What's in a NAME?

[Michael Joseph]

DECLARE THYSELF.

OR go to the courts and get your judgment that you seek. See how that is in fact a submission? Has it dawned on anyone here not to go at all? Yes warrants will issue and you will be FORCED to go but then you have established your lack of trust - THE NEXUS IS TRUST.

SHOW ME - is the name of the game. If I have no trust in you then you are wasting my time. So lets get on with the hanging or do you really mean that you desire peace? Yet if it can be shown that you have express and implied trust - then shut your mouth - else you are in contempt of the Administration [Court]. A trustee will comply with the terms of the Use. Or said another way - If I make a promise then I should keep my promise. That is Equity 101.

So which is it Joseph? If you keep your mouth shut you will be carried off into Egypt as a slave. But he could have said I am of the House of Israel. Now don't get me wrong Joseph PERCEIVED the actions of his brothers were part of a bigger plan - however learn the lesson. You words and your writings mean NOTHING without the Deeds to back them up.

This is why I find this so humorous - the arguments presented are framed from one who is REACTING to a condition.

Go and have a seat I will get to you in a minute. Will you forsake your claim? Lets see? A GREAT Apostasy is happening whereupon men and women are doing just that as they forsake their first love and pick up Theosophy and Spiritualism.

I believe it was James : A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways. And Faith[trust] ABSENT DEEDS is dead! This is called an EXECUTORY TRUST. Proving anything is impossible - you cannot prove a single thing to me. And if you would stop to THINK you would realize that proof is an absurd proposal. There is only TRUST and OBEY and SUBMISSION to a common law form.

All I have to do is read or listen to your words and I can tell which law form you submit unto. Argue with me please - and imply that i have the dominion or jurisdiction - whichever you prefer.

"The only way to win is not to play the game". "I have no trust in you" is a 98 mph fast ball. Now the umpires are sitting back and watching for your TRUST expressed in DEEDS. WHERE ARE YOUR DEEDS - O James?

Yet as men and women of God we are required to live quiet and peaceful lives IF IT BE POSSIBLE. Sometimes it is not possible. But even then our Faith wins the day as the Light shines from within.

Now then let me proceed. Simply put I DO NOT GO TO THE SAME CHURCH. It is as simple as that.

You might gainsay my last statment in discourse; however I ask you:

1. did not Germany establish a state church under Hitler? A: Yes.
2. did not England setup a state church with Monarch as its head? A: Yes
3. did not United States setup a state church with the state as its head? A: Yes. Ref 501c3

Who has beguiled you into thinking that State and Church are separate? The State is the Church! I do not attend to the alters of Baal.


I declare that I am a son of Elohim by the GREAT MERCIES and GRACE of my Savior, my Redeemer and my King and my Friend, Yehovah our Savior. I seek to be led by the Holy Spirit of Yehovah but not in my own will but in the will and desire of my Father. Or said another way, I submit as a preparing bride for my Husbandman. My whorish mind is departing from her delilah ways and she is humbling herself to submit to the Spirit of Yehovah. OF YEHOVAH my JUDGE.

I have no truck with the world except that I will just be me as an example. I cannot judge another for I am not the judge. Therefore I will love you in keeping Torah and the Prophets to the best of my ability. And I hope to show you the heart of God which is his Instructions [Torah].

The church of the firstborn is free. For I do not seek a city of this world.

Heb 13:10 We have an altar, of which they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Comments: "They" are the Levitical Priesthood. "We" is speaking to the new Priesthood of the order of Melchizedok.

Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the Holly of Holies by the high priest concerning sin, are burned outside the camp.

Comments: "outside the camp" : Be not of this world


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 Yehoshuah therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to El Elyon continually, that is, the fruit of our lips confessing to Yehoshuah's name.

SIMPLY PUT I ATTEND AT A DIFFERENT ALTER. I too abide in the law of necessity. For you cannot make a law that interferes with obligations in an existing Contract. I have a Marriage Contract with God. And I am told that a man who will not take care of his family is worse than a heathen. Therefore I have a charge to take care of my family. Therefore I will forage as I need to ensure my family has provision - trusting in my God for providence and provision - Yehovah Yireh.


