I had nothing to do on this hot afternoon but sit down and write you a note. [see attached exhibits]
Dear Officer Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court,
As a Pro Se litigant I must admit that I am a bit confused by the papers you mailed. So this is a request to direct me to the proper place where I may learn more about your court, whether that be a publication or a web page that can clear the confusion I have with your papers.
Referring to your document titled “Acknowledgment of New Case” I noticed the seal at the top of the page where it reads: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. That's a nice seal but immediately below that it reads: Supreme Court of Florida and that's where my confusion kicks in. You see, I did a word search of the states constitution and Florida Statues and the word “supreme court” shows up 71 times and “supreme court of Florida” [spelled exactly as shown] shows up twice. So you see, I'm not sure how your court is structured where you can use 2 different names for what appears to be the same court. The name SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA is found nowhere in either document mentioned above.
Then, to make matters worst I continued to read and in the paragraphs below the caption you then use The Florida Supreme Court like you were talking about the same courts as mentioned above. Are You? Or are you running three different courts all out of the same building? Now I hope you can see why I have a lot of questions and need help to answer them. The name Florida Supreme Court also does not show up in either document mentioned above.
So before I can become a litigant in your court I need to know the differences between all three of these courts if in fact they are separate; and if that's not the case then please tell me where these fictitious names are registered and which one does what function and which one is the real deal, so to speak.
I took upon myself to “surf around” on your docket page and found documents that use Supreme Court of Florida and SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA but have not come across one that uses [The] Florida Supreme Court. Where can I find one of those? Maybe those are on a different docket site but, I didn't find it.
I hope that you can see why I need answers. When I see a document where three different entities are all claiming the same survey I get confused. Don't your attorneys get confused too or do they all know something I don't.
I need to know which court I am going to be in so please get back to me with any info that might help.
Joseph Thee: King
Take the road less traveled
Just my opinion which may or may not be of value.
Recently, I decided to file a Federal Declaratory Judgment for the purpose of having the court answer: What are my rights and duties with regard to what appears to be property of the State of NY [BC created and original title retained]. I am in Floridaaaahhhh now, thus this matter was a "diversity issue" and this is why I filed in federal court. Keep in mind, I did this reluctantly because I know man does not belong in private court matters. But out of "not knowing what to do next, as I did everything I could possibly do from sending info/questions/releases/surrenders [take these words generally there was MUCH more to all this] to the pope right down to the local probate country judge. NEVER a response
Well I got a response from the federal judge: For the magistrate to charge the name with criminal contempt of court. I clearly stated in the suit that from what it appeared to me, the NAME is property of the State of New York and I could not "lie" and claim falsely another's property. This was the purpose for this declaratory judgment to "find out the truth."
The AG assistant from NY's response was - shall I say inept, in other words, I SAW THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL, as soon as I would have walked in their "private domain", I was going to be shut down and regardless of claim or not, just for fun, either shot at or tortured.
Boris mentioned on the last Talkshoe that WE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE COURT AND NOT BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD AS A private bar licensed attorney under the Hague #23. Well good luck with that. I was told form the get go - I would be required to follow all their rules. WTF - how could I possibly compete? I could not.
My disappointment to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice was not a happy day because SINCERELY, whether this was a admiralty/UCC foundation, my attempt was to try to come into honor with the United States, I actually stated I come to this court in PEACE.
Well, you get how that goes.
I hope no one scolds me on doing this, believe me I paid with agita, because like I said the "handwriting is on the wall", it would not matter if I were 100% right or 40% right, THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO ADMIT the rule of usufruct in public or private, as really what is their incentive? Their only goal is to entrap souls for Satan, their boss. I have heard other state that the system is honorable and sometimes the judges will be helpful. OK, I can accept that, but where?
Again, I do not know why you are going into court, but after so many stories, and again, this Declaratory Judgment was not intended to be a bad thing, but my guess is individually, we are not going to EVER find relief, specifically the rule of usufruct.
Keep in mind too, my WILLINGNESS to accept the contract of the last line of the Declaration of Independence " And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor", MEAING I want to turn over all checks made payable to the NAME to the US treasury so that the national debt can be reduced, all they need to do is to step up to the plate and tell me HOW not to intermeddle in the estate of the infant and which public official to turn in all the debts for the name so that the debts may be lawfully discharged by the AUTHORIZED public trustee. I really can not be left TOTALLY NAKED, if you know what I mean.
