What's in a NAME?

[Keith Alan]

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

Fix the money.

[Anthony Joseph]

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.

the public courthouse is just a building; an edifice where people have access to court (court is a verb also)

a man is always in or at common law if he remains standing as man; that ability comes with knowledge and practice - do not use ANY legalese or you show competence in a legalese court; and then, you are subject to the rules of said court

if someone sends you a present[ment], find out who is sending it and why through letter writing - do not delay
if it is written using legalese terms, you do not understand as a man; "i believe this may read as thus and so, however i am not certain and i cannot decipher your language, please communicate in common parlance." [a man is not required to know or understand the foreign language of legalese]

if this private communication cannot be settled, one party may choose to take it public by way of a law suit in court
a man has a right to face and question his accuser [cf. the Plaintiff must appear - Trinsey v Pagliaro] (notice this citation is NOT the basis for the claim of man's right, it is just an exhibit for comparison purposes)

if the "Plaintiff" is named as STATE OF XXXXX, IRS, UNITED STATES, etc., then, even according to "their" own rules and precedents, the Plaintiff must appear and the attorney is not permitted to speak to the facts without first hand knowledge; we do not rely upon "their" rules or precedents, we stand upon the common law right to face our accusers in open court

if no man will speak with voice against another man who requires to face, and answer to, his accusers claims, THERE IS NO PROPER CLAIM BEFORE THE COURT - no controversy exists [cf. no subject matter jurisdiction]

if the matter is man on man, the one moving the claim (prosecutor) establishes the rules of court and both parties present their cases before a jury that will judge the merits and render a final decision - the black-robed-one is independent of the tribunal (claimant, wrongdoer, jury) and only bears witness to the happenings

it is the claimant's court and the judgments and orders issue through said court, with magistrate as witness and court clerk as recorder for public benefit

there is no book or template for this, that is why true common law is unwritten; a man must learn to stand as such (a man) and conduct his affairs accordingly and in honor

[doug555]

the public courthouse is just a building; an edifice where people have access to court (court is a verb also)

a man is always in or at common law if he remains standing as man; that ability comes with knowledge and practice - do not use ANY legalese or you show competence in a legalese court; and then, you are subject to the rules of said court

if someone sends you a present[ment], find out who is sending it and why through letter writing - do not delay
if it is written using legalese terms, you do not understand as a man; "i believe this may read as thus and so, however i am not certain and i cannot decipher your language, please communicate in common parlance." [a man is not required to know or understand the foreign language of legalese]

if this private communication cannot be settled, one party may choose to take it public by way of a law suit in court
a man has a right to face and question his accuser [cf. the Plaintiff must appear - Trinsey v Pagliaro] (notice this citation is NOT the basis for the claim of man's right, it is just an exhibit for comparison purposes)

if the "Plaintiff" is named as STATE OF XXXXX, IRS, UNITED STATES, etc., then, even according to "their" own rules and precedents, the Plaintiff must appear and the attorney is not permitted to speak to the facts without first hand knowledge; we do not rely upon "their" rules or precedents, we stand upon the common law right to face our accusers in open court

if no man will speak with voice against another man who requires to face, and answer to, his accusers claims, THERE IS NO PROPER CLAIM BEFORE THE COURT - no controversy exists [cf. no subject matter jurisdiction]

if the matter is man on man, the one moving the claim (prosecutor) establishes the rules of court and both parties present their cases before a jury that will judge the merits and render a final decision - the black-robed-one is independent of the tribunal (claimant, wrongdoer, jury) and only bears witness to the happenings

it is the claimant's court and the judgments and orders issue through said court, with magistrate as witness and court clerk as recorder for public benefit

there is no book or template for this, that is why true common law is unwritten; a man must learn to stand as such (a man) and conduct his affairs accordingly and in honor

The above is an excellent explanation! Thanks AJ!

Below is my attempt to get this approach before the CLGJ audience:

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...aw#comment-230

[shikamaru]

When one OWNS something, it is to the exclusion of anyone else.

Not necessarily.

In law, there is distinction between absolute ownership (Roman Civil Law::dominion) and qualified ownership (Roman Civil Law::servitude).
To be honest, there wasn't even absolute ownership in English Common Law save the radical title of the King.
As far as states go, all ownership is subject to the state (as far as they are concerned).

