can you prove your identity?

[allodial]

Having an entity vs BEING the entity. Something about Stockholm Syndrome and 'last names'.

[Michael Joseph]

I cannot revoke what I did not create. Let me put it like this: I liken the LEGAL DUMMY [given name + SURNAME] to be a limited liability vessel. Call it company - or trust vessel - or whatever you want to call it - Person - I care not. All corporations, LLC's etc are just fancy names for Trust. The United States, under "This Constitution" picks up the liability. I have never seen "the Constitution" so I don't have much to say about "the Constitution"

Since I did not create LEGAL DUMMY I cannot annul or revoke it as you say. What I can do is stop using it. Let me be very careful now as I am about to incorporate the term USE in a legal sense and not in a common sense.

When I act in the NAME = LEGAL DUMMY, then a USE is made in me, as Trustee, fbo another. Now another trust is created between the so called government, as grantor/beneficiary and me now as Trustee. But see that I too can benefit from the transfer of the estate.

Therefore in any court - Judge as Administrator, State as Beneficiary, Defendant as Trustee.



Shalom,
mj

[allodial]

To expand upon that.. John Henry != JOHN HENRY DOE != DOE JOHN H != JOHN H DOE. Michael Joseph appears to be asserting that he has neither culpability nor fiduciary duty for or concerning {ENTITY}. And rather than revoking the ENTITY he has or would terminate or quit such fiduciary duty or culpability. Seems such has to do with fiduciary relationships.

[Michael Joseph]

To expand upon that.. John Henry != JOHN HENRY DOE != DOE JOHN H != JOHN H DOE. Michael Joseph appears to be asserting that he has neither culpability nor fiduciary duty for or concerning {ENTITY}. And rather than revoking the ENTITY he has or would terminate or quit such fiduciary duty or culpability. Seems such has to do with fiduciary relationships.

I propound that if I act in and for any vessel trusting in the United States, then my Trust can be either express by signature bond or implied by my actions and therefore my trust relates me as fiduciary. In Affiliation or Accommodation.

For it is the TRUSTEE going to Jail - else I have no trust in you. I am just me, Minister about my Ministry in CHURCH in CHIEF, in Yehoshuah by Yehovah. And my TRUST is recognized by State in 508(c)(1)(a); yet I, michael joseph am unidentifiable except to say "I trust in Yehovah" and my trust is known by my actions - I try to keep his Law, in Love.

Therefore, I decrease and Yehoshuah increases. Therefore, my family name is really of no importance except to be known within my Family in terms of my inheritance and my grant. Said inheritance and grant will all be made in the Private behind a Trust veil. Again, said trust is made in Church and I am Minister in Corporation Sole.

For example: The Mayor of the City of Savannah is Corporation Sole. The sole member = The Mayor; the Ministry is the City of Savannah. I have a ministry and my ministry benefits not only my Posterity and The Church, but also the Public.

Shalom,
mj

michael joseph is not equal to [!=] Michael Joseph; My claim is not in name, my name means nothing, my claim is in God, I call on the Character of God and attempt to walk in The Way of Life.

In the end, where is your Trust? Your name is well not really important. "We try John Doe all the time."

If I Trust in the System at Large and I have received the benefit of the estate, then I am with fiduciary. Okay so let's get this right, whose NAME is it again? Whose SSN is it again? If not mine, then why do I allow a USE to be formed in me? Answer is: I don't USE the NAME or the SSN or the DL, etc, etc.



------

FROM PADELFORD


[14.] 3. Supposing this not to be a tax for inspection
purposes, has Congress consented to its being laid?
It is certain that Congress has not expressly
consented. But is express consent necessary? There
is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There
is nothing in the practice of men, or in the
Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations,
or the Law of nations that says so.

Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life.

A tender of bank bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills
are objected to. To stand by, in silence, and see
another sell your property, binds you. These are
mere instances of the use of the maxim in the
Municipal Law. In the Law of Nations, it is equally
potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty
binds a Nation. (Vattel, ch. 16, sec. 199, book 1.
See book 2, sec. 142, et seq. as to usucaption and
prescription, and sec. 208 as to ratification.


*54 Express consent, then, not being necessary, is
there any thing from which consent may be
implied? There is-length of time. The Ordinance
was passed the 24th of January, 1842, and has been
in operation ever since. If Congress had been
opposed to the Ordinance, it had but to speak, to be
obeyed. It spoke not-it has never spoken: therefore,
it has not been opposed to the Ordinance, but has
been consenting to it.

[15.] 4. Say, however, that Congress has not
consented to the Ordinance, then the most that can
be maintained is, that the Ordinance stands subject
to “the revision and control of Congress.” It stands
a Law-a something susceptible of revision and
control-not a something unsusceptible of revision
and control as a void thing would be.


--------------

Even the lawyers building their house on Precedent, know that implied trust can be gained in silence; for one sleeping on his rights has none.

[David Merrill]

I propound that if I act in and for any vessel trusting in the United States, then my Trust can be either express by signature bond or implied by my actions and therefore my trust relates me as fiduciary. In Affiliation or Accommodation.

Shalom,
mj

Looking at accomodation in context of endorsement one might say when challenged about making a demand for lawful money - I cannot accomodate you.

Your entire post is profound Michael Joseph but I encourage the reader to linger on those two words - affiliation and accomodation.

The Secretary of State threatened me thrice about using the Great Seal without any affiliation with state business. On the third threat the Secretary was in breach of contract (no trust) with a fellow on the territorial republic by sending his approval of corporate charter to me instead of him. I forwarded the papers to him, accepting the resulting trust and was therefore in position of state appointed trustee, in affiliation with state business and sure enough the Secretary accepted my corrections and published my $20M lien. I adopted the bastard child becoming of the state with the Secretary's malfeasance - note the notice on page 2 of the form. By sending the paper directly to the man on the land the Secretary would rent the veil by exposing the Secretary knows "this state" is a fiction living on the district. Note the Great Seal proclaims the land aka Territory.

Thank you Michael Joseph. Accomodation is even more interesting!!

[allodial]

Accommodation is one thing. Culpability for or equinamity with {ENTITY} are another. Fiction of Missouri and Fiction of Ohio are similar on this:

A person signing an instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party... (Source-Ohio Code)

Identical -> http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400-499/4000030419.htm

[Michael Joseph]

Looking at accomodation in context of endorsement one might say when challenged about making a demand for lawful money - I cannot accomodate you.

Your entire post is profound Michael Joseph but I encourage the reader to linger on those two words - affiliation and accomodation.

The Secretary of State threatened me thrice about using the Great Seal without any affiliation with state business. On the third threat the Secretary was in breach of contract (no trust) with a fellow on the territorial republic by sending his approval of corporate charter to me instead of him. I forwarded the papers to him, accepting the resulting trust and was therefore in position of state appointed trustee, in affiliation with state business and sure enough the Secretary accepted my corrections and published my $20M lien. I adopted the bastard child becoming of the state with the Secretary's malfeasance - note the notice on page 2 of the form. By sending the paper directly to the man on the land the Secretary would rent the veil by exposing the Secretary knows "this state" is a fiction living on the district. Note the Great Seal proclaims the land aka Territory.

Thank you Michael Joseph. Accomodation is even more interesting!!

Thank you - my wife just came in to ask why I jumped from my seat and yelled YESSSSSSSS. "Absent Accommodation" is akin to "I have no trust in you"

Notice that one who Undertakes, well lets just let John Bouvier state it like it is:

UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

UNDERTOOK. Assumed; promised.

2. This is a technical word which ought to be inserted in every declaration of assumpsit, charging that the defendant undertook to perform the promise which is the foundation of the suit; and this though the promise be founded on a legal liability, or would be implied in evidence. Bac. Ab Assumpsit, F; 1 Chit. Pl. 88, note p.