Absent accommodation, without recourse, without prejudice, absent benefit received, but with full liability for my actions, but absent liability assumed and absent suretyship and absent joinder in or for any Person or office of a Person, and in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I issue the foregoing claiming the Commonwealth of Yisra'el under my King, Yehovah my Savior.

[Anthony Joseph]

declare thyself... precisely

if warrants issue from a non-living entity against a man, the one prosecuting the relating [false] claim is committing barratry if said man requires the claimant appear and verify [in living voice] said claim

i would never "go to the courts"; instead, i would move my court at the courthouse where a man can stand and speak his claim before living witnesses if he so wishes

if you cause a man harm, make it right
if you injure a man's property, make it right
if you breach a valid a lawful contract with another man, make it right

the game is an illusion where no 2nd dimension entity can ever be harmed by man
man is the source of energy, labor and credit(s) issued

'corporations', 'states', etc. were created to help man and not to cause harm or injury

man cannot harm a fiction

do unto others... ; and, contract wisely

[Michael Joseph]

declare thyself... precisely

if warrants issue from a non-living entity against a man, the one prosecuting the relating [false] claim is committing barratry if said man requires the claimant appear and verify [in living voice] said claim

i would never "go to the courts"; instead, i would move my court at the courthouse where a man can stand and speak his claim before living witnesses if he so wishes

if you cause a man harm, make it right
if you injure a man's property, make it right
if you breach a valid a lawful contract with another man, make it right

the game is an illusion where no 2nd dimension entity can ever be harmed by man
man is the source of energy, labor and credit(s) issued

'corporations', 'states', etc. were created to help man and not to cause harm or injury

man cannot harm a fiction

do unto others... ; and, contract wisely

I suppose I do not understand your use of 2d, 3d nomenclature. The way I see it. I am a man dealing with other men and women. We are all created beings with CHOICE. so we will either go our own way against our creator or we will align with the instructions the creator has given. If a group of men get together to pool their equity within a corporate body - they are still a group of men. I do not comprehend 2d.

I do however see x,y,z,t, and perhaps another 7 unseen dimensions [seven spirits of Elohim - El Shaddai or Wisdom - she is called]

Now then I am either in the way or making my own way - in my Choices. The creator of all desires reverence - which is to say - I should think about you - because if I harm your equitable interests I have harmed you - and since you too are a creation of Yehovah, I have harmed Yehovah as well.

I do not speak in theory. I have walked this path and then some. My trust has been proven to be rock solid and I believe that:


Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him That loved us.

Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of Yehovah, which is in Yehoshuah our King.

Again, I attend to a different alter. I have nothing to prove - For the Glory is for Yehovah my Savior - to work THRU my vessel. I am willing by Choice but I know not the outcomes. Therefore I trust that I am redeemed - yet, I do not know how I will be used for the sake of the kingdom. I await intuition from my Father. Which is to say leading and direction from the Holy Spirit of Yehovah.

Absent accommodation, without recourse, without prejudice, absent benefit received, but with full liability for my actions, but absent liability assumed and absent suretyship and absent joinder in or for any Person or office of a Person, and in the name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I issue the foregoing claiming the Commonwealth of Yisra'el under my King, Yehovah my Savior.

[Anthony Joseph]

i was writing regarding another who suggested something called 'state' (2d) can make a superior claim to property than man (3d)

[salsero]

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

[Michael Joseph]

Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Salsero, etc. are ALL fictions!

These are names and names are not living beings. A name is absent a soul. This goes to the heart of IDENTITY - and then you must satisfy the answer of IDENTITY within what law boundary. Meaning who has the surety. This is typically the treasury.

I don't care what your name is - it is a fiction.

Can you hear me speaks the sentient being? Now I wonder where in the common law that came from....well lets find out.

Exo 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the People that was in the camp trembled.

Exo 19:17 And Moses brought forth the People out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.