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.

1) No one owns an ACCOUNT. The account is the property of the issuer, in this case, the bank. An account is a chose in action (right to sue for recovery of a debt owed). Interestingly enough, taxes are a chose in action of the king (or government). Not only that, the legal title of the notes transfer from the depositor to the bank. The bank becomes the legal owner of the notes deposited into the account.

A levy and a withdraw are different beasts. A levy has to do with taxation (or conscription into a martial force). A withdrawal has to do with a deduction of funds from the account to the requester.
Foreclosure is another beast all together. Foreclosure is the final action a creditor will take to recover property pledged as collateral for a debt based on a CONTRACT the debtor indorsed.

Under Common Law, creditors had more power than they do now, believe it or not. Quite a few protections have been put into the law since medieval English times in protection of the debtor.

You don't even what to know how insolvents were treated under Common Law .

The Name is a public person or non-incorporated entity that is given to us for the public good.

Originally in Common Law, only men of note had first and last names. Those names were recorded by the private families. This was for purposes of inheritance of passing on titles and property.

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.

The liabilities of ownership also comes from customs of Common Law. Owner of property or holder of title was subject to the King's dues. This was primarily providing military aide as well as funds to ease the King's wants ....

[salsero]

Not necessarily.

In law, there is distinction between absolute ownership (Roman Civil Law::dominion) and qualified ownership (Roman Civil Law::servitude).
To be honest, there wasn't even absolute ownership in English Common Law save the radical title of the King.
As far as states go, all ownership is subject to the state (as far as they are concerned).



1) No one owns an ACCOUNT. The account is the property of the issuer, in this case, the bank. An account is a chose in action (right to sue for recovery of a debt owed). Interestingly enough, taxes are a chose in action of the king (or government). Not only that, the legal title of the notes transfer from the depositor to the bank. The bank becomes the legal owner of the notes deposited into the account.

A levy and a withdraw are different beasts. A levy has to do with taxation (or conscription into a martial force). A withdrawal has to do with a deduction of funds from the account to the requester.
Foreclosure is another beast all together. Foreclosure is the final action a creditor will take to recover property pledged as collateral for a debt based on a CONTRACT the debtor indorsed.

Under Common Law, creditors had more power than they do now, believe it or not. Quite a few protections have been put into the law since medieval English times in protection of the debtor.

You don't even what to know how insolvents were treated under Common Law .



Originally in Common Law, only men of note had first and last names. Those names were recorded by the private families. This was for purposes of inheritance of passing on titles and property.



The liabilities of ownership also comes from customs of Common Law. Owner of property or holder of title was subject to the King's dues. This was primarily providing military aide as well as funds to ease the King's wants ....

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...aw#comment-230 - I had seen much of this stuff previously. Excellent info to be aware of. But I personally see NO REMEDY there. ALL I DO KNOW, if we all do not wake up soon from this "illusion called life", maybe when Hillary becomes president in 2016, as her balls are big enough to push that red button, then we can start the planet all over again - because all this warring is really a downer. And Hillary seems to be just the right leader of our collective consciousness reflecting back to We, the People exactly what we are.

God Bless

[shikamaru]

Persons, banks, corporations, cars, houses, property, boats, children, bank accounts, etc are ALL legally titled WITH State OWNED PROPERTY CALLED A NAME, ESTATE, TRUST, INDIVIDUAL, ETC.

I can agree with this, however, it is presumptive.
Evidence of titlement would still be in order along with some system of registration.

When there is a judgment against the person and that person "has assets" whether a car, bank account or a house or whatever, that "stuff you OWN" is going to be taken.

A judgement is an assessment.
What you have just described is a levy. From Wikipedia:

A legal action, where property of a judgment debtor is taken for public sale to satisfy a monetary judgment

My point is if you own it, it can not be taken.

Says who? It seems in this world, if you have not the force to retain ownership whether by cudgel, title, or legal proceeding; you have none.

Everything you cited is all well and good and it may very well be a "basis or history" on current law today; however, IT IS MY OPINON, that since all titles were seized in the 1930s and after the Erie RR decision [basically doing away with common law], ....

