What's in a NAME?

[Michael Joseph]

Back on Topic. The question arises in who named the Thing. Mom and Dad named me - but the State gave me a Legal Name.

Gen 5:1 This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created the man, in the likeness of God made He him;

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

notice in v.1 the term "made He him" but in v2 we see "they were created". Seems like a ridiculous observation until you check the manuscripts:

made (H6213)

aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.


created (H1254 )

bara?'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).


Gen 5:1 This is THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. In the day that God created the man, in the likeness of God appointed He him;

Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

They were called "mankind". But we see that the 1st Adam [son of God] named his wife. Interesting, yes? When did he name her? AFTER THE BREACH OF TRUST. They disobeyed the first giving of the Law. They were now Outlaws. Naked in regard to their God.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all who should live after her.


Eve = Hebrew. Chavvah = Life, Life-spring. Showing that he believed God. ==> She would bring forth the Man Child - 2nd Adam - Jesus Christ. She carries the holy set apart seed [DNA].


Ezra 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.





Where did the Man receive a name? I am still looking for that name? But we see their [The Man and The Woman's] offspring [generations or heirs] were ALL named. A name therefore is a PERSON for it cannot and is not the man or woman but only a legal fiction that helps to identify the man or woman.

But IDENTITY is not the same as BEING.

Therefore all inherit in Adam/Eve in Persona which is but a mere fabrication. But those who inherit in Christ - receive Being which is real. For those who come to the Father, thru the Son may call themselves Sons of God and these share in the throne of Yehoshuah.

Heb 2:10 For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Heb 2:11 For both He That sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of God: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Heb 2:17 Wherefore according to all things it behoved Him to be made like to His brethren, in order that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

G3666 - made

homoioo?
hom-oy-o'-o
From G3664; to assimilate, that is, compare; passively to become similar: - be (make) like, (in the) liken (-ess), resemble.


Shalom,
MJ

[Michael Joseph]

study what went down just prior to Hitler taking power and you will most likely see some very similar patterns forming in America. Very similar indeed.

[Michael Joseph]

And now back on target. IDENTITY is impossible to prove. Therefore TRUST must be expressed or implied. As it were I can tell you trust by watching what fruit your produce.

The premise is quite simple really:

Rom_6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

This is IMPLIED TRUST. Since Identity cannot be proved. But I will not beat that horse anymore. Some folks THINK they can prove it - but they only fool themselves. With their images - which prove nothing at all.


Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

Heb 13:13 Let us go forth therefore to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

Heb 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek the coming one.

Heb 13:15 By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips confessing to His name.

Shalom,
MJ

[Freed Gerdes]

Thanks for your clear delination, Salsero. I admit my error: I have no claim on THE NAME. It is a legal fiction created by the state, for their benefit. What had me buffaloed was their 'claim' on the name, which carries with it the strong presumption that the user of the name is a debt serf, an employee of the socialist government corporation, and thus subject to jurisdiction under Roman (contract, lex mercatoria, UCC) law. Obtaining that jurisdiction is the entire purpose of the state's claim on the name. The state created it (first), thus they own it, and I can only use it; I have no right to tell the trustee what to do with his property. More importantly, I am not the beneficiary of the trust, and I have no obligation to use THE NAME. But now there is a problem; the 2nd dimension legal fictional jurisdiction that overlays the real world. I the natural man (people, not person) cannot contract with corporations; I must act within the office of a corporate person. So how to get electrical service, phone, bank account, etc? The whole purpose of the state claiming THE NAME is to establish their right to tax the property held by THE NAME. Just using THE NAME carries the presumption that 'you' (the people who acts as accommodation agent for legal person THE NAME) are a card-carrying employee of the trust, and that all you acquire in THE NAME belongs to the government.