I am at a loss what more I can do individually. My sincere hope is that the Donald knocks all these swamp creatures down the sewer and we can all begin Peace on Earth a Good Will toward EVERYONE.
I am writing to Boris today with some thoughts on moving forward with freedom. Again, I do this study for alignment with the Truth, we have all been created equal but we all fall prey to the "illusion", we can have it all, but the veil over our eyes is there for a good purpose, we must know who are daddy is.
Again, I do not know your purpose of the Supreme Court of Florida, but make no mistake, I do not sense ANY free ride on the FRCP or state rules of civil procedure.
My dear friend,, Tony, with all due respect, I feel like I know you since Iv'e been listening to your rants on various forums from notacitizen to present. I don't mind them though cause I get inspired and sometimes learn from them and then other times I get frustrated at you cause the answers are so simple.
I find that you’re wearing a pair of ruby slippers and walking around in the mud.
However, this topic on the forum is a study of entity names and your post doesn't offer any input nor ask a question about that subject matter that we might learn together by finding the answer.
so, In the words of my dearly departed buddy from Gainesville, It's alright if you love me. It's alright if you don't. I'm only Joking, 24/7
Take the road less traveled
"I find that you’re wearing a pair of ruby slippers and walking around in the mud."
Don't stop there, go on, since you have all the wisdom and answers...... do tell, do not leave any of us in suspense.
In reply to this post by Tony
I am not sure what people are looking for when they take this route. It is not like the court can make these decisions.
Here is what I comprehend:
One is GRANTOR of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST Trust by way of the PURCHASE (ie: taking) a of the interest by the STATE OF BIRTH and since the ONLY interest one has at birth is DOMINION (ie: usufruct) that that is the ONLY interest taken, which leaves us with what?
Well, if the Divine Law is "equal and opposite reaction" and one is deprived of the usufruct, then one MUST be BLESSED with the "naked ownership" which makes one both TRUSTEE to see the INTENDED BENEFICIARY receives its INTEREST, the usufruct, and thus performs the duties thereof and UNINTENDED BENEFICIARY by way of operation of law: THIRD PARTY BENEFICARY with enforcement rights over the CONTRACT (ie: BC purchase: taking of the usufruct)
So, one is GRANTOR, TRUSTEE, and BENEFICIARY of a trust, buts hold 3 different positions within such Trust; Read the highlights portion from this Treasury Circular from Bureau of Fiscal Service, but only when one EXPRESSES the trust.
And how would one express the trust?
Well first the FIRST MIDDLE LAST has to show where it transfers the "interest" to the Beneficiary of the Trust (Last, first middle). FIRST MIDDLE LAST remains as Trustee but as Principal (ie: Grantor/settlor) appoints the Last, first middle as Attorney-in-fact thru a Durable Power of Attorney to execute the Trust rendering the Attorney-in-Fact also Procurator in rem suam.
We are doing this thru the UCC as described on the Last Talkshoe and then taking the UCC-1 and 3 and dumping into a Federal Court as a Miscellaneous Filing OR into the County as a Lien, then pulling out a couple of certified copies. This follows the "process" for the Mortgage Redacted PDF from the main menu page. The reason that worked the one time is that an attorney brought the UCC Record of the LEIN into the action of which showed there was a claim to the EQUITY (ie: claim in recoupment) and now the attorney had to act as fiduciary because that was the ONLY position left because the MOVABLE ESTATE (FIRST MIDDLE LAST) operates under the rule of usufruct and the occupying army/nation is Usufructuary and the STATE OF BIRTH is the TRUSTEE to the Usufructuary, thus the attorney/corporation/department/public servant and the like occupies the Fiduciary role in discharge of those duties and one would be the TRUSTEE to ensure the beneficiary of the Usufructuary interest so PURCHASED performs.
Now, people can do it anyway they wish, but no fucking court is going to sit there and rule on this; it would violate their oath. One would be in contempt of the court for even asking that damn question. The judge has his hands tied; but if one operates as such and approach matters in this way, then one will see how things really OPERATE.
It all goes back to the question: Who is the problem?