Exo 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

Exo 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

=====

they could not see - but they heard! Now you can pull out all sorts of images of what your mommy named you or what daddy attested to - I don't care! This is all a fiction. A name has no blood. A name has no voice. A name has no soul. A name has no spirit. A name is SIMPLY PUT A FICTION.

Can a name establish the character of a man. No. Can a man predestine a man to a certain destiny. No. A name is a label used for convenience within a society. That society has a certain law form - be it natural law or moral law or statute law, etc. That law form has conventions for handling names.

Therefore dear reader a name is a Person.


Shalom,
MJ

[salsero]

[salsero]

from: The Stewardship Doctrine:
Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution

Footnotes:

113 See Schlickeisen, Rodger. "Protecting Biodiversity for Future Generations: An Argument for a Constitutional Amendment," 8 Tulane Environmental Law Journal (1994) 181, 201 ("It was. . . impossible for the drafters of the Constitution to anticipate that within a mere two centuries an exploding population with incredible nature-devouring technology would fundamentally threaten the future welfare of the nation.") Accord, Jim Gardner, "Discrimination Against Future Generations: The Possibility of Constitutional Limitation," 9 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 29 (1978) 46. But see Worster, Nature's Economy 47-50 (discussing John Bruckner's A Philosophical Survey of the Animal Creation (1768) (in which he warns that transformation of the American Wilderness was breaking the "web of life" and "the whole plan of Providence"); Rev Nicholas Collin, "An Essay on Those Inquiries in Natural Philosophy, which are at present Most Beneficial," 3 Transaction of the American Philosophical Society 24 (1793) (requesting the American Philosophical Society to support the protection of little-known birds, apparently on the verge of extinction, until naturalists could discover "what part is assigned to them in the oeconomy of nature.") Jefferson was elected into the Society on Benjamin Franklin's motion in 1786. Benjamin Franklin to Jefferson (October 8, 1786) Boyd at X: 437.



114 Burke, Bobbs-Merrill p. 108 (". . . [O]ne of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated is, lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters, that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the inheritance by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of society, hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of a habitation . . ..").





115 Jonathan Shipley, A Speech Intended to Have Been Spoken by the Bishop of St Asaph . . . (1774), in Paul H. Smith, comp., English Defenders of American Freedoms, 1774-1778: Six Pamphlets Attacking British Policy (Washington, D.C., 1972), 40. Re Shipley's relations with Franklin, see Carl Van Dopren, Benjamin Franklin (New York, 1938) 413-17, 481-82, 717.




116 Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789, Boyd XV, 392-98. The letter has been extensively studied by Jefferson scholars; I make no attempt to fully recapitulate that scholarship in this article. Some of the better known treatments include: Koch at 62-96 (Ch. 4 - "The Earth Belongs to the Living"); Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York, 1968) 77-86; Mayer, David N. THE CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville, 1994) 302-308 "The Earth Belongs to the Living"; Peterson, Merrill, "Thomas Jefferson's 'Sovereignty of the Living Generation,' Virginia Quarterly Review 52 (1976) 437-44 and "Thomas Jefferson, The Founders, and Constitutional Change," in J. Jackson Barlow et al., eds., The American Founding: Essays on the Formation of the Constitution (Westport, Conn., 1988), 275-93; Garry Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (Garden City, N.Y., 1978) 132-48; Stanley N. Katz, "Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America," Journal of Law and Economics 14 (1976) 467-88, "Republicanism and the Law of Inheritance in the American Revolutionary Era," Michigan Law Review 76 (1977) 1-29; and Charles A. Miller, Jefferson and Nature: An Interpretation (Baltimore, 1988), chap. 5, esp. 161-64.



117 See also TJ to Madison, 20 Dec. 1787, 31 July, 18 Nov. 1788, 15 Mar., 28 Aug. 1789, in Boyd at 12:439-43; 13:442-43; 14:188-89, 159-61; 15:367-68. Jefferson's interest in intergenerational equity at this time was inspired in part by a conversation which took place between himself, Thomas Paine and the Marquis de LaFayette in February, 1788 - a conversation prompted by James Wilson's arguments in the Pennsylvania ratification convention disputing the need for a bill of rights. Sloan? Koch? P. 82-83.