Suppose that I create another NAME for my use, not owned by the government. I can easily file for a dba with the state, and that corporate person will be recognized, and the legal system will recognize that I own it (I recognize that I did not create the legal system, so let's say that I own the exclusive interest to use this new corporate person, at least free of any presumption that it suffers from some prior claim by the government). It will also fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC legal system, but without all the baggage of the presumption that I am a US citizen, ie, debt slave. This should greatly simplify proving the claim that 'I am not a US citizen, subject to your jurisdiction.' I (as agent for the NEW NAME), am still subject to the UCC, but now only for actual contracts, thus shedding all the presumptions associated with using the NAME that the state has assigned to me (think of it as going off the grid). I perceive that the use of a NAME provides the contracting parties with the basic presumption that certain rules (the UCC) are in effect, and that your NAME has agreed to accept service of process there. But at least creating your own NAME would take the government's interest out of the contract. Then you get the DMV to issue an identity card in your own NAME, and you drive on that. Now there is no presumption that you are in contract with the state or federal rules, codes, and regulations. Only common law applies.

My understanding of the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 is that the US government pledged all its assets to the bankers as security collateral for the debt. But the US corporate government did not own all the property in America. By using the debt obligations created by the endorsement of private bills of exchange (FRN's), the corporation perfected its claim on more and more of America, but it does not have a claim on privately held property. Some have said here on this blog that the people are deprived of money, thus cannot 'buy' anything. The stated benefit for the debt slaves is described by the corporation as being indemnified from having to actually pay for anything, ie, join us in this bankruptcy fraud (but we get to tax you for the privilege). But there is lawful money. Today it begins to look like a black market, but by using lawful money you can buy property and discharge all debts on it, including previous claims to it held by the corporate government. But if you put that property into YOUR NAME, you just re-create the government's claim on it, and they will still want to tax it... and you will have to take positive steps to rebut their presumptions. So maybe put it in the NAME you use that acknowledges God's trust, ie, your given name.

btw, Doug Casey calls FRN's "I owe you nothing"s. He calls Euro notes "Who owes you nothing"s... only gold is honest money, honest weight.

ps to Chex: gold is not currently money, due to the usurpation of fiat everywhere, but gold is wealth. It represents stored labor and resources in the real world.

Freed

[Michael Joseph]

Freed:

That is called DECLARATION OF TRUST and TRUST AGREEMENT. And yes the IRS fully recognizes that you will no longer be under 1040 rules. In fact you will fall under 1041 - Complex Trust. Learn it and you don't even need Lawful Money. you can reduce the tax burden to as low as five percent. Nevertheless, Lawful Money is the ticket in conjunction with Trust.

DECLARE THYSELF.

[salsero]

Thanks for your clear delination, Salsero. I admit my error: I have no claim on THE NAME. It is a legal fiction created by the state, for their benefit. What had me buffaloed was their 'claim' on the name, which carries with it the strong presumption that the user of the name is a debt serf, an employee of the socialist government corporation, and thus subject to jurisdiction under Roman (contract, lex mercatoria, UCC) law. Obtaining that jurisdiction is the entire purpose of the state's claim on the name. The state created it (first), thus they own it, and I can only use it; I have no right to tell the trustee what to do with his property. More importantly, I am not the beneficiary of the trust, and I have no obligation to use THE NAME. But now there is a problem; the 2nd dimension legal fictional jurisdiction that overlays the real world. I the natural man (people, not person) cannot contract with corporations; I must act within the office of a corporate person. So how to get electrical service, phone, bank account, etc? The whole purpose of the state claiming THE NAME is to establish their right to tax the property held by THE NAME. Just using THE NAME carries the presumption that 'you' (the people who acts as accommodation agent for legal person THE NAME) are a card-carrying employee of the trust, and that all you acquire in THE NAME belongs to the government.

Suppose that I create another NAME for my use, not owned by the government. I can easily file for a dba with the state, and that corporate person will be recognized, and the legal system will recognize that I own it (I recognize that I did not create the legal system, so let's say that I own the exclusive interest to use this new corporate person, at least free of any presumption that it suffers from some prior claim by the government). It will also fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC legal system, but without all the baggage of the presumption that I am a US citizen, ie, debt slave. This should greatly simplify proving the claim that 'I am not a US citizen, subject to your jurisdiction.' I (as agent for the NEW NAME), am still subject to the UCC, but now only for actual contracts, thus shedding all the presumptions associated with using the NAME that the state has assigned to me (think of it as going off the grid). I perceive that the use of a NAME provides the contracting parties with the basic presumption that certain rules (the UCC) are in effect, and that your NAME has agreed to accept service of process there. But at least creating your own NAME would take the government's interest out of the contract. Then you get the DMV to issue an identity card in your own NAME, and you drive on that. Now there is no presumption that you are in contract with the state or federal rules, codes, and regulations. Only common law applies.

My understanding of the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 is that the US government pledged all its assets to the bankers as security collateral for the debt. But the US corporate government did not own all the property in America. By using the debt obligations created by the endorsement of private bills of exchange (FRN's), the corporation perfected its claim on more and more of America, but it does not have a claim on privately held property. Some have said here on this blog that the people are deprived of money, thus cannot 'buy' anything. The stated benefit for the debt slaves is described by the corporation as being indemnified from having to actually pay for anything, ie, join us in this bankruptcy fraud (but we get to tax you for the privilege). But there is lawful money. Today it begins to look like a black market, but by using lawful money you can buy property and discharge all debts on it, including previous claims to it held by the corporate government. But if you put that property into YOUR NAME, you just re-create the government's claim on it, and they will still want to tax it... and you will have to take positive steps to rebut their presumptions. So maybe put it in the NAME you use that acknowledges God's trust, ie, your given name.

btw, Doug Casey calls FRN's "I owe you nothing"s. He calls Euro notes "Who owes you nothing"s... only gold is honest money, honest weight.

ps to Chex: gold is not currently money, due to the usurpation of fiat everywhere, but gold is wealth. It represents stored labor and resources in the real world.

Freed

All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name. No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid. Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this. The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully. This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy

[Anthony Joseph]

people...

who can make a claim but one with living voice?

do you claim property or ownership/title?

the former is expressed in living voice, the latter must be expressed by way of paper

i care not of ownership or titles; my claim of property stands as true and verified until someone will step forward and disparage and/or deny my living voice claim

end of story

[Michael Joseph]

people...

who can make a claim but one with living voice?

do you claim property or ownership/title?

the former is expressed in living voice, the latter must be expressed by way of paper

i care not of ownership or titles; my claim of property stands as true and verified until someone will step forward and disparage and/or deny my living voice claim

end of story

title and ownership are derivatives of Property. A law dictionary proves that easily. Title is a MEANS showing just possession. Ownership is in dominion which is who has the Right to Property.

I don't know your claim - what is it? Please elucidate it upon a candid world. Man cannot read minds.

THEREFORE,

DECLARATION OF TRUST [INDEPENDENCE] AND TRUST AGREEMENT [CONSTITUTION].

DECLARE THYSELF.


Shalom,
MJ

P.S. I have never head a dead man talk so I am unsure what you mean about a living voice. I jest of course but it is nevertheless humorous to me.

[Anthony Joseph]

what i claim is my property (that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others) is true, simply because i speak it

if someone wishes to disparage or deny what i; a man, claim... come forward now and be heard

"living voice", i agree, is a redundant phrase; except that, in the 2nd dimension realm, fictions have a "voice" on paper

in common law, "voice" means only one thing; a man who speaks [cf. viva voce]

[Michael Joseph]

what i claim is my property (that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others) is true, simply because i speak it

if someone wishes to disparage or deny what i; a man, claim... come forward now and be heard

"living voice", i agree, is a redundant phrase; except that, in the 2nd dimension realm, fictions have a "voice" on paper

in common law, "voice" means only one thing; a man who speaks [cf. viva voce]

okay I see your point - a court "speaks" thru its records....as it were. However in the end, men/women produce the record. Words do not magically appear absent an intelligent mind.

This is why I vehemently oppose evolution. However, consider INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and COPYRIGHT. Are these not written expressions with certain property rights associated therein and thereof? Is not the creator allowed to profit from those rights? For a workman is worthy of his hire.

Common Law comes from Scripture. All trusts must first be spoken into existence. And God said....and God spake....etc. However a kingdom of priests all agree that there exists a King. And it ain't them! They all abide in one law under the law giver. And the law giver is sovereign!

Shalom,
MJ