By What Name Are You Known?

Conveyance of Language, and Names, and other various frauds to capture your mind. Or - Are you a noun or a verb?

By what name are you known?

“Mighty Python and the Holy Grail”; Directors - Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones; 14 March 1975

In the course of existence, sometimes the parody of life has more insight than being caught up in life. As a basic illustration, sometimes we strive to be “the President” of something versus being you, a man, who sometimes acts as President. We are often taught to think of ourselves as being or striving for something other than our fact of birth. Despite the theater charade on gender politics, there is a basic thing that is true from conception; each human is either a man or a woman; either male or female. We are each of mankind. What you DECIDE to “act as” in your thoughts and outwardly later in life, after the age of maturity, is a separate concept that we will NOT dig into through this article.

The basic thing that is true (regardless of political and pronoun word play) is that you exist. i am, therefore i think. If you did not exist, thinking is not possible. Thinking is a verb. It is an action. But the man came before the thought. Creation came before the man. The subject is always first and the action follows.

Now, moving on to the name... At birth, or shortly thereafter, you are given a name. Once you become aware of this name, you take the name as your own. Why is this important? It is a way to distinguish your existence from others in society. It is uniquely yours. You claim it. It is a reference to the basic thing that is true. You are here, and the name that you claim provides a reference to you.

Over time, we lose the distinction that we claim the name. We start to think we are the name. We also lose the concept that we are not a title. Titles are things we take on to describe either “duties and responsibilities” or “status”. When we are old enough to understand the desire to think for ourselves our parents start to indoctrinate us, while not being aware they are doing it, by asking “what do you want to be when you grow up?”. It is interesting that we never ask, “how do you you want to contribute - with your gifts?”. And some kids say, “i want to be the President”.

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition

TITLE - The radical meaning of this word appears to be that of a mark, style, or designation; a distinctive appellation; the name by which anything is known. Thus, in the law of persons, a title is an appellation of dignity or distinction, a name denoting the social rank of the person bearing it, as "duke" or "count."

Conversion

The reality expressed above gets to the mind trick of conversion. By asking “what do you want to be?”, we are using language to believe we are something in action that is above that of being a man or woman. We allow the flip of priorities of being a man first and instead being the title first. By becoming the new title in action we become a verb rather than the subject. We become action rather than man that does the action. We decide to be the name rather than take on a name that we claim. We start to believe we are that thing that is actually lesser than being one of mankind (human, seed of consciousness, creation that creates). We spend the rest of our lives striving to be something we are not.

This subtle and continuous manipulation of change of our identity is in every aspect of our surroundings. Rather than being known by a name and sometimes being called by that name, we instead believe we ARE something else. We believe we are the engineer, the laborer, the machinist, the president, the lawyer, or Tim. We forget that “i, a man” came first, and all the titles are taken on including our name. The titles are not a conversion of self.

“a newt” scene from Mighty Python and the Holy Grail…

Why is this important? Well, until we recognize this subtle difference, we will always give into volunteering to BE something we are not. We will give up our power as being of mankind. This gets to the question, “are you a verb or noun?”. Are you the action or the subject?

It all comes down to grammar

This is where things may get boring. We are going to talk about grammar. However, if you are able to follow along, you will start to see a basic conversion that has happened that we accept. This conversion is through the use of the English language. What is the language of business? English. This is very important to wrap your head around. This means all lawsuits and the documents used in lawsuits, contracts, legal agreements, etc… all revolve around the use of English words and phrases. If the English language can be manipulated, ever so subtly, to mean something else than what we think or believe it means, then control of mankind can occur.

This manipulation is a type of brainwashing. It is a fictitious conveyance of language. This fraud is expressed (in legal language) in USC 18 1001. And, as mankind, we allow this conversion. Here is the thing about legal codes, rules, acts, and statutes; if we allow the conversion, we volunteer. If we volunteer (by volition) to the conversion, and accept the change, there is no violation of the law. Something is only illegal if we call it out and press our claim about the thing that is illegal. So, if we accept that we are “the President”, rather than “one of mankind” or “being a man”, then we accept the change. It is the acceptance of the government overreach. It is the acceptance of conversion. One is the subject (man) and one is acting as something (President).

Our founding documents specifically address this overreach. Our Declaration of Independence states regarding government and abuses and usurpations:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Claiming a name versus being (verb) a name

So, what is the difference between “the President” and “being a man”? What is the difference between being the name and claiming the name? In the back of your mind think about any legal document you ever received from a bank, lawyer, tax office, etc… the word magic can be broken down by English-grammar rules.

Here is an example from an actual legal document opening paragraph with imaginary names (hint - all the names are ALL imaginary) that we will use and later break down to show this paragraph does not say anything. If it does not actually make complete sentences, the result is an unenforceable document due to its incoherence.

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE (the "Agreement"), is dated and effective as of _____________ ____, 202__ ("Effective Date"), by and among (i) IMAGINARY PROPERTIES, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company ("Imaginary Entity"); (ii) JOHN DOE, a resident of the State of North Dakota ("John"), (iii) JANE DOE, a resident of the State of North Dakota ("Jane"), along with John, (collectively the "Transferors"), (iv) JILL DOE, a resident of the Commonwealth of Kentucky ("Recipient" or "Jill"), (v) THE IMAGINARY PROPERTIES LLC TRUST, a grantor trust domiciled and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (the "Imaginary Trust") (vi) SHYNE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company ("Company"); and (vii) 123 THINGS, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company ("123 Things"). The Imaginary Entity, Transferors, Recipient, Imaginary Trust, Company and 123 Things shall at times be referred to individually as a "Party," or collectively as the "Parties."

So, at first glance, ask yourself, what does a “Party” mean to you? Maybe it means “Let’s have some fun!”. Do you understand what this word “Party” means? There are no definitions in the legal-document to clarify the various meanings of the word “Party”. If you look up “Party” in the dictionary, it does not say a single thing about Transferors, Recipients, Imaginary Trust, Company or 123 Things. Matter-of-fact, you will not be able to find a definition for the word “Transferor” at all! This is the illegal conveyance of language. If you hire a lawyer, he/she will never let you in on the game! That same lawyer will also not let you know that he/she just did an illegal act. Does this seem like a lack of full disclosure? Can it be a binding contract without full disclosure?

How about JOHN DOE? Is that your given name? Your parents likely gave the name John Doe to you in upper and lower-case, but, not in all upper-case. If this is your given name, then it is not you, it is simply the name that belongs to you.

To understand the difference of being the subject versus a verb, first we need to grammatically break down the words and phrases in a sentence (bring back memories from grade school - can everyone hear the screams of pain?). To do this break down, a key will help to keep words in an order and document the words in the sentence.

• “0” will be conjunctions - a neutral word - “or” & “and” are conjunctions

• “1” will be for adverbs - a modifier for a verb

• “2” will be a verb - an action

• “3” is an adjective - something that modifies a pronoun - something that “colors” the next noun into a pronoun

• “4” is a pronoun - a noun that has been colored by an adjective

• “5” is a pre-position (preposition) or a word the puts a position of another word by giving it meaning, position, performance, spelling, etc…

• “6” is an article that is typically words like “the” or “a” or “an”… they are used after a preposition and before a noun… if this is not directly between these two types of words (preposition and noun) it is not an article anymore since there is no position, it then becomes and adverb!

• “7” is a noun - it is a fact - it is being the thing (being the man)… a noun can only stand alone or in a prepositional phrase… any other word modifies the noun into something else in a sentence - basic grammar rules…

• “8” is the past-tense of a word - for example “wasted”…. the “ed” makes it in the past

• “9” is a future-tense word - an example is “to” or “shall”

• 8 & 9 in the same sentence makes the sentence false or non-factual as there is not a complete time-tense thought. Did it happen (past) or will it happen (future)?

Here is an example of fictitious conveyance of language (in the form of an “incomplete-sentence”) broken down into its parts: Look closely at the phrase “No Man Or President Shall Be Permitted In House”. At first, this “appears” like a real sentence due to the indoctrination and of the misuse of language. It also “appears” to have 3 nouns. By grammar rules you would be wrong!

The word “No” is actually an adverb (“1”) that modifies the word that follows, “man” to be a verb (“2”). This is because there is no place holder (preposition) to give context to “man”. “No” in this example is the same as using the word “the” in the word grouping of “the man”.

“Or” is a neutral word (an option or choice “0”), so the word “President” is also a verb (“2”), since you can swap the order of the words, ”Man or President”, “President or Man”.

“Shall” becomes a pronoun, in the future-tense (“4” and it is future so future tense can be “9”, so to easily designate the complete grammar type and tense, “4.9”). If something “shall” happen, it is going to be, or it is likely going to occur in the future.

“Be” connects to a pronoun in front of it (“1”), and modifies “Permitted” as a past-tense-verb (“2.8”), through the use of the “ed”. If you remember back to grade school grammar, “ed” makes anything past tense. And, as such it has already happen(ed).