Therefore if you sign the back of a check - which by the way is not what this thread is about - but nevertheless IT's ALL connnected - then it is ASSUMED that you intend to UNDERTAKE for the benefit of the Federal Reserve System by Express Trust - Signature Bond of the Trustee! And therefore since you are Trustee, you are Affiliated and bound to perform in Fiduciary, but you are not the Surety - they Surety is in the United States; however you may be a Constitutor For the Benefit of the United States - again by Voluntarily Undertaking FBO another.

You promised to perform as expressed in your signature bond. If you did not want to perform, then you would not have slept on your rights, but because you fell asleep, you have consented, agreed and promised in your non-objection or absence of disclaimer.

By the way, we are Identifying a Trust Relationship - NOT a man. We are Identifying the TRUSTEE. And the Trustee has been Granted trust estate - Property which is Intangible or Incorporeal and therefore there is a consideration; however, there need not be a consideration if one is to Undertake for another. Therefore the Cestui que Use - or let me more precisely say the one for whose benefit the USE was made in you, as Trustee, is going to demand an Accounting - that dear Reader is a RETURN.


The Statute creates the basis of the Undertaking - it is a Bill first and underwritten by say FRS or US; but a Constitutor Undertakes in Accommodation - in UCC language that is called an Accommodation Party.

What is an Accommodation Party?


Quoting: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


"Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them."


"United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971."


but I digress, the only one that can be identified is the Trustee by express or implied trust - therefore Name or NAME or name, is just an illusion because a name never identified anyone - however it serves a tool to effect relationships built upon the Pillar of Trust.

Pro 22:1 A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.....


Do you have trust in me?


Shalom, let me do it this way to support my point:

absent liability assumed, absent benefit received, absent accommodation, absent surety, absent joinder, non-assumpsit with any other writings or records, absent assurance of value and without warranty express or implied and without prejudice and without recourse and demand is made for lawful money with the express intent to remain without the Federal Reserve cities and districts by and thru Michael Joseph.

[David Merrill]

Thank you - my wife just came in to ask why I jumped from my seat and yelled YESSSSSSSS. "Absent Accommodation" is akin to "I have no trust in you"

Notice that one who Undertakes, well lets just let John Bouvier state it like it is:

UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

UNDERTOOK. Assumed; promised.

2. This is a technical word which ought to be inserted in every declaration of assumpsit, charging that the defendant undertook to perform the promise which is the foundation of the suit; and this though the promise be founded on a legal liability, or would be implied in evidence. Bac. Ab Assumpsit, F; 1 Chit. Pl. 88, note p.


Therefore if you sign the back of a check - which by the way is not what this thread is about - but nevertheless IT's ALL connnected - then it is ASSUMED that you intend to UNDERTAKE for the benefit of the Federal Reserve System by Express Trust - Signature Bond of the Trustee! And therefore since you are Trustee, you are Affiliated and bound to perform in Fiduciary, but you are not the Surety - they Surety is in the United States; however you may be a Constitutor For the Benefit of the United States - again by Voluntarily Undertaking FBO another.

You promised to perform as expressed in your signature bond. If you did not want to perform, then you would not have slept on your rights, but because you fell asleep, you have consented, agreed and promised in your non-objection or absence of disclaimer.

By the way, we are Identifying a Trust Relationship - NOT a man. We are Identifying the TRUSTEE. And the Trustee has been Granted trust estate - Property which is Intangible or Incorporeal and therefore there is a consideration; however, there need not be a consideration if one is to Undertake for another. Therefore the Cestui que Use - or let me more precisely say the one for whose benefit the USE was made in you, as Trustee, is going to demand an Accounting - that dear Reader is a RETURN.


The Statute creates the basis of the Undertaking - it is a Bill first and underwritten by say FRS or US; but a Constitutor Undertakes in Accommodation - in UCC language that is called an Accommodation Party.

What is an Accommodation Party?


Quoting: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


"Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them."


"United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971."


but I digress, the only one that can be identified is the Trustee by express or implied trust - therefore Name or NAME or name, is just an illusion because a name never identified anyone - however it serves a tool to effect relationships built upon the Pillar of Trust.

Pro 22:1 A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.....


Do you have trust in me?


Shalom, let me do it this way to support my point:

absent liability assumed, absent benefit received, absent accommodation, absent surety, absent joinder, non-assumpsit with any other writings or records, absent assurance of value and without warranty express or implied and without prejudice and without recourse and demand is made for lawful money with the express intent to remain without the Federal Reserve cities and districts by and thru Michael Joseph.

When I showed my WSA photo ID to the nurse at the ER she declared it a "fake ID". I was simply unaccomodating.

[allodial]

When I showed my WSA photo ID to the nurse at the ER she declared it a "fake ID". I was simply unaccomodating.

By definition isn't 'fake ID' ID that 'is counterfeit' in that it purports to be issued by a State Entity or Government Entity when it is not? AFAIK WSA cannot issue counterfeits/fakes of its own issues. Perhaps we ought to start suing them for slander since they are alleging one or more of us to be carrying around "fake ID" when its actually genuine even if its printed off at the local library.

[David Merrill]

By definition isn't 'fake ID' ID that 'is counterfeit' in that it purports to be issued by a State Entity or Government Entity when it is not? AFAIK WSA cannot issue counterfeits/fakes of its own issues. Perhaps we ought to start suing them for slander since they are alleging one or more of us to be carrying around "fake ID" when its actually genuine even if its printed off at the local library.

Back on topic!

I told her that it was factual.

[osbogosley]

I had a short discussion with the local constabulary yesterday. He threatened failure to identify and arrest. Not much else to it, but I did some more looking and found this site: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html

Now I'm thinking of filing a complaint, I think he may have been giving false legal advice. They have been taught to ask for name, date of birth, etc. He even admitted he knew what I go by. I wanted to know why he had to ask if he already knew. He wouldn't answer that.

Here's a little from the link:
Throughout most of history, by custom and tradition, an ordinary individual's declared name was the extent of identity information used to describe a person. There were no Social Security Numbers, Drivers' Licenses, Passports, voter registries, deed polls, credit reports....

Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).

Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.

[David Merrill]

Thanks!


That is quite refreshing to know.

[osbogosley]

After work, I'm reading more from the site. I find it very refreshing because it isn't coming from a "patriot" thing. Identity is crucial for anyone who has suffered domestic violence. The sections on identity are titled:

Birth Certificates & Identity

Passports & Identity

Social Security Numbers & Identity

Drivers' Licenses & Identity

Marriage & Identity

Fascism & Identity

I hope others enjoy reading them. Your welcome David.

[allodial]

I had a short discussion with the local constabulary yesterday. He threatened failure to identify and arrest. Not much else to it, but I did some more looking and found this site: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html

Now I'm thinking of filing a complaint, I think he may have been giving false legal advice.

An attorney at bar probably has something to do with it. I've come across quite a few cops or court clerks misled by attorneys who were effectively using them as PMDs.

They have been taught to ask for name, date of birth, etc. He even admitted he knew what I go by. I wanted to know why he had to ask if he already knew. He wouldn't answer that.

Because your verbal confession is necessary. He is likely incompetent. Whereas the attorney pulling his strings is likely more knowledgeable.

Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).

Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.

Simply: it is a type of violence, a type of involuntary servitude to force someone to assume culpability for an artificial entity. When dealing with those who have forsaken Good Conscience for profiteering from reducing men to chattel, one might do well to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.




Forcing someone to assume liability for a legal entity that is in intrinsically allegiant to a belligerent can have serious ramifications. Consider that under military law to dress up in enemy uniform and kill the enemy while wearing their uniform was punishable by death. Perfidy. What are the ramifications of forcing a neutral to wear the clothes of an belligerent? Hmmm.

To reduce someone to: chattel, peonage, involuntary servitude..these things are against the laws of the United States. "Lucifer" was suggested as being involved in "bringing the world low".

[osbogosley]

http://docs.ncidpolicy.org/IIULA_00-03c.pdf

Contract for Limited Privileges and Limited Usage:
Identity Information User License Agreement (IIULA)