Very good that you stated your opinion. All that I gave you in my previous post can be substantiated by treatises and other works.

Erie decision had to do with diversity jurisdiction and which cases should be heard in which court, not with doing away with "common law".

The federal government never had a "common law". The "common law" which they sought to develop had to do with commerce particularly a uniform standard of handling negotiable instruments throughout the several States.

Now if you would have based your opinion on the seizure of titles on the seizure of American's gold in the 1930s by way of eminent domain power of the U.S. government, I would be more inclined to side with you. Although in my opinion, this wouldn't have a leg to stand on. All states reserve the powers of eminent domain, seizure, condemnation, confiscation, as well as arrest of things and persons no matter the title or who possesses what.

... all I can wish you all "pro-common law is alive and well today" is by all means go for it. As long as someone is obtaining remedy and cure, I luv it. Please provide the group with detail info on your successes. I am willing to admit MY ERROR.

You are presuming I am "pro-common law".
Common Law ain't what others romanticize it to be .
Common Law was King's Law. It was the King's attempt at monopolizing things for himself.
Subjects hated Common Law and its attorneys as well.

I bothered to check out this link http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...aw#comment-230 - I had seen much of this stuff previously. Excellent info to be aware of. But I personally see NO REMEDY there. ALL I DO KNOW, if we all do not wake up soon from this "illusion called life", maybe when Hillary becomes president in 2016, as her balls are big enough to push that red button, then we can start the planet all over again - because all this warring is really a downer. And Hillary seems to be just the right leader of our collective consciousness reflecting back to We, the People exactly what we are.

Attempting to bail out the Titanic after its struck the iceberg is foolish.
Perhaps a more prudent option would be to enjoy the decline?

[Anthony Joseph]

"The ultimate ownership of all property (exclusive right of use)..." [even this sentence fragment distinguishes between the two words]

how does one claim "ownership" of "exclusive right of use"?

through titles? titles are of the paper realm and require verification "in voice" if a man so wishes

will "STATE" now appear and verify his/her claim of "ownership of property"?

how long will you wait?

[salsero]

Last time - Please when you have all YOUR bills or however, you all look at them PAID or discharged or whatever, are a free man on the land - meaning no DL, car registration, passport, bank account [what would you need this for since you have the state taking care of everything], and are the supreme sovereign over the courts, state and whatever you say in our VOICE, please share it with me. I am not being sarcastic. I am being up front. I have no issue about asking forgiveness for my error. Whatever EFFECTIVE remedy or how you call it, do not be shy, share it.

I have offered evidence that Name is not legally yours; however, you are free to use it, as it was sent to you for your use. If used correctly, under the rules of usufruct, the owner of that property, by their laws, MUST provide discharge and acquittal for THEIR property that I USE. It does not matter, if the entity or Name has a CC bill, tax bill, or charged with a crime. I am in the middle of perfecting this and I have no issue stating this; however, I honestly believe those men I have mentioned before have found EFFECTIVE remedy using this "theory" but ALSO from a biblical standpoint or spiritual standpoint, it resonates FOR ME. It is simple and at the same time complex because of our conditioning.

[Anthony Joseph]

Last time - Please when you have all YOUR bills or however, you all look at them PAID or discharged or whatever, are a free man on the land - meaning no DL, car registration, passport, bank account [what would you need this for since you have the state taking care of everything], and are the supreme sovereign over the courts, state and whatever you say in our VOICE, please share it with me. I am not being sarcastic. I am being up front. I have no issue about asking forgiveness for my error. Whatever EFFECTIVE remedy or how you call it, do not be shy, share it.

I have offered evidence that Name is not legally yours; however, you are free to use it, as it was sent to you for your use. If used correctly, under the rules of usufruct, the owner of that property, by their laws, MUST provide discharge and acquittal for THEIR property that I USE. It does not matter, if the entity or Name has a CC bill, tax bill, or charged with a crime. I am in the middle of perfecting this and I have no issue stating this; however, I honestly believe those men I have mentioned before have found EFFECTIVE remedy using this "theory" but ALSO from a biblical standpoint or spiritual standpoint, it resonates FOR ME. It is simple and at the same time complex because of our conditioning.

when did I ever claim anything you presume above?

i am not afraid of carrying or using a "DL, car registration, passport, bank account" when i decide it is of benefit

when did i ever claim that the Name is "legally" mine; and, when have you offered any verifiable proof and evidence of "Name is not legally yours"?

are you a card carrying BAR member who is permitted, and fully educated, to speak or write regarding what is "legal" or "legally" anything?

i am not sure what it is you are in the "middle of perfecting"; however, please share with us when you do though

[shikamaru]

Last time - Please when you have all YOUR bills or however, you all look at them PAID or discharged or whatever, are a free man on the land ....