“In” is an adverb (“1”), making “House” a verb (“2”).

So, was this a simple sentence? Well… from the “New Webster Dictionary of The English Language” 1969, “A simple sentence is the expression of a single thought. It may also be defined as an independent clause.” This means it stands on its own and is not confused with other ideas. An independent clause consists of a subject, (the thing being talked about) a verb, (which makes a statement about the subject - the action or state). And when the verb is not complete, an object or a predicate noun or adjective (with a linking verb) is used - “the action” or “has raced” or “did run” or “the man”. The remaining words in the clause are modifiers of one of those word-elements.

Parse Syntax

If you break down the words by their groupings and position, it is then possible to account for each word in any sentence. This is applying what is called PARSE SYNTAX. This is the breaking down of the language into its elements so it can be understood (or if it is not a sentence - it is understood that it is complete babble or nonsense). So what does parse syntax mean?

PARSE = To analyze or describe grammatically; to show the several parts of speech composing (a sentence) and their relation to each other by government or agreement.

SYNTAX = Arrangement, disposition, from SYN = “with” and TAXIS = “order”, from TASSO, to put in order; the construction of sentences; the due arrangement of words or members of sentences in their mutual relations according to established usage.

English has the same rules internationally. So, based on the idea that English is the language of business, and regardless if you are reading in America, Canada, or Turkey, the English language has the same rules. The basic grammar rules are so that anyone who can read English will understand the same message if the sentences are written according to those rules. Those rules are standard for the international use of English. These rules are acknowledged all around the world. That is how it is possible to purchase items on Amazon that are made in Russia, Germany, USA or any-where else around the world while using your given “trade-names” in commerce. This is accomplished with one idea in each sentence. If there is more than one idea, or varying times/tenses between the past and future, or more than one verb in each sentence, then those sentences have broken international rules of grammar. This rule breaking creates non-facts, color-of-the-fact (opinion), and incomplete sentences that create interpretation – “For that sentence is not of a fact.”

So, the “sentence”, “No(1) Man(2) Or(0) President(2) Shall(4.9) Be(1.9) Permitted(2.8) In(1) House(2)”, does not qualify as a sentence. How about “No(1) blue(3) man(4) or(0) yellow(3) president(4) shall(4.9) be(1.9) permitted(2.8) in(1) house(2)”? “No” is still an adverb modifying “blue” and “blue” is an adjective modifying “man”. The same is true for “yellow” and “president” since “or” brings “no” forward to the phrase “yellow president”. That is now an adverb, adjective, pronoun phrase. The President is a VERB! The Man is a VERB!

Here is an easier example:

First, it is important to recognize that every letter in the English alphabet is a noun. Find one of those big old dictionaries on a shelf in the family library. Look up the first entry of each letter of the alphabet. Words that stand alone as a thing are nouns. Letters that stand alone are also nouns.

However; a noun followed by another noun in a sentence, changes the first noun into an adjective describing the second noun. The first noun “colors” (opinion) the word that follows the first noun. Opinions cannot be tried in court!

Now for the example:

GREY SHIRT.

GREY is a noun.

SHIRT is a noun.

GREY SHIRT, the word GREY describes the word SHIRT, meaning that “GREY” is now an adjective. Adjectives are determined by asking “which one”, “what kind”, “how many”. Which leads to the question about “GREY SHIRT”. Is it my “GREY SHIRT”, or is it your “GREY SHIRT”, or does it belong to someone else? Or is it a “GREY SHIRT” sitting in a dresser? Is it truly GREY, or CHARCOAL, or HEATHER? It may depend on who you ask.

The words "My ", "Your ", "The ", give context to the SHIRT. They give the SHIRT a position, or a location. As noted above, these words give a position and are placed before the noun.

BUT

When you have two words together, and the first word modifies (or changes) the meaning of the second word, that first word is called an ADVERB. This is verified by asking “who”, “what”, “where”, “why”, “when”, or “how”. Since the first word is an ADVERB, then it cannot modify the second word to be a NOUN, it can only modify an adjective, or a VERB. Which means that the phrase GREY SHIRT, GREY = Adverb, making SHIRT a verb. This again is opinion or without fact. It is also an action.