This is why I do not even consider the "rights, duties, and blah blah blah" because it is 100% irrelevant; either you EXPRESS the Trust or what ever "silent presumption/assumption" is given VOICE and right now, the presumption is that you are a belligerent acting in insurrection and rebellion by falsely claiming to be a United States Citizen because you have the DL and the Passport but you NEVER fulfilled 2 Stat 153, and not otherwise, thus are treated AS-IF you were a "prisoner in a penal colony"
You need to sit down and LEARN how this Nation operates so A) you can teach others so B) when the people begin waking en-mass, they will do so without DESTROYING what was built for no matter what your intent is or how well you know, if you FAIL to protect the "illusion" as people call it, the system will see you as a virus and begin eradication protocols for it is this "illusion" that forces the people to grow the fuck up and stop being little whinny, bithcy children.
You are here to lean how to co-create and these are the first steps within the sandbox so do not be afraid to get your feet dirty.
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
it goes like this:
God ---> Man ----> Man's creation ----> Man
Man exists as Naked Owner over man's Creation; Man experiences this Creation as Usufruct
This is EXACLTY what is laid out in the Bible and forms the core principle of the Nation: "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.
A creator ALWAYS surrenders usufruct to his creation; else the created would have NOTHING from which it could derive its life; the created would just be floating along in white space.
Now, if God Almighty decided to hurl an asteroid at the Earth; man would be usufruct of the event and there is not on damn thing he can do about it for God Almighty is Naked Owner over the Earth; retains disposal rights; man would just experience the fruits.
Man is Naked Owner of his image individually and collectively, but will always be Usufruct of that image, for man reaps what he sows; this way he can experience the fruit of his society (and of himself) and if it is not to his liking, the can then make the necessary changes to the INPUT to experience the desired OUTPUT.
2 Timothy 2
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
3 Steps to register a birth. Notification, certification, and registration.
Notification is done by a doctor or whoever attends to the birth.
Notification, step 1, is used to corroborate the information contained in a Statement of Live Birth (SoLB), step 2. If the information matches, the birth is registered, step 3.
The only information that is corroborated is, moms legal surname or maiden name and given name, the date of birth and the sex of the child but not who the child is. No name whatsoever is given for the child on the notification form. SO WHY DO PEOPLE SAY MY NAME IS SO AND SO AND MY DATE OF BIRTH IS XYZ WHEN NO SUCH PERSON, child, anything, EXISTS OR WAS BORN ON THE DATE OF BIRTH?
We now turn our attention to the Statement of Live Birth, step 2, certification. We blank out all of the information on the SoLB that is not corroborated by the Notification, does not match. What is not blanked out is, the mothers legal surname, other information about the mother, the DoB and sex of the child but not the name given the child. Zippo. This is where people fall down me thinks. They do not understand what certification is or means.
I, Billy Bob, certify that I gave Jim Bob 20 dollars last Tuesday. Now let me ask all you wise ones. Is the 20 dollars on the certification document? No, and neither is your given name on the SoLB. It is not there. The certification is testimony what was given the child verbally, not by way of paper. The state name, the legal name, is on paper (SoLB, BC, and all the accounts out there). Only the state has the power to create legal entities, names. These names are birthed the moment of registration. Til then they are names, words, on paper.
Then there is the incorporation. Here we have a chain of hardware stores called Home Hardware. That is the legal name. There are two words, two meanings, home and hardware, incorporated as one name, Home Hardware = legal name. They do the exact same precise thing by taking knowledge of the mothers legal surname, knowledge of the name given the child verbally (first, middle, given), as evidenced on the SoLB, and incorporate those two names, two words, two meanings, as one name and register it = legal name.
It matters not if the given name is John or as JOHN. It matters not that the surname is Smith, or SMITH. The incorporation of the given and surname as one name = legal name. In other words, John Smith is a legal name and so is JOHN SMITH. These legal names are born the date of registration and the child is not the author (impossible).
Despite what you see when you look at a SoLB, the fathers information is not there. It is not corroborated. Zippo. Is this because they allow you to decide who your daddy is. Man or God. Do members of the God family require a surname or proof of parentage? Does God or man make the heir? And, were you ever really born? Think on that one. Depends on what you believe you is.
We have no difficulty having the government communicate with us using our given name only. They hold the proof so no argument. Where we see most if not all people fall down, or shoot themselves in the foot from the get go, is this crazy idea that my name is John Smith, and my dob is, but not that JOHN SMITH. They are all legal names and only the state can create such things. The only name the government sees, does business with, is legal names, and these names, all of them, are birthed the date of registration.
