What's in a NAME?

[Anthony Joseph]

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.

i never stated i am a party to the 'Constitution' ['cf.' means compare my belief to _____]; and, if you can prove a negative, you accomplish an impossibility

people (mankind) live and breath; 'The People' is a fiction; it would benefit you to study capitalization [Capitis Diminutio]

an oath or affirmation must be made in living voice [affidavit = a piece of paper] - huge difference

"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim can only be made by man
once again, do you deny the right of a man to pursue a claim and move his court; do you deny that it has been done?

only a man has rights; i believe the inherent rights i claim are my property; and, no one has a right to disparage or deny my rights or my property unless i cause harm to a man, injure his property or commit a breach of a valid and lawful contract - these 'wrongs' must be determined according to common law; man on man

[Michael Joseph]

i never stated i am a party to the 'Constitution' ['cf.' means compare my belief to _____]; and, if you can prove a negative, you accomplish an impossibility

people (mankind) live and breath; 'The People' is a fiction; it would benefit you to study capitalization [Capitis Diminutio]

an oath or affirmation must be made in living voice [affidavit = a piece of paper] - huge difference

"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim can only be made by man
once again, do you deny the right of a man to pursue a claim and move his court; do you deny that it has been done?

only a man has rights; i believe the inherent rights i claim are my property; and, no one has a right to disparage or deny my rights or my property unless i cause harm to a man, injure his property or commit a breach of a valid and lawful contract - these 'wrongs' must be determined according to common law; man on man

Whereas I believe my following comment will most likely inflame some I really don't care. The so called Common Law came out of the Old and New Testaments or the Word of Yehovah our Judge. Now then I am asked all the time concerning books that I might point a reader to and I can say with 100 percent accuracy that the single greatest book one can read to learn about trust and common law is the Bible. End of Story.

"I believe" are TWO very powerful words. They cannot be proved and therefore we will naturally come to this conclusion eventually : Do not trespass upon your neighbor : or Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I would never go into your place of business and start running the show - I have no standing. And I suppose the men and women who patronize your business would be quite confused and you might be upset as well.

Shalom,
MJ

[Chex]

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. 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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.13d-3

[Michael Joseph]

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".

it is a process. Remember that Israel did not come out of Egypt overnight. They too had to endure the first 3 or so plagues just like the Egyptians. This also is a proof that no fly away rapture is happening- but that is off topic. Slow and steady is the course. Let the Holy Spirit of Yehovah lead you to where you can be used. But I will give you this one analogy - If you want a bridge built do you hire an artist? You hire an engineer! As such, if you are to walk as a priest in the Kingdom then you MUST know and keep the Law. This is Hosea 4:6. And Ezekiel 44:23. Order of Melchi [king] Zedok [priest].

Like I said go easy - it will come to you. but first and foremost is seeking the kingdom of God - all the rest will be added. That is not to say I have all the answers - I don't - but it is a Path - a Way - a Walk - a Relationship.

Shalom,
MJ

[Anthony Joseph]

Whereas I believe my following comment will most likely inflame some I really don't care. The so called Common Law came out of the Old and New Testaments or the Word of Yehovah our Judge. Now then I am asked all the time concerning books that I might point a reader to and I can say with 100 percent accuracy that the single greatest book one can read to learn about trust and common law is the Bible. End of Story.

"I believe" are TWO very powerful words. They cannot be proved and therefore we will naturally come to this conclusion eventually : Do not trespass upon your neighbor : or Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I would never go into your place of business and start running the show - I have no standing. And I suppose the men and women who patronize your business would be quite confused and you might be upset as well.

Shalom,
MJ

i wouldn't begin to know who your comments "will most likely inflame"; perhaps atheists and BAR members

remember; at a public courthouse, the public (living people) have a right to conduct their business (court) without interference

the public courthouse is the same as the public library; it is NOT a private building for BAR members only

wish proof, ask to see the building manager ['chief judge'] and ask the question

[Michael Joseph]

i wouldn't begin to know who your comments "will most likely inflame"; perhaps atheists and BAR members

remember; at a public courthouse, the public (living people) have a right to conduct their business (court) without interference

the public courthouse is the same as the public library; it is NOT a private building for BAR members only

wish proof, ask to see the building manager ['chief judge'] and ask the question

Yes, the rural routes all went thru the courthouse. And still do. On wake county their were nine judicial districts. read Exodus 18.

