If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If you would like to post in these forums please send a PM directly to David Merrill.
All transactions on PayPal and elsewhere are demanded to be redeemed in lawful money as found in Section 16 of the Fed Act and at Title 12 USC 411.
Thank you so much for enjoying StSC! If you are getting popups please try clearing your browser cache.
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.
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.
YES, excellent! Their name, their account. "This name and account number are the property of the United States - Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States"
yes as long as you notice them,
my person had amount a few thousand in fines for no dl, no car insurance from the insurance company of British Columbia (icbc)
a couple of times a year my person would get a statement from icbc saying the account (which just happened to be the same number as the dl number) was over due,
after a couple years of this going on and i doing nothing about it is when i decided to do something about it,
so i covered the name and address on the envelope and replaced it with a new one, it said,
"Forward to creator and owner of the name"
then i put vital statistics address on it from the province in which i was born,
its been 7 months and i have not had another statement sent to me...crossing fingers still and hoping for the best,
but it looks like i hit a nerve,
That is redemption of lawful money on demand. There is a whole mythology built around there being an account at the Treasury. Money belongs to government. That is why they claim to be able to fine and imprison you for destroying their property.
However you have the right to redeem the note. Further than that, you have the right to make the demand and expect that the government will comply as this is your WORD - your DEMAND. You connect to your heritage by your word.
Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Isa 58:14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
Make your demand. That is really where the Lesson Plan begins. From there things begin to fall into place.
YES, excellent! Their name, their account. "This name and account number are the property of the United States - Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States"
I checked and that Google Doc is still there. I have it on the openly shared setting too. There are pulldown arrows on the right side as I view the documents indexed.
Their name is their property. My name is my property. I only give my name as a matter of trust.
no trust, no name. And no, they have no right to give me a trust named JOHN DOE, either.
By the way, what happens in their courts, with their name (whatever that is, has NOTHING to do with me) simply put, they have proven they are not worthy of my tust.
.
Leave a comment: