Is a name property ??

[walter]

Baptismal names are regarded the highest form of names.

I baptize YOU (1).pdf in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[David Merrill]

I baptize [ATTACH]985[/ATTACH] in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I hope your post and link do not get YOU into any trouble!

[Seosaidh]

I baptize [ATTACH]985[/ATTACH] in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The baptismal name, ie christened or Christian name, is sanctioned by the Church. I'm going on memory now, but a strong case was made here - http://books.google.com/books?id=sYk...%20law&f=false - that name changes without authority are without legal effect.

I find that very interesting. It appears that a Christian name is sanctioned by the Church and its authority, while the surname is today sanctioned by the State. A person's front name is also sanctioned by the State, in lieu of being sanctioned by the Church. The idea that a man can adopt a new name at will - and without legal repercussion - appears to be spurious, at least according to that treatise. This explains why courts continue referring to people as AKA or alias, even after they begin using their Christian name only.

Now, connecting this with the idea that the NAME is subject to a trust, is another interesting exercise. I think the way to look at the NAME, rather than it being property, it is instead the authority the NAME re-presents to society that is subject to the trust. If someone assigns himself a new name, and begins using it according to an unrecognized authority, he is acting outside the bounds of civil society, and automatically is regarded with suspicion.

By itself, a name may indeed by property, but unless there is some kind of acting authority sanctioning its use, one is using it unlawfully in matters concerning Church and State. I am reminded of Moses' question to the Lord, where in response permission was given to refer to God as: I Am Who I Am. The Lord did not submit by providing a NAME. Moses and the people were given a license to use that appelation in place of a name.

It appears to me that defining what a NAME is makes for a very difficult proposition. I would say that a NAME is a symbol of authority (or lack of authority) to act in society. So in court, when a NAME is called to appear, what really is being asked is for the man to declare (by his appearance) the authority to whom he submits.

The question about whether a NAME is subject to a trust, then, seems to be entirely on the shoulders of the one bearing it. I suppose one could call that role an executor, unless the actor is incompetent. The man is free to choose unto whom he places his trust, and call on that authority to act in his stead.

[walter]

JULIET

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

ROMEO

[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

JULIET

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

[shikamaru]

I was reading here http://books.google.com/books?id=sYk...%20law&f=false and found out that in the common law of England, subjects' names can belong to the Crown.

Some but not all names can be inherited. Names are established by custom and usage. Baptismal names are regarded the highest form of names.

Good catch .
How much do we wish to bet that these customs and usages persist to the present day?

[shikamaru]

The idea that a man can adopt a new name at will - and without legal repercussion - appears to be spurious, at least according to that treatise. This explains why courts continue referring to people as AKA or alias, even after they begin using their Christian name only.

Not true .

Check this link for more info: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist..._marriage.html

That treatise was probably written concerning the laws and custom of England rather than of the United States as well.

Now, connecting this with the idea that the NAME is subject to a trust, is another interesting exercise. I think the way to look at the NAME, rather than it being property, it is instead the authority the NAME re-presents to society that is subject to the trust. If someone assigns himself a new name, and begins using it according to an unrecognized authority, he is acting outside the bounds of civil society, and automatically is regarded with suspicion.

Too bad. Custom is custom.
Declaration is what is used by most even today as far as name goes.

By itself, a name may indeed by property, but unless there is some kind of acting authority sanctioning its use, one is using it unlawfully in matters concerning Church and State. I am reminded of Moses' question to the Lord, where in response permission was given to refer to God as: I Am Who I Am. The Lord did not submit by providing a NAME. Moses and the people were given a license to use that appelation in place of a name.

Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?
A family Bible was all the authority for many years.
If someone else can name you, they have power over you.

It appears to me that defining what a NAME is makes for a very difficult proposition. I would say that a NAME is a symbol of authority (or lack of authority) to act in society. So in court, when a NAME is called to appear, what really is being asked is for the man to declare (by his appearance) the authority to whom he submits.

The question about whether a NAME is subject to a trust, then, seems to be entirely on the shoulders of the one bearing it. I suppose one could call that role an executor, unless the actor is incompetent. The man is free to choose unto whom he places his trust, and call on that authority to act in his stead.

A name is also an account particularly upon registration.
An account is a chose in action.

[walter]

Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?

i know someone who has done it,

if you want to make it rock solid then Authentic or legalize it,

http://www.redsealnotary.com/apostille-canada.html

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/authentication/index.htm

"Governments and organizations sometimes require that documents for use in foreign countries be authenticated in order to be accepted. Authentication, for purposes in British Columbia, means the signature of the B.C. official who signed the document has been authenticated (sometimes called legalized) by the Government of British Columbia."