[salsero]

"people are to be secure in their persons" logically distinguishes a difference between 'people' and 'persons'; people live and breath (have rights) and persons are the tools people use if they so wish

Are you sure? people. (usu. cap.) (180i) The citizens of a state as represented by the prosecution in a criminal case <People v. Snyder>. According to blacks 9th Ed, people are citizens. Are you a citizen of the state?


i believe these persons are gifts for my use; and, i believe the only law which applies when one uses said person is the valid and lawful contract expressed with said person, not implied - contract wisely

OK - we can call it gift, better to call it left naked - but call it what you want. OK you can BELEIVE law applies when one USES said person. I do not. USE is not the same as ownership. Consent is presumed by your actions. Then is it confirmed by your claims

you continue to write errantly by stating i have spoken of things i "own" and that i wish to go to "their" court

once again, property is not ownership; property is an exclusive 'right of use' of a thing, corporeal or incorporeal and this claim[/QUOTE]

Man is heir to his Creator's thrown. Persons have man made rights, with liabilities. Under God's rights, there are no liabilities. I agree controversy must be settled between man and man, yet I do not see how common law has any force TODAY doing this, as when you walk into their court, you must state their Name, which is their property, thus falling under the jurisdiction thereof.

[Anthony Joseph]

you know how you can tell 'property' is not 'ownership'; the words are spelled differently

if you use legal dictionaries to get your definitions, you consent to be competent in said legal realm - "welcome, defendant"

'case law' are only opinions of 'judges', NOT law; 'case law' can be overturned at any time by another's opinion

you keep referring to 'the court' as if it is an entity on its own; court is what one brings, moves, holds and keeps at the courthouse

the one who prosecutes brings 'court'; you really need to etymologize the word 'court'

[salsero]

When you say "my property", most folks would take that to mean you own it. I do not need to use a legal dictionary, legal dictionaries are not for men, they are for fictions, this point I believe we agree. I agree case law is only opinions; however, those opinions are based upon the interpretation of the public policy statute, or if pre-1930s public law. Court is an entity operating in bankruptcy and has "rules" how it operates. I still have no clue how you plan on "bringing, moving, holding and keeping at, in, or out the courthouse?

The plaintiff is the one who sets jurisdiction and brings his claim to be settled. OK I can go with that. What I still do not understand is how or why, you a man, want to ask a judge to settle any matter. Where is YOUR force of law to bring a defendant into YOUR court? If I am correct, under common law, you would not need to pay any filing fees. Why is any court system today going to permit you to move forward? Where would you find a common law jury? The jury you demand could exist? A jury of one's peers? So this would EXCLUDE all residents and US citizens. Since only citizens can serve on a jury, at, in or out of a court, it seems the pickings may be slim to none.

Bottom line, please explain simply why any fictional court is going to allow you to BRING or move or whatever the court? How do you, a man proceed in any court without using the person that you think is your property? John can not bring a claim against Mary. John SMith can bring a claim against Mary Jones. Both names are property of the state and are held in trust for the public good.

I do not mean to be disrespectful, If I am in error, I hope to learn something.

The way I see it is the following: Man has nothing to do with anything of theirs. It appears real but it is not. We are commanded by the Creator to forgive and not judge. This is the Royal Law. When one makes a claim against his brother, he is really making a claim against God, as all are part of His creation.

Now if you were to ask me what about rapists and murderers - this brings up a whole other topic. If you are asking me about, ie, a man damages one of his brothers in some way, then the brother and the man must have a meeting of the minds and work it out.

[salsero]

[Keith Alan]

While the name is a fiction, it's a useful one. We aren't the ones who superimposed this "person" over our identities, but the reality is that this "thing," whatever it really is, is the vehicle being used to control people in society. And another reality is that some people need to be controlled.

I think most of the people who come to the realization that their being is separate from the fiction, also know that in today's society it's very difficult to function without it. So the struggle is in trying to figure out how to operate without the legal person.

