Good Morning Fellow Living Sentient Beings,

[Chex]

I believe that FDIC pretty well covers Membership as formal Fed Banks.

Search Sometimes we have to dig a little deeper to know what going on.

When someone posts here majority of the facts can be checked, Sorry if the photo was confusing sad but true.

[BLBereans]

Chex! I cannot decide if the imagery is amusing or disturbing, or both...


Welcome BLBereans;


I think you will enjoy yourself here.

There are many mental models and "third party" to me means you are trying to fit "third party intervener" from UCC and STRAWMAN recent history on transactions. I prefer sticking to the idea that the commercial court will find the man or woman, by any name suitable as Defendant and Trustee with fiduciary responsibility to settle any charges against the Trust, by whatever legal or full name - express, constructive or even implied.

One establishes the Record, usually by becoming a "suitor" with a Libel of Review in the USDC and published on PACER. This way the suitor becomes the court of record. The Clerk Instruction is the method for future Refusals for Cause. The Libel of Review is fluff wrapped around the initial Refusal for Cause. The Lesson Plan is basically three parts:

1) True Identity
2) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money

Your question addresses number 1). The objective of adopting the True Name is to know one's true identity. This helps you understand various trust relationships that are formed, legally only by you, the living man or woman. Mental convolutions abound. I explained this yesterday, clearing up some delirium by saying how difficult it would be to slap handcuffs on a fiction!

The true identity (First Middle) is the truth about one's name, but it being distinct from any legal name on any legal agreement provides the ability to Refuse for Cause. This right also extends to novations - (innovations) - when the other party notifies you of changes to a current agreement too. For example, when you start non-endorsing - Redeeming Lawful Money - you are announcing a novation. Since your novation is the remedy provided by Congress the IRS attorneys never refuse your novation for cause.



Regards,

David Merrill.

One party writes a check out to another party who is Michael Lamb. If Michael Joseph is not Michael Lamb, then Michael Joseph is neither of the two original parties involved which makes Michael Joseph a third party.

Is this logic part and parcel to "UCC/Strawman"? I don't know since UCC/Strawman is not where I was going or where I came from.

[djlamb]

My studies are lacking, but the use of the word party seems "legal" to me. I don't see parties. Any "party", fictional entity, or PERSON who writes a check out to Michael Lamb/Mike Lamb/Michael Lamb II merely represents commerce between two "dead" entities. To me, Michael Joseph is alive and privately administrates the NAME. Michael Joseph does not own it. Michael Joseph merely administrates the interchange/transaction, no different than any other entity, i.e. DJ Lamb Productions, IBM, or Walmart. To me, Michael Joseph is not surety for any of it, but is lawfully recognized and competent as the sole administrator for such party (name). That is how I simplify it. I am alive, everything else is dead, unless I am actually contracting with another being, so that agreement would include our True Names, not any "parties".

I suppose this relates to the strawman, but I simply see something as either fiction (dead) or real (alive), and act accordingly. I am me. To define me in any capacity is to dictate who I am, which is not possible, without my consent.

The core truth amongst all of this (some of it crap), is that living, sentient beings simply NEED to keep their promises to each other. If you say and agree to do something for someone else, you do it. That's it. The essence of legal tender stems from NOT keeping one's promises (word, bond, whatever). For those who break their "promises", there should be a consequence. Unfortunately, over history, so many have not suffered just consequences, and instead, have gotten away with as much as they can, due to others ignorance and/or consent. Note, this does not include force, which is obviously criminal. To force someone else to do something is NOT a real contract/agreement/promise in any capacity; it is merely a reaction to survive.

[BLBereans]

My studies are lacking, but the use of the word party seems "legal" to me. I don't see parties. Any "party", fictional entity, or PERSON who writes a check out to Michael Lamb/Mike Lamb/Michael Lamb II merely represents commerce between two "dead" entities. To me, Michael Joseph is alive and privately administrates the NAME. Michael Joseph does not own it. Michael Joseph merely administrates the interchange/transaction, no different than any other entity, i.e. DJ Lamb Productions, IBM, or Walmart. To me, Michael Joseph is not surety for any of it, but is lawfully recognized and competent as the sole administrator for such party (name). That is how I simplify it. I am alive, everything else is dead, unless I am actually contracting with another being, so that agreement would include our True Names, not any "parties".

I suppose this relates to the strawman, but I simply see something as either fiction (dead) or real (alive), and act accordingly. I am me. To define me in any capacity is to dictate who I am, which is not possible, without my consent.

The core truth amongst all of this (some of it crap), is that living, sentient beings simply NEED to keep their promises to each other. If you say and agree to do something for someone else, you do it. That's it. The essence of legal tender stems from NOT keeping one's promises (word, bond, whatever). For those who break their "promises", there should be a consequence. Unfortunately, over history, so many have not suffered just consequences, and instead, have gotten away with as much as they can, due to others ignorance and/or consent. Note, this does not include force, which is obviously criminal. To force someone else to do something is NOT a real contract/agreement/promise in any capacity; it is merely a reaction to survive.

All words are defined according to the jurisdiction one claims to be operating from or within. There is "common speech" among living people in a certain society which is understood by the members of that society - for the most part. "Sounds legal" does not make it "legal" unless one is operating in a "legal society" or realm.

The word "party" means a side divided from another; two parties, one on either side.

If the check denotes that XYZ Company "Pays to the order of.... Michael Lamb", then XYZ is the first party and Michael Lamb is the second party. The living Michael Joseph is neither of these two ergo my question...

"If the check is made to "Michael Lamb", is "Michael Joseph" a third party?"

[David Merrill]

You make me wonder how close one has to be to the truth to discern between a legal society and criminal syndicalism?

[BLBereans]

You make me wonder how close one has to be to the truth to discern between a legal society and criminal syndicalism?

Are you suggesting I am not close to the truth or that the "legal society" has resorted to barbaric and violent tactics in order to continue functioning?

[David Merrill]

Are you suggesting I am not close to the truth or that the "legal society" has resorted to barbaric and violent tactics in order to continue functioning?

I am sorry. I see how it might be read that way! But neither, unless you consider barbaric and violent tactic as dishonest banking.

I was saying that legal society and criminal syndicalism are the same. Dishonest banking (fractional lending) certainly leads to a Congress that can cause war without constitutional declaration process... So I guess I see your point.

If anything I was admiring the Truth you were pointing out to us.


P.S. I think I get it! You are talking about "legal" society as a good thing, as opposed to society. I was thinking of legal society as when the leaders give license to be corrupt - like the Federal Reserve Act.