[Seosaidh]

Not true .

Check this link for more info: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist..._marriage.html

That treatise was probably written concerning the laws and custom of England rather than of the United States as well.

Yes, exactly.

Declaration is what is used by most even today as far as name goes.

Yeah, I'm still learning.

Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?
A family Bible was all the authority for many years.
If someone else can name you, they have power over you.

I want to do that. I'll get there.

A name is also an account particularly upon registration.
An account is a chose in action.

I'll need to look that up. I'm not sure what that means.

[shikamaru]

I'll need to look that up. I'm not sure what that means.

An account is a chose in action.

Chose is French ... meaning thing.
An action is a suit or lawsuit.

Lawsuits at common law were called actions for the actions were considered more important than the claim.
Doesn't do much good being a creditor if the debtor doesn't act to repay, does it?

A chose in action is a type of right.
A chose in action is also a right to sue for recovery.

Taxes due to the English King were a chose in action.
Once paid, the payment become a chose in possession.

An account is a type of chose in action giving the grantor the right to sue the grantee for failure to satisfy the account.
If there is a balance outstanding on an account that hasn't been paid in awhile, the grantor or creditor will go to court for recovery of monies owed.

THIS ... is why you want to be careful which accounts you open.

A name creates an account for administering credits and debits upon you. In this case, the credit and debits are charges, reputation, etc.

If you need citations for anything I've said, let me know. I have them for everything except the last sentence. It is conjecture.

[walter]

STATISTICS CANADA
Statistics bureau

3. There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are

(a) to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistical information relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people;

Coding system for goods

22.1 (1) The Chief Statistician shall establish a coding system for goods imported into and exported from Canada to enable the Chief Statistician to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to those goods.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm

this is what happens with the birth of a name,
collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish,

publish = publishing rights, publishing rights = copyrights

the name is "statistical" by publication,
records a form,
analyse must be codifying,
it has to be codified before it can become an abstract,

this is why the arts play such a huge role in government,
publication,
they collected a name and published it,
we use the name and now are infringing on their publication rights,

so if thats the case we need to claim the information they collected before it was analysed, codified and published,

[walter]

https://www.policeone.com/investigations/article...-Sovereign-Citizens/

This line says it all:

"the name provided them by a government entity."


Merriam-Webster
Definition of PROVIDED
: on condition that : with the understanding : if

Definition of IF
1
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

So there are assumptions and conditions associated with using the provided government issued NAME.

[shikamaru]

https://www.policeone.com/investigat...eign-Citizens/




This line says it all:

"the name provided them by a government entity."


Merriam-Webster
Definition of PROVIDED
: on condition that : with the understanding : if

Definition of IF
1
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

So there are assumptions and conditions associated with using the provided government issued NAME.

The thing is, I don't think government can force you to use any given identification or name.

They merely rely on declaration of one form or another.
They certainly look for your confirmation of a specific legal record to begin assessment of charges.

I still contend that a name is an account (Common Law: chose in action).

[Michael Joseph]

Is a name, an appellation property?

thank you for the enlightenment. I appreciate your comments. I shall respond to say that, I believe that, what is being protected within State is the Usufruct - which as you know is just the RIGHT [Property] to Enjoy [Property] held by another.

So then, consider that Usufruct is a Right which can be the Corpus of a Trust. Or if you like, the Res. So then, the Usufruct can be held in Abeyance. So then, if the Usufructuary is holding the Usufruct in Abeyance, then I am only left as a naked user.

I understand what that means! It means that I do not have an ability to contract lawfully because the Usufructuary is holding the Usufruct in Trust. This means that the ONLY weapon that can be used against me is me. My words incriminate me, when I say the Property is MINE.

When that happens, then a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST forms in Law because I have just Torted the Trustee. And since I have torted the Trustee in Construction, I am given the Liability! Therefore, the ABSOLUTE WORST THING I can do is to make a Claim in the Title because that would be a Tort. So then what is my duty to my brethren? Is it not to discharge my service? I mean if a court case is started where someone is complaining about something regarding the NAME, isn't this a claim in the Usufruct?

I mean it is clear to this writer that the NAME is Res of the State - a more perfect Union - begs the General Government. So then, if a court makes a claim in the NAME - Plaintiff is Beneficiary and what is lacking is a Trustee! So am I to argue?

To argue ANYTHING is the act of foolishness. One who argues is either insane or has something to argue about. So then if one defends, Defendant, then, in argument one becomes a Trustee in Tort. Therefore the only option is to ask for the accounting so that the "minus charge" might be returned to the Treasury as a "positive charge" to zero the books. See that this must happen, ELSE the case MUST go into Limbo.