Yet another reality is that we're all unique creations, and each of us reach understanding in our unique and individual ways. Each one gains knowledge, filters it through life experience and contemplation, and eventually it buds into wisdom.

I am continually amazed at the depth of thought that is constantly displayed here at this site. I find it remarkable that so many people - each coming from his own understanding - are still able to find commonality in the ideas routinely discussed.

Concepts like the name are ethereal, spiritual, and hard to express in words. So it's natural to try and relate the idea to experiences that we hope others will have had, and reach unity in understanding.

Fortunately we've been given a real life example to follow, and his actions are memorialized and made present in those of us who believe and accept his promise of redemption. He is the Captain of our salvation, and has already won the battle.

[yarash]

yarash

While the name is a fiction, it's a useful one. We aren't the ones who superimposed this "person" over our identities, but the reality is that this "thing," whatever it really is, is the vehicle being used to control people in society. And another reality is that some people need to be controlled.

I think most of the people who come to the realization that their being is separate from the fiction, also know that in today's society it's very difficult to function without it. So the struggle is in trying to figure out how to operate without the legal person.

Yet another reality is that we're all unique creations, and each of us reach understanding in our unique and individual ways. Each one gains knowledge, filters it through life experience and contemplation, and eventually it buds into wisdom.

I am continually amazed at the depth of thought that is constantly displayed here at this site. I find it remarkable that so many people - each coming from his own understanding - are still able to find commonality in the ideas routinely discussed.

Concepts like the name are ethereal, spiritual, and hard to express in words. So it's natural to try and relate the idea to experiences that we hope others will have had, and reach unity in understanding.

Fortunately we've been given a real life example to follow, and his actions are memorialized and made present in those of us who believe and accept his promise of redemption. He is the Captain of our salvation, and has already won the battle.

Hello Keith, I agree that some are given a higher level of understanding than others on how to separate the real from the fiction, not just in thought and expressed through a keyboard, but actually in deed. And if we are ever going to overcome this beastly system of slavery and rise above it, it would be great to have some real acts and deed to emulate.

There is a scripture verse that says "come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sin, so that you will not receive of her plagues". If we utilize their system we are taking part in it, no? I want no part of it although thanks to David and his findings on lawful money (just weights and measures) i have been redeeming LM. If we are going to use the benefit in any way then we owe a duty. But Scripture says "the whole duty of man is to love Yahveh and keep His commandments"

I prefer to go the route of MJ and his statement "DECLARE THYSELF" i am not sure exactly how--on paper?. Perhaps he will explain it himself or others who are doing the same.

If He is the Captain of our salvation, to quote you, and has already won the battle, why aren't we shouting it from the rooftop to TPTB that our King reigns and owns everything?

Just my 2cents
Thanks for anyone who read this.

[salsero]

I mostly agree with everything you stated. It is very good that WE be open to understand and learn from one another AND be open, along with challenge our beliefs. I started this journey quite accidently, it was watching the documentary - The Zeitgeist. It was through my intense wanting to learn more, I found a local group for the Zeitgeist Movement and form there we, as a group find info about Tim Turner. Though I found many things Tim had said profound, we, as a group were ready to move forward on "his remedy". Remember I knew absolutely nothing. However, it was I that kept researching Tim, at that time, and I warned the group, after I came to learn more about remedy, this was not for us. The group eventually disbanded. But I continued to study. I move forwarded to AFV, copyright of the Name, Notice of understanding, Purging from the matrix, redemption manual, creditors in commerce, Bill Thorton, common law, Equity, black card, abatement, UCC, etc. All this study was important; I am glad I took the time to learn "something" probably not too well - but just a taste. When I finally got to Peace Inhabitant process, if you want to call it that, I argued no less that Anthony, probably even more. I argued with a man, called John Tanis. I said to him what do you mean it is not MY bank account, my car, my house, I worked for it!!!! I worked a lifetime for my stuff. It has my name on it. John very patiently took the time to go back and forth with me. I realize now why he did so. 1. because HE had to reinforce himself in this idea 2. He wants to follow the scriptures by being of service to humanity, as is part of all our duty and 3. Its about spreading the word so that we can get back into "grace" here on earth [not that that is ever lost, that is just an illusion and we suffer for our fighting our "correct BEINGNESS"]. I fully admit this PI process is not an easy concept to grasp because of our earthly density - let's face it we, at one level or another, still have selfish motives. Its not about right or wrong, it just IS. I should also state it was not only John that helped me along this path, but also too, a guy named Boris, Marc Fishman and Batman, all with very profound knowledge.