Now when you get the government to communicate with you by your given or Christian name, they agree you are not the legal name. But that is not the end of it yet. There is more to do. Have you a driver license or tax card or bank account or passport or ownership papers. All of these are evidence that you hold the legal name debtor accounts. They id the holder as a DEBTOR CITIZEN. The driver license is permission for the licernsee to use a car he does not own on the public roads. The driver license means the holder is the trustee of his own estate, property, whether he knows it or not. The driver license verifies the holder is the debtor as does all other government and bank issued documents, id cards etc.
Some words of wisdom for you to ponder. You can be the debtor or act as the debtor. To be the debtor you must be the debtor, John Smith. To act as the debtor, John Smith, you must be John.
Testimony from a Deputy Registrar General. "It is impossible to determine the identity of the one presenting a birth certificate simply by looking at that document". True, but then you used the birth certificate to obtain actual identity documents; driver license etc. Congrats, you, by your own free will act and deed, are the debtor now. In reality you, those claiming to be the 'John Smiths' are acting the part of the debtor for man can never 'be' the debtor.
Good news is, John, can cease being the debtor when John, wakes up from his dream he is John Smith, a debtor.
I have the evidence that backs everything written here that matters.
Filing liens and security interests and defenses is debtor activity. Children of God, not man, do no such things nor need they because they, the Johns, are outside of the reach of the government. The government has power and authority over what it creates, and if ye be John Smith, well, you get what you asked for, the debts, duties, and other obligations. All of which were on the back of the public servant until you said, I want to be the debtor, I want to do your job for you.
Now, when the government received the SoLB and registered the information, at that moment, the government holds the liability for the legal name, "the name" indicated on the SoLB. This name was created in part, from your given or Christian name. You have an interest.
You accepted that liability, took it on, when you decided to claim to be John Smith, thereby attaching yourself to the legal name and the author of it. Now who is your maker? Who is your daddy?
Some of you like to quote scripture. Great, what about this one here? Matthew 23:9 Call none on earth your father for your Father is one, in heaven. If you are of God and you know there is one family, the God family, what need have you for a surname or proof of parentage? The surname is of man, not God, and God, not man makes the heir. WAKE UP!
You were not born on what you give/gave as the date of birth. There is no evidence whatsoever that you were. Oh yes, the SoLB is witness to the fact your were given a given name but verbally by mom and dad; that given or Christian name is not on that paper (a legal name is). As per the Deputy Registrar General, "the name (first, middle and last, or single name) INDICATED on the SoLB, becomes the child's legal name". Did you catch that, child's legal name = child and a legal name = two not one. Two names were incorporated as one name, not the baby.
And who, until you used a birth certificate to obtain identity documents, held the debtor legal name? Who, until you did that, held the liability? Now you can go down the victim road or pull up your socks and get on with it. Accept responsibility and clean up your mess.
It's just an act unless you claim to be John Smith. I acted the part of the debtor in court. Plead guilty, the whole nine yards. But in the end I was not the debtor and the conviction was not registered (I signed for the legal name). See, they cannot apply their laws to you unless you accept to be the debtor. If you do, that is your conviction, your belief. So, when they register a conviction they register your belief you are a debtor and now they can take action against you (toss you in jail, take collection action, etc.). By your conviction, your belief you are a debtor, they are indemnified.
You look on that SoLB you will perceive two names, surname and given name, or surname and first and middle = 2 names. But I tell you, the government see those two names on that SoLB as one full complete legal name, and register it as such. Heirs of God have no surname whereas heirs of man must.
Are you licensed to use the name you did not author? Are you licensed to use it for commercial purposes? The birth certificate is no such permission, it offers the recipient a choice. The offer of a birth certificate is the offer of the ABILITY, not an obligation, to play the part of the debtor. You may accept the offer on your terms. Offer and Acceptance. You may also pass on the offer which leaves the liability with the holder of the legal name, that being, the holder of the SoLB with the legal name indicated on it.
Now anyone can cease being the debtor at any time so the liability, debtor-ship and benefit, reverts to the true debtor.
Those who claim to be the John Smiths are beneficiaries of e.g. Canada. But, when John shows up it is not possible that John benefits, Canada does.
So to the judge who said, "you want the benefits Canada has to offer but you do not want to pay the tax"; I say, Canada wants the benefits of the fruits of the labour and property of the people but does not want to pay?
If you is the debtor, you receive, you pay, but if ye not be the debtor, the flow is reversed, the obligation reverts to the creator of the legal name. But you have to take care of those accounts you hold. Either pay them out, close them, or tell them who you are, e.g. John, and I Am acting as the debtor - means not the debtor.