The title 'freeman' is not all its cracked up to be.
Freeman is only a higher status of servant ... to the body politic.

... - meaning no DL, car registration, passport, bank account [what would you need this for since you have the state taking care of everything], and are the supreme sovereign over the courts, state and whatever you say in our VOICE, please share it with me. I am not being sarcastic. I am being up front. I have no issue about asking forgiveness for my error. Whatever EFFECTIVE remedy or how you call it, do not be shy, share it.

I have offered evidence that Name is not legally yours; however, you are free to use it, as it was sent to you for your use. If used correctly, under the rules of usufruct, the owner of that property, by their laws, MUST provide discharge and acquittal for THEIR property that I USE. It does not matter, if the entity or Name has a CC bill, tax bill, or charged with a crime. I am in the middle of perfecting this and I have no issue stating this; however, I honestly believe those men I have mentioned before have found EFFECTIVE remedy using this "theory" but ALSO from a biblical standpoint or spiritual standpoint, it resonates FOR ME. It is simple and at the same time complex because of our conditioning.

I'm offering data that is not common ... no pun intended.
Having such knowledge radically changes one's perspective on such subjects being that there is much disinformation out there.

I can sense from some of what you stated that you are invested in some of that disinformation. No offense.

[Michael Joseph]

The title 'freeman' is not all its cracked up to be.
Freeman is only a higher status of servant ... to the body politic.



I'm offering data that is not common ... no pun intended.
Having such knowledge radically changes one's perspective on such subjects being that there is much disinformation out there.

I can sense from some of what you stated that you are invested in some of that disinformation. No offense.

Excellent post. Just like the term Liberty is a grant and can be undone by the grantor.

[shikamaru]

Excellent post. Just like the term Liberty is a grant and can be undone by the grantor.

I guess our group can be a rough bunch at times .

Thank-you in turn for that tidbit on the term 'liberty'.

[Anthony Joseph]

and what of the word liberty?

in my opinion, the term 'Liberty' may be a grant; yet, the word 'liberty' can be used by a man absent encumbrance

my liberty is my right, which is my property

do you believe any man can make a verifiable claim [in voice] to prove my claim is untrue?

[Michael Joseph]

In my opinion the United States is being run as a plutocracy - a fascist plutocracy at that. I have noticed the Fasces all around. Oh I know there are some who would opine concerning the business plan - but a constitution can be overcome in COMMERCE. And in this boy's opinion - those who think the U.S. is still operating as a Republic or even a Democracy are just fooling themselves.

I wrote in another forum regarding Serfs - Villeins - that is exactly right. Most believe their head is gold and they cannot be sold. Yet they sell themselves voluntarily into slavery - debt bondsmen for life.

Consider a government who is in debt - who is the head and who is the tail? Is not the lender the head? Now then does that nullify the trust structures that understand the United States - NOT IN ANY WAY - however, who would the government now have primary allegiance too? A: The Lender!

Do try to remember that. For in my estimation I see ten ruling families who thru their agency of CENTRALIZED BANKING rule the world - you might say these are the power behind the thrones. THE REAL POWER.

Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea and I saw a wild beast coming up [ascending] out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads names of blasphemy.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest represent ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive delegated power as kings one and the same hour with the beast.

Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and they give [of their own free will] their power and strength to the beast.

These horns are the power that run the world - the power that decides who will be king - the world is run as a FASCIST PLUTOCRACY. And the tool used to centralize power and money is the Central Banking System. America had the Aldrich Plan - Germany had the Dulles plan....these are just copies of each other. She sings the same song.

The debtor is slave to the lender!