118 Jefferson's letter was written just a few weeks before Congress passed the Bill of Rights -- approximately two years before the Bill of Rights was fully ratified by the states. See Ellis p. 123-25 (describing Jefferson's influential role as bill of rights proponent).


119 Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. 63 (emphasis in original).



120 The reference to intergenerational rights as "self-evident" recalls the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .." Jefferson would continue for the remainder of his life to characterize intergenerational obligations in this way. See Jefferson to Thomas Earle, September 24, 1823 ("That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; . . . that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another . . . . these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer").



121 See, e.g. W. Hamilton Bryson, "The Use of Roman Law in Virginia Courts," 28 American Journal of Legal History (1984): 135-46; Sloan , p. 82 ("Like a trusted family counselor, Jefferson drew up a deed of settlement ensuring future generations the right to benefit from the common property, and the means he employed . . . was familiar doctrine to eighteenth-century Anglo-American lawyers.")



122 Sir Robert Chambers, A Course of Lectures on the English Law, Delivered at the University of Oxford, 1767-1773, ed. Thomas M. Curley, 2 vols. [Madison, Wis., 1986], 2:85.


it continues

[salsero]

123 By using the terminology of tenancies to describe the relations between generations, Jefferson endorses a metaphor at least as old as the Old Testament. See Part I-A-2, above. In later writings, Jefferson explicates and embellishes this landlord-tenant analogy. See, e.g. TJ to John W. Eppes, Monticello, June 24, 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson vol. XIII, 269-270 ("Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. . . . . [T]he case may be likened to the ordinary one of a tenant for life, who may hypothecate the land for his debts, during the continuance of his usufruct; but at his death, the reversioner (who is also for life only) receives it exonerated from all burthen.").



124 2 Blackstone, COMMENTARIES at 281.



125 The legal doctrine of usufruct/waste bears strong resemblance to Locke's prohibition against spoilage or destruction of "the fruits of nature." See Locke, Second Treatise, 31 and 46 and Part , above. It seems likely that Locke based his prohibitions, at least in part, upon these accepted legal doctrines.



126 See Part I-A-2 (on the biblical doctrine); Part I-A-5-Locke-2 (on Locke's views).



127 TJ to McPherson (13 Aug. 1813) LofA, 1291; See Koch, Jefferson and Madison, 64 (paraphrasing Jefferson's views on natural law and the land: "The portion of the earth occupied by any man ceases to be his with his death, and reverts to society.") Compare Blackstone, Commentaries, 2:3 10, 11, 12 (once a proprietor dies, "he ceases to have any dominion: else, if he had a right to dispose of his acquisitions one moment beyond his life, he would also have a right to direct their disposal for a million of ages after him; which would be highly absurd and inconvenient. . . . [Inheritance then is] clearly a political, establishment; since the permanent right of property, vested in the ancestor himself, was no natural, but merely a civil, right"); Lord Kames [Henry Hume], Essays upon Several Subjects Concerning British Antiquities . . . , 3d ed. (Edinburgh, 1763), 130 n. *, 144 ("in early times property was not much distinguished from what is now called usufruct").



128 TJ to Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. , at (emphasis added). See also TJ to Thomas Earle, September 24, 1823, L and B 15:470-71 (declaring, "That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; . . . that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, . . . . . [T]hese are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer . . ."). Herbert Sloan, while apparently disapproving Jefferson's convictions, characterizes them accurately: "The earth may belong to the living, but the living enjoy only its usufruct, only its current product. That qualification is critical, for it forbids the living generation to commit waste, and thus each generation becomes a mere tenant for life, empowered only to enjoy the fruits of the estate, not to dispose of it in its entirety. . . . [E]ach generation will serve as a custodian charged with the duty of passing on intact what it receives from its predecessors. The impression such a project creates is decidedly conservative. . . His answer is to . . . husband existing resources." Sloan, Principles and Interest, 60. In his assertion that the rights of the collective society cannot exceed those of constituent individuals, Jefferson may have been influenced by Locke, Second Treatise, 135.



129 The practical problem which Jefferson addresses in this passage is actually that of long-term national debt. However, the starting point for his analysis is the idea (axiomatic to Jefferson) that the creation of natural resource inequities is illegitimate and unsupportable.



130 Jefferson was not very different from his contemporaries in this respect. The founders, who for the most part did not live their lives sheltered in cities or suburbs; tended to be more attuned than their modern counterparts to the land and its health. One commentator notes that "Like most of the 95 percent of Americans who, according to the census of 1790, lived in "rural territory," Jefferson depended directly on the land for his livelihood. . .." Miller, Charles A. Jefferson and Nature: An Interpretation (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: 1988) 13.



131 TJ to Eppes, 269-270



132 As evidence of Jefferson's special concern for long-term soil productivity, see his Commonplace book pp. 166-67 (criticizing tobacco plantations because "Little food of any kind is raised by them; so that the men and animals on these farms are badly fed and the earth is rapidly impoverished" and contrasting them with wheat farms -- praised by Jefferson for "cloathing the earth with herbage, and preserving its fertility"); and Jefferson to Lafayette, April 11, 1787, THE PORTABLE THOMAS JEFFERSON 421-23 (recommending composting practices -- and long-term agricultural leases which would reward such practices - for the improvement of the soil quality and agricultural productivity of France).

133

134



135 TJ to Madison, September 6, 1789, supra n. , at (emphasis supplied). Compare Algernon Sidney, DISCOURSES CONCERNING GOVERNMENT (London, 1698) ch III, sec 29, pp. 391-392 ("The king was never master of the soil . . . [N]o man can give what he has not. Whoever therefore will pretend, that the king has bestowed this propriety, must prove, that he had it in himself"); Clark Wolff, "Contemporary Property Rights, Lockean Provisos, . . ." 810-814 (" If the right to destroy or degrade such resources could not legitimately have been acquired or transferred, then it cannot now be legitimately claimed.")




136 See Browers, Michaelle L., "Jefferson's Land Ethic: Environmental Ideas in Notes on the State of Virginia," 21 Environmental Ethics 43 (1999) 43 (stressing "Jefferson's conception of the intimate relationship between the natural and political constitution of America and his vindication of both"); id. at 54 ("Jefferson's ethic regarding how one should behave toward property/land also embodies an ethic regarding how one should act toward nature. To spoil or waste any part of God's creation is a sin. Our covenant with nature is both an obligation to use our natural resources well and to protect it in the sense of not destroying it in a wantonly or wasteful manner. We must improve the land because our virtue as a people depends to a large extent upon the relationship between citizens and the land."); id. at 57 ("Jefferson [offers] an environmental vision that combines conservationism and a notion of responsible stewardship . . ..")



137 See Part I, infra; Sloan, Principles and Interest . . ., 75 ("Jefferson's 6 September 1789 letter said nothing about the nature of inheritance that had not been said before. The notion that the earth belonged to the living was thus anything but novel in the late eighteenth century. In fact, its roots can be traced to the Christian Middle Ages.")(citing Janet Coleman, "Property and Poverty," J.H. Burns, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c. 350-c.1450 (Cambridge, 1988), 617-25, 643-46.)



138 See Blackstone, Commentaries, 2:3 ("The earth therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, exclusive of other beings, from the immediate gift of the creator.") See also Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 396 ("It is wrong to say that God made Rich and Poor; he made only Male and Female; and he gave them the earth for their inheritance"); Herbert Sloan, Principles and Interest, 75 (mentioning that the earth-as-commons theme played a significant role in the political theory of Locke, Sidney, Thomas Spence, William Ogilvie, William Paley, and Paine.)



139 James Madison to Jefferson, February 4, 1790, Boyd XVI, 131-34; Koch 16:147-49; Smith, I: 650, 652-53 ("Our hemisphere must be still more enlightened before many of the sublime truths which are seen thro' the medium of Philosophy, become visible to the naked eye of the ordinary Politician.")