I say Limbo, because the term CHARGE reveals all:


CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.

Since the Estate is the Usufruct - then the Usufruct would have to be used to settle the Charge. But the Person issuing the Charge is responsible for the Charge. As it should be! Because one in liability is responsible for his issue. Therefore, please with specificity show me where my name appears on the Federal Reserve Note? I'll wait. So then we deal in Honor! I didn't make the system, but I can already see why this is such a huge risk. A criminal could have his way with the Court if he understood how it works.

My case was indefinitely deferred - Limbo:

Notice is hereby given to the designated transfer agent that I, michael-joseph make claim to the escrow, as it pertains to escrow account numbers 10CR123456 and 10CR123457 in the amount of $1,000.00, in the escrow account name MICHAEL JOSEPH NAME. You are hereby given notice to transfer the funds to the injured party, and

Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and

I, michael-joseph, further claim the original organic depository trust number incun.1454.b5 and I claim assurance under said original organic trust agreement in the name of Yehoshuah, by electronic routing to claimed escrow account, MICHAEL JOSEPH NAME, escrow account numbers; 10CR123456 and 10CR123457 paid in advance by the United States Treasury, and


And I did not have a problem feeling I was being heard, because I was speaking from the only place I could without causing a Tort - End User. My claim was IN the Usufruct. I do not claim Titles or for that matter Property. Only that I have the Use by Agreement. So then, my duty is to Administrate my domain in Law and in Equity.

I don't believe that mankind has gotten to a point where the collective consciousness is all gone astray - so I don't see the cause as lost. In the end, I am a king on this earth and a priest. Which makes me a servant.

Thank you for your response, you offer meat at the table. By the way, why is it paid in advance by the U.S. Treasury? Because the U.S. has the Liability as the Usufructuary!

Would you like to press charges against me? If so, I shall be glad to receive the accounting so that I can review the books and help you settle the matter upon your own estate! Therefore, I agree that man does form a State unto himself; however, it is not good for man to be alone - therefore I agree that man unites in Trust.

Now we seek a level playing field, yes? Placing the Usuruct in Trust is at great risk, because now I have no way to pay. I can only make a demand and hope the Clerk performs - Redemption is not up to me. I am without that Right as IT IS NOT MY ESTATE.



Shalom,
MJ

[Michael Joseph]

It is a simple matter in my opinion: if I will not be the Usufructuary in Tort, then my accuser must pay the charges. That ain't gonna happen thus the case goes off in Limbo land. What is left is the accounting. Since the Judge/DA ain't gonna give that to me, then a resulting trust forms and I will take the reigns and drive this buggy:

"Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and"


Again, I take the liability for myself, I am not recommending anybody do the foregoing. You understand of course that I am telling whoever is reading these words that if they go down this path, to take full liability because it is only in full liability that you will find your remedy. Apostle Paul wrote [paraphrasing] "we are set at liberty but we are not to flaunt our liberty in front of those who would stumble in its application".

Now then anyone who would make a claim in that Name must have the Titles or the License to make such claim. Since attorney's are Licensed they can operate in that Name according to Law, but if I will not argue, then what is left is settlement. Therefore, recognizing that my name is not on the Note and that my Image is not on the coins be it silver, gold or just plain old copper [don't forget the quarters, dimes and nickels], then I am making a use of property that belongs to another. I believe you would call that a RIGHT and specifically that Right is called USUFRUCT.

And since a Right = Property and property can be held in Trust. I BELIEVE the Usufruct is currently being held in Abeyance. Therefore, the only thing left is to settle the books. I can't claim Rights or Property. BECAUSE THE ESTATE IS NOT MINE. I can only help to settle the books.

In operation of law, I have an access easement into the State called Legal Name. True Name is an illegal alien - therefore, in my opinion - signing anything in True Name within the United States boundaries and borders is an illegal act - making said act illegal or frivolous.

I am NOT a name. A name is a tool, a convenience that I am called. Therefore if I got up in front of the court and said my name is michael joseph WELL they would just Re-Style the case - STATE vs. MICHAEL JOSEPH.

Why? Because they are forming a Constructive Trust in my Tort. Therefore they don't give a crap what I think my name is or what I am called today or tomorrow. They have a living being standing before them arguing therefore said living being is in Tort and therefore since he thinks he is the Trustee - well then let him pay the bill. I witnessed a case once where the DA told the Judge .....well shoot I have that transcript.....