See, if you are John and business is done in the legal name John Smith, what pay, benefit, profit or gain does John receive? None. What liability has John? None. Yup, you are so free you can choose voluntary slavery, and you did or you'd not be here. You can even blame the other guy as victims love to do. Or, you can let the facts and evidence speak, set the record right, and move forward free of all what ytou seek to be free of, legally speaking.
Now here is the will of God. Service without concern for self or, love thy neighbour as thyself. Low and behold, it was never meant you profit or gain, nor that you hold the liability. Hmm, maybe it is time to serve in the stead of be served.
When you take on the legal name you abandon your given name, your Christian name, your birthright from God (Genesis 1:26). You are no longer on land and presumed lost at sea. Your birthright administered in your absence.
John Smith, born on what you know as the DoB, does not exist. No wonder you have no voice or standing.
John Smith, the legal name born the date of registration does, as does John the man. One is intellectual property the other of the earth, substance. One rules one is ruled.
John Smith is the legal estate and John holds the equitable title, is the creditor. John has an interest. No property, account, or debt, is in John's name. All things revert on their own when John stops claiming to be John Smith.
A crime tv show, a woman complained to the cops she was being stalked. The cop said, he is not stalking you. The woman rejected saying, he is stalking me. The cops said, there is no law about stalking, he is not stalking you. The point here is that until such a law is named and registered, it does not exist.
Similarly, although there may be a baby in the after deliver room, as his or her name is not know, nor the event registered, legal speaking, he or she does not exist. This is a reason it is fatal, legally speaking, to claim my DOB is what you believe is the DoB. The only name that exists as at that date is the mothers surname.
So when one claims the DoB as his DoB, he is, legally speaking, e.g. Smith, hence; Mr Smith. Do they not call John Smith to the court and thereafter refer to the man as Mr. Smith? Keep in mind also, the presence of the body, in court, cures the defect in the name. I would not volunteer to enter a court. All of this can be taken care of out of court and better yet, you can stop them from coming and never be summonsed to appear in court. They summons the dead to see who will make an appearance; summons, summons. The dead are the men and women who claim to be John Smith, a legal name/person.
There is no birthright held for John Smith or Mr. Smith. It is held for John under John's name. God did not grant dominion to John Smith or Mr. Smith. Man made legal things.
Ontario Canada 1950 Change of Name Act
Surname - means family name, distinguished from a Christian name or given name, last name = of man
Given name - includes a Christian name and a baptismal name = of God
Name - includes surname and given name, and there you have it, 3 names, and how two of them, when incorporated as one name, creates a new name. This is the son of the bond woman, the state.
Now the Deputy Registrar General claims this name is the child's legal name. This is possessive as in actual or, can also be, constructive possession. Yes it is my name or it is the child's name and the government holds custody of it. You had that choice when you got a birth certificate. This is the ABILITY I mentioned in a previous post here.
So, although the child did not author the name it is made for him or her, like the token you use to play monopoly. It is not your game but it is your man to play the game. Question is, what will he or she do with it. Go this way or that. There are only two choices people and you are experiencing one of those choices now as debtor citizens. Renew the mind, be reborn, no longer the debtor.
You had the ability to cease to be the child when you came of age. But in stead opted to remain as John Smith. By the time you were of age to make that choice you, and I, had been indoctrinated that our name is John Smith and the DoB is..................
This is Galatians 4:1..........child under tutors and governors; Mom, dad, state. But eventually the child matures, or may, and be a man. John Smith aint no man..............
Cast out the son of the bond woman. Stop claiming to be and identifying yourself as John Smith. Your birthright, freedom, dominion, not ownership, is in your given or Christian name. John can use the legal name to serve = no claim of ownership = no liability, all interested parties (public side) are happy. John can use it to serve self = I am claiming ownership, I am John Smith, not John, and I accept the benefit and the liability.
All what God granted man is held in trust under eminent domain. It is held for the public good, not the private. The private activity is what is tearing at the very foundation of the system. It is what benefits the usurist private bankers backed by the pledges of your interest, unknown to you, as a security. It is the interest cost of loans that is bleeding the system dry and who but us asks for a Fkin loan? This is the basis of the shift of wealth and power from the public good to private usurist banker.
Neither given names nor Christian names are on accounts. It cannot be.
The government cannot, and will not, conduct business with you, the man, if your name is the Christian name. That name is not transferable, and is unalienable.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|