140 Id. at 650. See also Madison to Jefferson, Feb 14, 1790, Smith, I: 653-54 (referencing "so great an idea as that explained in your letter of September.")



141 Sloan, PRINCIPLES AND INTEREST at 5.



142 Lev. 26:14, 32, 35.

143 Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 399 (emphasis in original).

end

[Michael Joseph]

I will admit that the term USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation - and I have observed this first hand. I think it is clear that many folks can have a claim upon the same Thing. Meaning all claim of or in the Earth but none can trespass the other so these are mere overlays. Think Biology 101 - it starts with a skeleton then a liver, etc. Overlays exist upon a X,Y cartesian cordinate system [the earth] but the claim is on the Z axis. Each claim has a different Z coordinate so they are parallel and do not trespass. They Co-exist in theory anyways.

Shalom,
MJ

[yarash]

yarash

Hi everyone, i'm new here, trying to figure my way around. Such a great forum with so much information, i am overwhelmed by all this great knowledge. I have a couple of questions in regards to the NAME issue, perhaps a little off topic.

First I have been redeemed, bought with a price paid for in blood and my debt is wiped clean. I am no longer my own but belong to Yahveh. I am a new creation and i have been given a new name. I'm working on forsaking the old to walk in the newness of life.

I would like to buy a new car with lawful money (cash) and trade an old car that is registered with the State. I have no State identity in the form of a DL (expired) and the dealership would have to report the sale to IRS requiring a "NAME and perhaps a number and a residence". How would one go about buying the car as private property (belonging to Yahweh--where He sends me I will go) without any attachment to the State--the certificate of title has their created NAME on it and i would not want it to be somehow tied to my new identity in the Messiah. Can it be done? How?

I have so many questions, as i'm sure most do who come to this forum, but for now I'll be grateful for any answers or input on this particular issue since it involves "identity/name".

[Chex]

I will admit that the term USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation

No doubt USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation.

So once you comprehend this and know that the Title/Name is not YOURS, and you know it is in fact held by the State/United States, and you refuse to CLAIM that Title/Name or any interest therein, you now leave the prosecutor or attorney holding the bag for all the liability for their having brought that CLAIM of reversionary interest in that Title/Name which IS property of the State/United States!

Do you really want ATTORNEY AND CLIENT representation?

C.J.S. Volume 7, Section 4: ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. "His/Her first duty is to the courts and the public, NOT to the CLIENT, and whenever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.".

Now that's scary.

Read that here, http://www.notacitizen.com/pipermail...ay/004843.html

Remember the Credit River decision where an honest judge rules honestly on money matters now get this handed down by a jury of 12 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ns-seabed.html

Now this is deep.

Power of the Grand Jury - In a stunning 6 to 3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights, see United States -v- Williams. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...21#comment-221

[Anthony Joseph]

Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Salsero, etc. are ALL fictions!

These are names and names are not living beings. A name is absent a soul. This goes to the heart of IDENTITY - and then you must satisfy the answer of IDENTITY within what law boundary. Meaning who has the surety. This is typically the treasury.

I don't care what your name is - it is a fiction.

Can you hear me speaks the sentient being? Now I wonder where in the common law that came from....well lets find out.

Exo 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the People that was in the camp trembled.

Exo 19:17 And Moses brought forth the People out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.

Exo 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

Exo 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

=====

they could not see - but they heard! Now you can pull out all sorts of images of what your mommy named you or what daddy attested to - I don't care! This is all a fiction. A name has no blood. A name has no voice. A name has no soul. A name has no spirit. A name is SIMPLY PUT A FICTION.

Can a name establish the character of a man. No. Can a man predestine a man to a certain destiny. No. A name is a label used for convenience within a society. That society has a certain law form - be it natural law or moral law or statute law, etc. That law form has conventions for handling names.

Therefore dear reader a name is a Person.