5 MR. BOWMAN: Judge, the state is contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer.

You comprehend now? They don't give two cents [insert your favorite expletive], what you think your name is, the Court is there to hear a matter in FIRST MIDDLE LAST - and you can argue till your hearts content that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter - but the Court does have the Right because the State CREATED that Numbered Name. Ref. seal atop of Birth Cert and Seal atop of DL, etc. So then if you make any argument - it wasn't me - etc. Then you are just wasting your time. I grant mistakes happen and technical aspects do occur - people make mistakes - however I am concerned with Law and Equity.

My concern is such that I only need to help to settle the account. I model the NAME in two ways:

1. A trust vessel
2. An account

You might say an accounting of the Trust Corpus. Since I am only concerned with the Use - I have no other rights as I do not have standing. As such, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CHARGE THE ESTATE - then let them! This in psychology is sometimes called "Fogging".

Think of a tennis match. You serve to me. If I argue [return volley] then we have a game. There will be a winner and a loser. If however I let the ball sail past me "into the fog" - well then there is no game. In fact seeing that I am in the fog, you don't even know I am there. As such, call me whatever you want to call me - I don't give two cents.

I am a child of Elohim. Even my body. What does it say Gen 2:7. And Yehovah Elohim formed man with the "adamah" dust of the earth. Ref. Gen 1:1 - In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. So then, the body that I make a use of is not mine. Said body is a temple but it does not belong to me. I have the Use and I steward said body, but it is not my body! I did not make it!

My mom and dad did not make it. My body is subject to the FIRST GRANT from the King. Such that Yehovah Elohim formed The Man - Flesh. Therefore FLESH is subject to that First Feudal Clog and all other estates in Usufruct are subject to the First Grant in Flesh. Therefore my flesh is not granted to me by mom and dad- but subject to the Creator - therefore even my flesh forms a QUALIFIED ESTATE - subject to the Original Grant from the Creator/Settlor.

So, then while I may have the Use to Occupy, the Temple called the flesh body, is not my own. Simple, yes? You may call me michael joseph, I may or may not answer; however, in my purest essence, I am a child of El Elyon. I was before I am now. I now only occupy a pot fashioned for me by another. Therefore I am with the Usufruct = The Right to Enjoy Property vested in Another. Now then: read and understand why I bow my knee to Yehoshauh:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)

Joh 1:2 This Word was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him came into being not even one thing that hath come into being.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being by Him, and the world knew Him not.

Joh 1:11 He came unto His own [possessions = all the worlds peoples], and His own people Israel received [to themselves] Him not.


Do you now understand the beginning such that you comprehend the end? - paraphrasing from Book of Thomas

Shall we now setup a level playing field? A man who does not work shall not eat.

Why does man seek to cast off the bands of Yehovah and Yehoshauh? This creates a false balance. There is an illusion that this makes a peace.

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 Yehovah, and against His Messiah? saying,

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

Peace comes from a People who agree to obey a given set of laws - if you want to call them Norms of Society - I don't care. But said Norms must be equitable to all and must be fair. So with a common law - we shall all agree to contract. But is there a common law? I THINK NOT. There is this state and that state and this state and the other state......and the heads in trustee in Administration - apply in immunity - with rights at the table - but is there peace? HARDLY. Can there be a common law between parties where one refuses to take full liability? - NO.


Shalom,
MJ

[Keith Alan]

It is a simple matter in my opinion: if I will not be the Usufructuary in Tort, then my accuser must pay the charges. That ain't gonna happen thus the case goes off in Limbo land. What is left is the accounting. Since the Judge/DA ain't gonna give that to me, then a resulting trust forms and I will take the reigns and drive this buggy:

"Funds in escrow will be held for a period of thirty (30) days in the private judicial district of tens. Upon failure of claims by any injured party will result in funds being returned to United States Treasury by the designated transfer agent minus the damages caused by the charging party against michael-joseph family name, and"


Again, I take the liability for myself, I am not recommending anybody do the foregoing. You understand of course that I am telling whoever is reading these words that if they go down this path, to take full liability because it is only in full liability that you will find your remedy. Apostle Paul wrote [paraphrasing] "we are set at liberty but we are not to flaunt our liberty in front of those who would stumble in its application".

Now then anyone who would make a claim in that Name must have the Titles or the License to make such claim. Since attorney's are Licensed they can operate in that Name according to Law, but if I will not argue, then what is left is settlement. Therefore, recognizing that my name is not on the Note and that my Image is not on the coins be it silver, gold or just plain old copper [don't forget the quarters, dimes and nickels], then I am making a use of property that belongs to another. I believe you would call that a RIGHT and specifically that Right is called USUFRUCT.

