Me on account of the works themselves.


Of course the COMMON LAW comes from Scripture. Any student will verify that fact.

Let me see if I can do the work for those who lack the manuscripts. See attached. Now it is time to go play in the snow.

Shalom,
MJ

P.S. If you understand the Mystery of the Ages then you will see you look today like you looked then. But we see the Angels are always shown to be young and youthful.

P.S.S. Open says Me.

[Chex]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamn...e-should-read/

[Michael Joseph]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamn...e-should-read/

In my opinion, money with images upon it, is a direct offense to Yehovah Elohim. It is a breaking of the Covenant. The measure was substance in terms of weight. We see in the word not to have unfair BALANCES:

Deu 25:13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
Deu 25:14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
Deu 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened on the soil which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Deu 25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

and

Pro 11:1 False balances is abomination to the LORD: But a just weight is His delight.


They were weighing substance from the Earth. And this is right for it acknowledges the Sovereign nature of Yehovah.

Today money has all sorts of Images upon it. And we are commanded in the "wedding vows" or Trust Agreement - do not make graven images. You say but we don't worship money, right? Well that is just about to make me laugh out loud. Worthless pieces of papers with images of demi-gods upon it and the people all place their trust in paper. This is ultimately a false balance. But we recognize the operation of law from whence those papers came and being not of the world but in the world, we make a use out of necessity.

This is why John the Baptist ate honey and locusts - a meager existence - so that he would learn to hate the evil and love the good. I was teaching my son yesterday about paper and images and I asked him if he would accept a blank piece of paper for money. he said no. I asked why not - it is paper just like this note. He had no answer. I will wait on him for his answer and not command him that it IS money. I often learn quite a bit from my children.

They do not carry years of programming and they have a way of cutting thru the crap and seeing the simple truth. Money exists ONLY IN TRUST. There must exist TRUST for any relationship to exist. So if i hand you an IOU do you trust me that I will make good? Or do you require a Rich Man - Fed Government - to underwrite our commerce? What is that rich man is now a pauper?

See that the Fed Government needs money to handle its affairs. It trades government bonds with a private bank whereby the private bank issues notes into circulation. Those notes can expand as the people continue to make their use. But in making their use, they increase the IOU. See that those notes REPRESENT an IOU. And the surety for those notes are those government bonds. Those notes even issue with an interest rate of return.

The entire system is constructed for slavery. But it is easy to beat the serpent at his own game. Just stay out of debt. Live simple and quiet lives.

Shalom,
MJ

[Michael Joseph]

Back on Topic. The question arises in who named the Thing. Mom and Dad named me - but the State gave me a Legal Name.

Gen 5:1 This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created the man, in the likeness of God made He him;

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

notice in v.1 the term "made He him" but in v2 we see "they were created". Seems like a ridiculous observation until you check the manuscripts:

made (H6213)

aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.


created (H1254 )

bara?'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).


Gen 5:1 This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created the man, in the likeness of God appointed He him;

Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

They were called "mankind". But we see that the 1st Adam [son of God] named his wife. Interesting, yes? When did he name her? AFTER THE BREACH OF TRUST. They disobeyed the first giving of the Law. They were now Outlaws. Naked in regard to their God.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all who should live after her.


Eve = Hebrew. Chavvah = Life, Life-spring. Showing that he believed God. ==> She would bring forth the Man Child - 2nd Adam - Jesus Christ. She carries the holy set apart seed [DNA].


Ezra 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.





Where did the Man receive a name? I am still looking for that name? But we see their [The Man and The Woman's] offspring [generations or heirs] were ALL named. A name therefore is a PERSON for it cannot and is not the man or woman but only a legal fiction that helps to identify the man or woman.

But IDENTITY is not the same as BEING.

Therefore all inherit in Adam/Eve in Persona which is but a mere fabrication. But those who inherit in Christ - receive Being which is real. For those who come to the Father, thru the Son may call themselves Sons of God and these share in the throne of Yehoshuah.

Heb 2:10 For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Heb 2:11 For both He That sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of God: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Heb 2:17 Wherefore according to all things it behoved Him to be made like to His brethren, in order that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

G3666 - made

homoioo?
hom-oy-o'-o
From G3664; to assimilate, that is, compare; passively to become similar: - be (make) like, (in the) liken (-ess), resemble.


Shalom,
MJ