So, you may ask, “How could SHIRT be a verb?”. When the word SHIRT is standing alone the word SHIRT is not a verb. In the actual physical world, there is no such thing as the verb “SHIRT” as an object. However, “TO SHIRT” something is a slang meaning “to pull off” (usually the act of pulling off a shirt) … So how do we make the word SHIRT a noun? By using a prepositional phrase. A prepositional phrase has that pre-position word (FOR) with the article (THE) and the noun word (SHIRT)

And now you may ask, “What is an article?”. Again, back to grammar school…

An article is a particular object or substance. In the grammar-terms, an article is defined as “One of a class of auxiliary words inserted before a noun to modify it in some way.” Ex: “for the shirt”. Below is another simple grouping of words that still does not constitute a sentence with a preposition.

“Where is this shirt?”

WHERE = adverb – an adverb is a modifier, and modification = change. So, the adverb “WHERE” changes “IS” to a verb. “THIS” still lacks a preposition, and since “THIS” is an Article that lacks a preposition, the word “THIS” becomes a modifier (adverb) to change the word “SHIRT” into a verb. Crazy, right?!

When we say “For the shirt…”, we are giving context to the shirt.

For = preposition; The = Article; modifies the following word “SHIRT” to become a noun. The proper sentence would be “For the shirt is blue.”; however, if BLUE is not defined with full disclosure, it may still be an opinion. “For the shirt is blue”, is a proper sentence. Flip the articles and nouns in the beginning or end of the sentence and it means the same thing. The thought is complete. “Blue is for the shirt.” When it is not a complete sentence then that is how attorneys argue in court. Everything is an opinion, action, or fragment.

Have another look at the following sentence: “No Man Or President Shall Be Permitted In House”, contains four verbs: Man, President, Permitted, House. If you think about the words and their time-tense… how can you make a statement about the future with the use of the words “shall” and “be” and have this future idea that has already been in the past with the use of the word “permitted”? Sneaky!

And this sentence is written as a negative. In law, you cannot perform a negative condition-of-state.

Now, let’s make this real relative to your name and law.

So, when you read a typical legal document written by law-makers or lawyers, with this basic grammar knowledge, you’ll see it “appears” to be mathematically engineered to say nothing. “For the document is of the babble”. This sentence can be read forward and backward, flipping the prepositional phrases, and it means the same thing.

Here is the Parse Syntax breakdown (numbers behind each word) of the example from the legal document paragraph originally shown above:

THIS[1] SETTLEMENT[3] AGREEMENT[4] AND[0] RELEASE[4] (the[1] "Agreement"[2]), is[1] dated[2] and[0] effective[2] as[1] of[2] _____________ ____, 202__ ("Effective[1] Date[2]") [“Boxing = Void”], by[1] and[0] among[1] (i) IMAGINARY[3] PROPERTIES[4], LLC, a[1] Kentucky[3] limited[3.8] liability[3] company[4] ("Imaginary[1] Entity[2]") [“Boxing = Void”]; (ii) JOHN DOE [“Fictitious = NO CONTRACT”], a[1] resident[2] of[5] the[6] State[7] of[1] North[3] Dakota[4] ("John") [“Boxing = Void”], (iii) JANE DOE [“Fictitious = NO CONTRACT”], a[1] resident[2] of[5] the[6] State[7] of[1] North[3] Dakota[4] ("Jane") [“Boxing = Void”], along[1] with[1] John[2], collectively[1] the[1] "Transferors"[2]), (iv) JILL DOE [“Fictitious = NO CONTRACT”], a[1] resident[2] of[5] the[6] Commonwealth[7] of[1] Kentucky[2] ("Recipient" or "Jill") [“Boxing = Void”], (v) THE[1] IMAGINARY[3] PROPERTIES[3] LLC[3] TRUST[4], a[1] grantor[3] trust[4] domiciled[1.8] and[0] governed[1.8] by[5] the[6] laws[7] of[5] the[6] Commonwealth[7] of[1] Kentucky[2] (the[1] "Imaginary[3] Trust[4]") [“Boxing = Void”] (vi) SHYNE[3] HOLDINGS[4], LLC, a[1] Kentucky[3] limited[3] liability[3] company[4] ("Company") [“Boxing = Void”]; and[0] (vii) 123[3] THINGS[4], LLC, a[1] Kentucky[3] limited[3] liability[3] company[4] ("123 Things" [“Boxing = Void”]). The[1] Imaginary[3] Entity[4], Transferors[4], Recipient[4], Imaginary[3] Trust[4], Company[4] and[0] 123[3] Things[4] shall[4.9] at[1] times[2] be[1.9] referred[2.8] to[1.9] individually[2] as[1] a[1] "Party,"[2] or[0] collectively[1] as[2] the[1] "Parties."[2]

