Lawful Money Setoff > Parking Ticket

[David Merrill]

#3 is the acceptance of benefits from the hospital sharing information. I bring that back to Traditional Doctor/Patient Confidentiality.

#6 I figure that there is no need to limit the amount I should recover for damages to less than what a jury would award me. Their defense attorney would say, Look he is limited to only so much money!


I think you make trust too complicated, consistently. For one thing you are wasting your breath to try explaining the trust structure to an attorney - even if you are right. He is a professional for knowing what the trust structure is beforehand - even if he is wrong. I do not listen to you simply because you give me a headache every time I do. If I cannot understand the trust structure then it is not. I cannot trust something I do not understand.

In most instances the only trust that is there, signed by the moving party or judge presiding over the matter is the one that is signed - the Oath of Office. Therefore the entire trust structure above on the Treatment and Consent Form is what is there on the paper. Some of the agreement was disagreeable to me so I scratched it out. The charter is still in place. This particular hospital is easy to deduce to be a City owned hospital. That is to say METRO organization. But they are all within the same trust system for accepting (endorsing) the same private trust (private credit). IN GOD WE TRUST. That is why one cannot swear without resorting to the Name of God for authority within the same sentence.

You can try messing with the readers' collective mind with your public and private descriptions but it is meaningless. The parameters are not defined by you. You do not get to set the parameters of the trust unilaterally, ever because you have to trust some other party and you don't get to tell any other party what to think beyond the agreement. Maybe some of the readers will enjoy you trying to make that distinction. The charter describes the trust, and the survey describes the boundaries.

[allodial]

I do not believe the birth certificate acts as an account which the Treasury can settle from.

Treasury meaning US Treasury? As opposed to a State/Provincial Treasury?

State/Provincial treasury has dibs a the birth-certificate-person *UNTIL* the SI/SS numbers come into play. That is, until a Social Insurance Number or Social Security Number come into play a State/Provincial birth certificate is a purely State/Provincial item. IMHO, the Social Security Card is a (federal/US) birth certificate. If the birth-certificate-person does not get an SS# or an SI# then it might be confined to "doing business in" a particular State/Province. Why the an SS# or SI# for a driver's license? THE INTERSTATE COMPACT FEDERALIZES AND/OR INTERNATIONALIZES THE DRIVER LICENSE.

The only "Treasury" that can has direct access or any to the BC person in such a manner is probably the Treasury of the State/Province of issue. The SI# or SS# appears to "federalizes" provides an interstate/international nexus.



Years ago I, myself pointed out that DL# = State tax ID number. It started getting around. Within six months State of Missouri and State of Illinois both revised their driver licenses to change the numbering system. Prior to the change business got a tax ID with the same number of digits as the driver license number. Hmm.

[QUOTE]

We had a couple small splinter groups in other parts of the country who had not used the lawful money language on a couple hospital presentments, one of them when was billed and refused service went back and tendered the bill back with a copy of the Certificate of Live birth, he presented it as a gift and told them the name is ward of the state, from that point on they were about falling over themselves to offer any service they could additional. He needed a triple heart bypass surgery and it was given to him and he never seen a bill after that. This was in Ohio.

There is a reason they bill John H. Doe rather than John Henry Doe.

[motla68]

David, quoting a comment from your post:

" But they are all within the same trust system for accepting (endorsing) the same private trust (private credit) "

Exactly, it is not that I am trying to make it complicated, it is that I am trying to simplifying down from it's origins the state has an ownership interest in.
As was stated before we are just " users " of that name so instead of standing in the way of the flow putting true name on something, keep it off there and just use:

X per: Birth Certificate name

I think standing in the way of the flow is what complicates things, that is a mighty force, but when you use your Executor power of the name to just redirect the flow it is much less complicated. We are just acknowledging the comment mentioned above from your post this way.

[motla68]

There is a reason they bill John H. Doe rather than John Henry Doe.

I do not split hares like that, for my interpretation my name is a spoken word, once it hits paper formed by ink it is something else, just a mask people put on.

Book of John chapter 1

[allodial]

I do not split hares like that, for my interpretation my name is a spoken word, once it hits paper formed by ink it is something else, just a mask people put on.

Book of John chapter 1

Splitting hairs or paying attention to detail? Perhaps you've not read a legal style manual? With USA or USSR or UK such are so well known they can be expanded out to "United States of America" or "United Kingdom". "John H. Doe" becomes "John Doe" since the "H." is indeterminate. That is..it contracts rather than expands. If one wishes to 'presume' oneself into a trap, they might welcome one with handcuffs, fines, fees or the like. Experience shows that avoiding being specific or precise in referring to the name on the Birth Certificate is intentional. Failure to pay attention to detail is why many get themselves into trouble. They are fully aware that John H Doe and John Henry Doe are two different names and two different persons.

If a sign says John Doe please report to 5th and Pine....how many John Henry' s or John Henry Doe's will merely ****presume **** (i.e. read into the sign what isn't tthere?) and show up at 5th and Pine? Initials are meaningless they do not expand in legal interpretation. The only thing subject to 'interpretation' in "John H. Doe" is the H and it drops out as meaningless. It DOES NOT expand into ANYTHING according to legal style manuals or legal interpretation rules that I've come across.

Furthermore: "John H. Doe" has a 'full stop' before "Doe".

John H.
Doe

H drops out as if an error or typo. Done. Finished. GONE.

You're left with "John. Doe." or "John Doe".

[shikamaru]

Treasury meaning US Treasury?

State/Provincial treasury has dibs on the birth certificate *UNTIL* the SI/SS numbers come into play. That is, until a Social Insurance Number or Social Security Number come into play a B/C is a purely State/Provincial item. IMHO, the Social Security Card is a (federal/US) birth certificate. If the birth-certificate-person does not get an SS# or an SI# then it might be confined to "doing business in" a particular State/Province. Why the an SSL for a driver's license? THE INTERSTATE COMPACT FEDERALIZES AND INTERNATIONALIZES THE DRIVER LICENSE.

The only "Treasury" that can has direct access or any to the BC person in such a manner is probably the Treasury of the State/Province of issue. The SI# or SS# appears to "federalizes" provides an interstate/international nexus.


Years ago I, myself pointed out that DL# = State tax ID number. It started getting around. Within six months State of Missouri and State of Illinois both revised their driver licenses to change the numbering system. Prior to the change business got a tax ID with the same number of digits as the driver license number. Hmm.

There is a reason they bill John H. Doe rather than John Henry Doe.

Me thinks there is great pay dirt to be extracted in States and other polities being federal beneficiaries accepting federal benefits.

Drag that into record .

[allodial]

Me thinks there is great pay dirt to be extracted in States and other polities being federal beneficiaries accepting federal benefits.

Drag that into record .

They avoid precisely referring to the person named on a birth certificate FOR A REASON. Create a new person...more persons to charge and extract money from? (Perhaps see also "mixed war", "judicial retirement fund", CAFR). They figure if you are stupid enough to not even know your own name that you deserve the screw-over that you might get. If they determine that the person has a high school diploma they might presume you to be a cheater and otherwise immoral if you managed to 'pass' without knowing how to read.

[motla68]

Splitting hairs or paying attention to detail? Perhaps you've not read a legal style manual? With USA or USSR or UK such are so well known they can be expanded out to "United States of America" or "United Kingdom". "John H. Doe" becomes "John Doe" since the "H." is indeterminate. That is..it contracts rather than expands. If one wishes to 'presume' oneself into a trap, they might welcome one with handcuffs, fines, fees or the like. Experience shows that avoiding being specific or precise in referring to the name on the Birth Certificate is intentional. Failure to pay attention to detail is why many get themselves into trouble. They are fully aware that John H Doe and John Henry Doe are two different names and two different persons.

If a sign says John Doe please report to 5th and Pine....how many John Henry' s or John Henry Doe's will merely ****presume **** (i.e. read into the sign what isn't tthere?) and show up at 5th and Pine? Initials are meaningless they do not expand in legal interpretation. The only thing subject to 'interpretation' in "John H. Doe" is the H and it drops out as meaningless. It DOES NOT expand into ANYTHING according to legal style manuals or legal interpretation rules that I've come across.

Furthermore: "John H. Doe" has a 'full stop' before "Doe".

John H.
Doe

H drops out as if an error or typo. Done. Finished. GONE.

You're left with "John. Doe." or "John Doe".

Maybe just taking things one step further in the right to self determination and choose to disregard the symbolism as my own. My style manual is written upon my heart, for it is only my body making owner[ship] claims upon.

[allodial]

Maybe just taking things one step further in the right to self determination and choose to disregard the symbolism as my own. My style manual is written upon my heart, for it is only my body making owner[ship] claims upon.

No doubt that your choice is yours. However, the light of truth is what it is with or without you having right of self-determination. Pointing out how "they" might interpret things is not necessarily to be construed to be an agreement that they have some universal kind of rule.

[Treefarmer]

Splitting hairs or paying attention to detail? Perhaps you've not read a legal style manual? With USA or USSR or UK such are so well known they can be expanded out to "United States of America" or "United Kingdom". "John H. Doe" becomes "John Doe" since the "H." is indeterminate. That is..it contracts rather than expands. If one wishes to 'presume' oneself into a trap, they might welcome one with handcuffs, fines, fees or the like. Experience shows that avoiding being specific or precise in referring to the name on the Birth Certificate is intentional. Failure to pay attention to detail is why many get themselves into trouble. They are fully aware that John H Doe and John Henry Doe are two different names and two different persons.

If a sign says John Doe please report to 5th and Pine....how many John Henry' s or John Henry Doe's will merely ****presume **** (i.e. read into the sign what isn't tthere?) and show up at 5th and Pine? Initials are meaningless they do not expand in legal interpretation. The only thing subject to 'interpretation' in "John H. Doe" is the H and it drops out as meaningless. It DOES NOT expand into ANYTHING according to legal style manuals or legal interpretation rules that I've come across.

Furthermore: "John H. Doe" has a 'full stop' before "Doe".

John H.
Doe

H drops out as if an error or typo. Done. Finished. GONE.

You're left with "John. Doe." or "John Doe".

So what does this mean in terms of everyday reality encounters?
Where the rubber meets the road, what's the meaning of using a middle name, versus a middle initial, versus FIRST LAST only?
Would you give us a descriptive example please?
It always helps my comprehension when I can form a picture in my head, even if it's only a hypothetical scenario.
Thank you.

[allodial]

So what does this mean in terms of everyday reality encounters?
Where the rubber meets the road, what's the meaning of using a middle name, versus a middle initial, versus FIRST LAST only?
Would you give us a descriptive example please?
It always helps my comprehension when I can form a picture in my head, even if it's only a hypothetical scenario.
Thank you.

Does UK's Queen Elizabeth have a last name? But when Elizabeth of the House & Family of Windsor took a job as an ambulance driver she had a last name. One known as "Prince William" didnt have a last name until he joined the UK military. Gee...wonder why. Sovereign's don't have last names since they are not public servants. That is why 'sovereign citizens' are regarded as being crackpots claiming to be sovereign while claiming to have a 'last name'. Make sense?

If John Walter Smith is tax exempt does that mean that John Smith is tax exempt? It just takes a bit of grammatical maturity to figure out what been going on...lack of knowledge, ignorance. Simple failure to pay attention to detail. Basic, fundamental grammar.

Is "water pump" the same as "water, pump"? Is "pump, water" the same as "pump water"?

Then why on Earth would ***anyone**** draw the conclusion of:


Roberts, James K. being the same as James K. Roberts
James K. Roberts being the same as Robert Kevin James.

You dont think that "they" laugh hysterically (at least on the inside) at people they might regard as being too stupid to know their own names?



So, for perspective perhaps for every single piece of mail, imagine a hook and a strong piece of wire attached. That is the kind of prayerfulness and caution some people dont seem to want to be bothered to approach or live their lives with.

I was working as an estate manager for someone, and when I got mail that was directed at say, Roger P. Waters, I wrote back saying that as Trustee for Roger Paul Waters, I could assist with the matter and would gladly see to it that it was paid but they would have to be specific as to the person they were intending to contact otherwise it was too ambiguous. Of course I'd send the mail back too refused/voided or whatever. Even one time I wrote wrote that likely they all had high school education and could at least comprehend basic grammar--that I would gladly utilize my POA to settle but they would have to correct their mail. NEVER HEARD FROM THEM AGAIN!!!

[Treefarmer]

Does UK's Queen Elizabeth have a last name? But when Elizabeth of the House & Family of Windsor took a job as an ambulance driver she had a last name. One known as "Prince William" didnt have a last name until he joined the UK military. Gee...wonder why. Sovereign's don't have last names since they are not public servants. That is why 'sovereign citizens' are regarded as being crackpots claiming to be sovereign while claiming to have a 'last name'. Make sense?

If John Walter Smith is tax exempt does that mean that John Smith is tax exempt? It just takes a bit of grammatical maturity to figure out what been going on...lack of knowledge, ignorance. Simple failure to pay attention to detail. Basic, fundamental grammar.

Is "water pump" the same as "water, pump"? Is "pump, water" the same as "pump water"?

Then why on Earth would ***anyone**** draw the conclusion of:


Roberts, James K. being the same as James K. Roberts
James K. Roberts being the same as Robert Kevin James.

You dont think that "they" laugh hysterically (at least on the inside) at people they might regard as being too stupid to know their own names?



So, for perspective perhaps for every single piece of mail, imagine a hook and a strong piece of wire attached. That is the kind of prayerfulness and caution some people dont seem to want to be bothered to approach or live their lives with.

I was working as an estate manager for someone, and when I got mail that was directed at say, Roger P. Waters, I wrote back saying that as Trustee for Roger Paul Waters, I could assist with the matter and would gladly see to it that it was paid but they would have to be specific as to the person they were intending to contact otherwise it was too ambiguous. Of course I'd send the mail back too refused/voided or whatever. Even one time I wrote wrote that likely they all had high school education and could at least comprehend basic grammar--that I would gladly utilize my POA to settle but they would have to correct their mail. NEVER HEARD FROM THEM AGAIN!!!

Thank you allodial, for these excellent examples.
I think I see the point you were making now, about the style.
I also notice details and I remember many instances in my younger years when people in authority positions put me down for pointing out such small discrepancies and irregularities and asking questions about it. These were doctors and bureaucrats who all had vested interests in me not discovering their con games.

[AllanNR]

Hi all,
can this remedy be used after having the case adjourned in court to a later date?

[allodial]

These were doctors and bureaucrats who all had vested interests in me not discovering their con games.

Bingo. They would probably prefer if you didn't pay attention to detail.

[AllanNR]

is anyone capable of answering my question?