And since a Right = Property and property can be held in Trust. I BELIEVE the Usufruct is currently being held in Abeyance. Therefore, the only thing left is to settle the books. I can't claim Rights or Property. BECAUSE THE ESTATE IS NOT MINE. I can only help to settle the books.

In operation of law, I have an access easement into the State called Legal Name. True Name is an illegal alien - therefore, in my opinion - signing anything in True Name within the United States boundaries and borders is an illegal act - making said act illegal or frivolous.

I am NOT a name. A name is a tool, a convenience that I am called. Therefore if I got up in front of the court and said my name is michael joseph WELL they would just Re-Style the case - STATE vs. MICHAEL JOSEPH.

Why? Because they are forming a Constructive Trust in my Tort. Therefore they don't give a crap what I think my name is or what I am called today or tomorrow. They have a living being standing before them arguing therefore said living being is in Tort and therefore since he thinks he is the Trustee - well then let him pay the bill. I witnessed a case once where the DA told the Judge .....well shoot I have that transcript.....


5 MR. BOWMAN: Judge, the state is contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer.

You comprehend now? They don't give two cents [insert your favorite expletive], what you think your name is, the Court is there to hear a matter in FIRST MIDDLE LAST - and you can argue till your hearts content that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter - but the Court does have the Right because the State CREATED that Numbered Name. Ref. seal atop of Birth Cert and Seal atop of DL, etc. So then if you make any argument - it wasn't me - etc. Then you are just wasting your time. I grant mistakes happen and technical aspects do occur - people make mistakes - however I am concerned with Law and Equity.

My concern is such that I only need to help to settle the account. I model the NAME in two ways:

1. A trust vessel
2. An account

You might say an accounting of the Trust Corpus. Since I am only concerned with the Use - I have no other rights as I do not have standing. As such, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CHARGE THE ESTATE - then let them! This in psychology is sometimes called "Fogging".

Think of a tennis match. You serve to me. If I argue [return volley] then we have a game. There will be a winner and a loser. If however I let the ball sail past me "into the fog" - well then there is no game. In fact seeing that I am in the fog, you don't even know I am there. As such, call me whatever you want to call me - I don't give two cents.

I am a child of Elohim. Even my body. What does it say Gen 2:7. And Yehovah Elohim formed man with the "adamah" dust of the earth. Ref. Gen 1:1 - In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. So then, the body that I make a use of is not mine. Said body is a temple but it does not belong to me. I have the Use and I steward said body, but it is not my body! I did not make it!

My mom and dad did not make it. My body is subject to the FIRST GRANT from the King. Such that Yehovah Elohim formed The Man - Flesh. Therefore FLESH is subject to that First Feudal Clog and all other estates in Usufruct are subject to the First Grant in Flesh. Therefore my flesh is not granted to me by mom and dad- but subject to the Creator - therefore even my flesh forms a QUALIFIED ESTATE - subject to the Original Grant from the Creator/Settlor.

So, then while I may have the Use to Occupy, the Temple called the flesh body, is not my own. Simple, yes? You may call me michael joseph, I may or may not answer; however, in my purest essence, I am a child of El Elyon. I was before I am now. I now only occupy a pot fashioned for me by another. Therefore I am with the Usufruct = The Right to Enjoy Property vested in Another. Now then: read and understand why I bow my knee to Yehoshauh:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)

Joh 1:2 This Word was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him came into being not even one thing that hath come into being.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being by Him, and the world knew Him not.

Joh 1:11 He came unto His own [possessions = all the worlds peoples], and His own people Israel received [to themselves] Him not.


Do you now understand the beginning such that you comprehend the end? - paraphrasing from Book of Thomas

Shall we now setup a level playing field? A man who does not work shall not eat.

Why does man seek to cast off the bands of Yehovah and Yehoshauh? This creates a false balance. There is an illusion that this makes a peace.

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 Yehovah, and against His Messiah? saying,

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

Peace comes from a People who agree to obey a given set of laws - if you want to call them Norms of Society - I don't care. But said Norms must be equitable to all and must be fair. So with a common law - we shall all agree to contract. But is there a common law? I THINK NOT. There is this state and that state and this state and the other state......and the heads in trustee in Administration - apply in immunity - with rights at the table - but is there peace? HARDLY. Can there be a common law between parties where one refuses to take full liability? - NO.


Shalom,
MJ

I'm reminded of this, Matthew 5:25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

There are the directions on how to handle controversy - don't have one. Reach agreement before it goes into the public.