Shalom,
MJ

i agree; this is precisely what i have been attempting to convey

without a voice (living) there is no claim, to property or otherwise

'Anthony Joseph' is a name; and yes, it is a person/fiction; and, it is property which i claim

the same goes for 'Anthony Joseph Surname'; what other man will step forward and verify a claim of vested interest in said name?

paper is meaningless and powerless on its own; a claimant (man) must speak his claim or there is no claim

i believe i have a right to be secure in my persons, papers, house(s) and effects (all i claim is my property) against unlawful trespass

not only do i believe this; the entity to which people bound themselves in public service supports my belief:

[cf. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation (that means in living voice with full liability), and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] (emphasis mine)

[salsero]

[QUOTE=Chex;12864]No doubt USUFRUCT has an amazing impact on the situation.

Do you really want ATTORNEY AND CLIENT representation?



Now that's scary.

Read that here, http://www.notacitizen.com/pipermail...ay/004843.html

AN attorney can only represent a person. An attorney CAN NOT represent a man. I am not sure you understood this part. An attorney's first duty is to the court, then the public, then the person. AS AN OFFICER of the court it is the attorney's oath and liability to protect the property of the US. Under CJS vol 7, vol 4, the man is considered a ward and a ward is a person. A person is property. And that property is owned by the state which the attorney is oath bound to protect. Do you see?

The only thing you all are not comprehending - and I am trying to remove the brush from the path or our conditioning - because I too in the beginning I did not "get it" because it is against everything I was told or understood is the fact that if I CAN'T OWN THE NAME OR PROPERTY, ok what is the alternative? And this is where usufruct comes in.

It is a a troubling feeling to know everything I worked for, a house, car, bank account, etc I CAN NOT OWN BY OPERATION OF LAW. The US is under state of emergency, we have all evidence of the finial on top of the flag, endless executive orders, the debt, Homeland security, NUMEROUS ATTORNEYS, IRS, courts system, the FRB, etc. THe Barry-kare law has ZERO to do with health care. It is not different then the SSA, medicare and now barry-kare, it has to do with the state attempting to rein or bring back those FRN. In Maryland there is a tax on roof rain water, please what do you think this is all about?

Anyway guys, I know many of you are sincere with remedy, so I am going to CHALLENGE you all to at least take a look into what I am writing about. I had looked into the Tim Turner thing, moved on to UCC, Equity, Common Law, just about everything under the sun, this PEACEFUL INHABITANT process is the only thing that makes sense and works when you are consistent and BE a PI.

I am not saying that common law or UCC, public policy or anything else is not good to have knowledge - it is excellent to have knowledge of this FOR THEM TO ADMINSTRATE THEIR PROPERTY. THEY ARE OATH BOUND RECEIVING A PAYCHECK TO PERFORM, we are just men who do not interfere with matters that do not concern us. Do you see?

[salsero]

i agree; this is precisely what i have been attempting to convey

without a voice (living) there is no claim, to property or otherwise

'Anthony Joseph' is a name; and yes, it is a person/fiction; and, it is property which i claim

the same goes for 'Anthony Joseph Surname'; what other man will step forward and verify a claim of vested interest in said name?

paper is meaningless and powerless on its own; a claimant (man) must speak his claim or there is no claim

i believe i have a right to be secure in my persons, papers, house(s) and effects (all i claim is my property) against unlawful trespass

not only do i believe this; the entity to which people bound themselves in public service supports my belief:

[cf. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation (that means in living voice with full liability), and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] (emphasis mine)

Prove you are a party to the Constitution? I can prove you are not.
The right of the people [fiction] to be secure in their persons [fictions] , supported by oath or affirmation [a piece of paper] .... and the persons or things to be seized. Are you a person? This applies to persons. If you a person, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

You do have a right to be secure in your person, there is no belief about that, it is the law. It is a human right to be recognized as a person, with all the benefits and privileges, subject to the liabilities. If you agree Anthony Joseph is a person and you claim it, then we all anxiously await the outcome of when you hold your court.

You whole point is what man is going to step up and say I own that person, Anthony? What makes you assume they have to answer or do anything in their court of Just-us? Their oaths are to the state and the public trust not you, a man.