When you really sit yourself down and give heavy duty thought to it, those in power are there for OUR good. OUCH! YES, as evil as they appear to be, and they are, their purpose is to help us WAKE UP. The more we resist, the worse they get. Me, Mine, My or I, is about separatism. "I" am part of the "we". Therefore when I state that car is MINE, it is saying, I own it. How does one prove he owns it? With a piece of paper? We are used to saying - it is my car - and that is the deception. The Creator owns all of the creation AND it is to be USED by all of His creation, freely given AND NOT CHARGED FOR. How does one charge his brother for anything? God gave ALL resources freely. When you really think about it, we do not even own our next breath, this is freely given by grace.

When one OWNS something, it is to the exclusion of anyone else. This means if I own the bank account and there is a debt levy on the person I use, the creditor CAN legally go into MY BANK ACCOUNT and take out those fictional funds. That same creditor can come and foreclose on the house and car. Some still will insist under COMMON LAW this can not be done. Well I guess we will have to hear about the out come of that theory. The Name is a public person or non-incorporated entity that is given to us for the public good. If you are a belligerent, and start with me, mine, my and I, then there are those who will help tame you.

When we use something, the owner is liable. It does not mean I can not have exclusive use of it, it is just that everything I contribute or do, the owner benefits [which I do joyously], subject to the liabilities.

Last time I bring this up. If you really dig the bible, give this guy a listen to, his name is Marcus. It is long and boring, but boring because he is trying to really drill this into man and his conditions here on earth.


We are servant kings and Marcus can explain this to you all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSR...Y1ZxJB&index=1

[Anthony Joseph]

the public courthouse is NOT "theirs", it is ours; only man can make a claim

the "fictional court" cannot allow or disallow anything

the man or woman who acts as 'court clerk' is your 'court clerk' if you require he/she perform for you

in a common law court, names are not necessary; i may stylize my claim however i wish; and, a witness can merely speak and point to a wrongdoer in open court without knowing, or using, a name to identify a wrongdoer

i never stated that i want something to do with anything of "theirs"; who do you believe is "they" and what is "theirs"?

of course i agree that a man must try to have a meeting of the minds and work things out with his brother first, however, if that process fails in the private, a man has a right to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public; that is the nature of common law and that law still exists on this land, if one knows how to invoke and hold it by one's own right

this is why i keep repeating that we (that includes me) need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land

[Chex]

the public courthouse is NOT "theirs", it is ours; only man can make a claim the "fictional court" cannot allow or disallow anything
the man or woman who acts as 'court clerk' is your 'court clerk' if you require he/she perform for you

in a common law court, names are not necessary; i may stylize my claim however i wish; and, a witness can merely speak and point to a wrongdoer in open court without knowing, or using, a name to identify a wrongdoer

i never stated that i want something to do with anything of "theirs"; who do you believe is "they" and what is "theirs"?

of course i agree that a man must try to have a meeting of the minds and work things out with his brother first, however, if that process fails in the private, a man has a right to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public; that is the nature of common law and that law still exists on this land, if one knows how to invoke and hold it by one's own right

this is why i keep repeating that we (that includes me) need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land

Ok AJ I get the public courthouse is NOT "theirs" its a "fictional court."

How does one get to the in a common law court when charges are brought on the real human?

Who then has the meeting of the minds? Who is his brother your talking to with the meeting of the minds? How do you get the meeting in private first and with Who?

In the private A doesn't agree with B with the meeting of the minds in private so then to pursue a claim before other brothers and sisters in the public in common law that law still exists on this land to invoke the right, How does that get started?

I agree that we need to learn, study and invoke this process that is available to man on this land?

Lets get to it.

I am ready for this.