At first glance, there seems to be (5) prepositional phrases. However, they are not attached to any subjects. So, those 5,6,7 combinations technically become (1,1,2) combinations as there is no subject (noun). This whole paragraph is a series of fragments, run-ons, and adverb-verb, adverb-adjective-pronoun combinations. There is also past and future in the same run-on babble fragment sentence. When something is in parenthesis, it is a reference. So, how can a reference be contractual? All capital names are fictitious names and reference slaves by legal definition. How can you contract with a fictitious-thing as a man? You know in your mind that all the entities are fake. They were made up to do commerce. And, the real deal breaker is “the Transferor”. “Transferor” has NO international definition. It does not exist in Black’s Law Dictionary or any other dictionary. Without a definition to agree on, there can be no contract. And in the form “the Transferor”, it is an adverb-verb combination that indicates an action, not an actual noun. So, how can you be an action? I guess “the President” will have to file a “motion” to find out…

The Vegetarian Meatball Example

A typical legal document does not mean anything when broken down by proper grammar rules. There may be some exceptions, but this is largely the case. It’s a bit like a “vegetarian meatball” or "sovereign citizen". They are each an oxymoron. It does not make sense. One thing does not go with the other thing. In the case of “vegetarian meatball”, the meatball is made with vegetables and looks like a beef meatball. In some instances, it may even “taste” like a meatball. But just because it looks like a meatball, smells like a meatball, and tastes like a meatball, doesn’t mean it is a meatball.

The same condition is true for “sovereign citizen”. The media loves to throw the phrase “sovereign citizen” around to demonize people who appreciate freedom and rights. “Sovereign” colors the fact of citizen if “the” or “a” is in front. Sovereign and Citizen are also contradictory words by definition. One is free and with no master. The other has duties and responsibilities. Notice the media loves to say “sovereign citizen movement”. We sub-consciously know that it is an adverb-verb combination when standing alone as “citizen movement”. “Movement” gives away the action. Yet, by grammar rules, this was just changed to an adverb-adjective-pronoun phrase. If the phrase is placed with “the” in front it (the sovereign citizen movement) makes it an adverb-adjective-adjective-pronoun combination. This combination “colors” the fact of “movement”. This modification is an opinion. When standing alone as “sovereign citizen”, it is an adverb-verb action. An opinion is not admissible at court… unless you accept by volition. And a verb (action) that has no subject has nothing to prosecute.

Now, watch the news and listen to the latest catch phrase. Notice it is all opinion or modified verbs. It is all BS. This is a simple litmus to know they are making stuff up to appeal to the emotional response (verb/action) and not based on a fact (subject).

If you fully comprehend the rules of grammar and how to construct words and sentences, you’ll discover that just because every document provided by a lawyer looks like a contract, it doesn’t mean it is a contract. For those people reading this who are old enough to remember, you may remember the phrase from then President Clinton during his impeachment hearings: “depends on what the meaning of “is” is”. It depends on how it is used grammatically in a sentence. People thought it was arrogant and silly. But, he had a point. He knew the rules of grammar. He was acting as a lawyer. Be careful of the words and their positions.

An Actual Contract

Here is an example of an actual contract (performed, not as written): You walk into a shop. The shop sells coffee. You order a latte (2 fluid ounces of espresso, 3 ounces of steamed milk, and typically a thin layer of foam on top making about 1/4 espresso and 3/4 milk in both steamed milk and foam – international definition of latte) from the man behind the counter. Then the man makes the latte. Then the man serves the latte. You accept the latte. You pay for the latte. Then the man accepts the correct payment (the payment is a certain species of money or currency that is defined and accepted). You leave from the shop with your coffee. The contract (action) is completed as a series of actions based on the exchange of nouns (things). You did not need a lawyer to figure out this exchange.

For a contract to exist it needs to have mutual-benefit. An exchange of one thing of value for another thing of value. All valid contracts are current and present-tense until the contract is complete. For a true-contract does not have adhesion-contract-language placing another at a disadvantage. For a true-contract will not have weird non-sentences requiring a legal-interpreter who you think you trust for full-disclosure.