My claim is in the TRUE GOSPEL which is NOT about Christ but about the Kingdom of God. Christ did not teach about Himself - He taught concerning the Kingdom of God. And Paul recognized that it was not yet time so he too submitted himself to death. How many will struggle with Romans 13? Don't you know Paul was NOT writing about submitting to Secular institutions! This is easily proven - He was writing concerning the Kingdom of God.

Can't you see Ceasar ruled Paul to be in Treason. For Ceasar declared that he was God. This whole argument goes to Qualification into a Kingdom. Now is the time of the trying of the Saints. Whom shall ye serve? Which is to say where is your trust placed? It is as simple as that!

Is God's Kingdom a Democracy? Answer: No. Is it a Republic? Answer: No.

God calls, God chooses, Yehoshuah is King in Love but God or the family of God is with the rule, in Love. And Love is not about getting it is about GIVING. But notice man does not appoint leadership in the Kingdom of God. God chooses! Therefore we see the Kingdom in abeyance until the rightful claimant returns to take His seat as the King of kings. This is what Paul recognized - the time was not then - for the time of the fullness of the gentiles was afar off. So just like Christ submitted himself to death - so did Paul. And so will the saints. IF THEY WANT TO SIT AS A VASSAL KING IN THE THRONE OF JESUS CHRIST.

Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints:... they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith which Jesus gives.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord does not delay concerning His promise, as some men account slackness; but is longsuffering toward you, not willing [desiring] that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


For Nebuchadnezzars statue is a symbol of the satanic ruled kingdoms of this earth! BECAUSE Adam disqualified himself by obeying Satan. Therefore, the king of this World is Satan - Satan has the legal right until he is removed by the One coming in Power. For Christ Qualified to lead the government of God as He did not bow to Satan but in the stead kept the Commandments or the LAW of God.

If God appoints one to rule over you in the Kingdom of God, then you are to submit to that authority in Love. You sacrifice is the giving of yourself to the service of others within the Kingdom. This is the TRUE GOSPEL and it has been suppressed for 1900+ years now. The saints who can see the Great Mystery know the calling of the chosen - and will endure in patience Serving their King.

Therefore we see USUFRUCT as the Kingdom is in Abeyance so then no one state or kingdom can claim dominion over the earth BECAUSE the Earth belongs to God and all that is within it! So the kingdoms claim the USUFRUCT! Isn't this obvious too all by now?


Yehoshuah is God's Annointed - Christos.

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations tumultuously assemble, And the peoples meditate on vain things ?

Psa 2:2 Why do the kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers have gathered by appointment, Against the LORD, and against His Annointed One? saying,

Psa 2:3 "Let us break Yehovah's and Messiah's bands asunder, And cast away Their cords from us."

Psa 2:4 He That sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: The Lord shall have them in derision.

Psa 2:5 Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, And vex them in His sore displeasure.

Psa 2:6 Yet have I founded My king upon My holy hill of Zion.

Psa 2:7 I will declare for a decree: The LORD hath said unto Me, "Thou art My Son; This day have I begotten thee.

Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the nations for Thine inheritance, And the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.

Psa 2:9 Thou shalt rule them with a scepter of unbending authority; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: Be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling.

Psa 2:12 Submit to the Son, lest Yehovah be angry, and ye perish, way and all, When His wrath is kindled but quickly. How happy are all they that flee for refuge to Him.


Shalom,
MJ


Exo 6:2 And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah:


Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of GOD ALMIGHTY, but by My name JEHOVAH was I not understood to them.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by My name Yehovah was I not understood to them.



Psa 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of El Elyon Shall abide under the shadow of El Shaddai.

Psa 91:2 I will say of Yehovah, "He is my refuge and my fortress: My Judge [Elohim]; in Him will I trust.

[Anthony Joseph]

who is it that God has been appointed to rule over you in the Kingdom of God, Michael Joseph?

it is my obligation to serve my creator, my family and my fellow man; does every man require a "ruler" to carry this out?

usufruct - the right to use that which is proper to one and exclusive of all others [property]

who makes claim to the property which you claim you have the right to use by way of "usufruct" - have you met him or her?

has something called "state", "State" or "STATE" ever spoken to you in regards to a rightful vested interest claim of the property which you use in "usufruct"?