Claim Your Name - Do Not Be Your Name

Capitalization style is the use of a fictitious name that presumes slavery with no rights. Look at the words "JOHN M. DOE". It is a fictitious entity in capital letters. It belongs to others of mankind by slavery (the name belongs to a man). Physically in the world, a man can charter his fictitious entity corporation (all caps) with another fictitious entity corporation (all caps) claimed by another man (upper and lower case). However, converting a man or woman name into all capital letters, without their consent, presumes that the man or woman is now an entity and has no rights, or is deceased. For capitalization presumes slavery to something. This is verified by the definition of capitus diminutio in Black's Law Dictionary and more specifically capitus diminutio maxima. The “given” name you received at birth was capitus diminutio minima. It was written with an upper case first letter for each name component and then lower case for the rest of the name. The only duties and responsibilities you had were to your family. When you get older and marry, then those duties and responsibilities go to this new family.

But, typical court documents, legal instruments, commerce tools, have an entirely different naming style. Is this an accident? Do lawyers not know your given name? What do you think?

However, did you know this capitalization style is an unlawful conversion of your name if you do not give permission? If this name conversion, sent via postal mail or any transmission for legal purposes with volition (voluntarily with knowledge), this act violates USC 18 1341 and 1342 by unlawful conveyance. If you are a federal citizen, you are agreeing to be held to the administrative legal codes, acts, rules, and statutes of the federal government. There are recently increased penalties for mail fraud, 18 USC 1341, and for misuse-of-Fictitious-names, 18 USC 1342; the potential fine, per-occurrence, had been increased from $250,000 to $1,000,000, and the jail time possible had been increased from a maximum of ten-years to a maximum of thirty-years. It seems these fines change semi-regularly.

If fictitious-names are mailed in any form by the post office, or if accepted unlawfully, this qualifies as misuse-of-Fictitious-names and mail-fraud; this US code is for the U.S. agencies and those under-the-jurisdiction of the territorial-or-municipal-government of the U.S.; Clarification of the definitions for those affected by US codes are defined in the USC 26 CFR (tax code). This 26 CFR code fully defines the terms of "citizen", " State ", “resident”, etc… as used by the federal government. It is a good idea to read this portion of the code and ask yourself if you fit those definitions.

Did anyone notice that fully capitalized names are used for corporations and fake entities? Are you either an unincorporated business or incorporated business? Are you enfranchised? Might be a good time to go back and read the context of “WE the PEOPLE” in the Constitution for the United States of America. Take the time to read the Continental Congress notes. You will quickly realize the contract is to the PEOPLE running the government contracted with the Union of States. The Bill of Rights are the clarification of those things the PEOPLE cannot touch or infringe upon of the people within the states. It is amazing that even “Constitutional” scholars get this wrong. Yet, the notes from the Continental congress and the context of the contracts make it all very clear.

Claiming versus Being Your Name

Do you have paramount claim to your given name and your various trade names? i.e.) JOHN DOE, JOHN A. DOE, JOHN ANYBODY DOE, John DOE, John Doe... If you look at one of your credit cards, it is typically written in capital letters. This is a trade name you give permission to use for commercial transactions. Why is there a clarification for “given” name? We then “take” the name. Give and take. It becomes property. Property is the highest right a man has (Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd edition). We are not talking about “real property”. Real Property is an adjective-pronoun (if beginning with “the” or a similar modifier) or adverb-verb form when standing alone, and it is an opinion. It is fictitious. If it is opinion, that means proof is required. This is why title agencies were created. They create doubt about the title through a Color of Title like a Warranty Deed. We stopped taking responsibility for our own transactions and allowed representation to tell us it “might be” our property. So, they call it “real property” and create opinion.

PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects ; ownership ; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 265.

Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which noway depends on another man's courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281, 283.

The use of the trade name allows the crossover into the jurisdiction of commerce without giving up your rights as a man. Without your agreement to use the trade name, no commerce can occur because commerce is between two entities. Trade is between two of mankind. Hence, the “trade name” is an entity that you give permission to use for commerce. If you agree to BE the trade name, you are agreeing to BE an entity rather than USE an entity name for commerce. Unless you identify otherwise, you are NOT the trade name. You OWN the trade name. People do not understand the basic rules and laws. If you think about it, it makes complete sense. You are a man or woman first (one of mankind) and you take on a name that is given after birth. So the hierarchy is: Creation, man (mankind), property (your name is your property, your family is your property, your automobile is your property)…

If logic prevails, it is easy to understand. If word magic prevails, we are all slaves.

Private and Public Domain

So, how can a man do business with an entity that cannot take the stand to testify as to the harm caused – you cannot harm a fake thing – that is why legal documents talk about “injury” and “damages”– the use of the word “harm” is intentionally misleading in court when referencing entities. “Wrong” and “harm” are those things done by mankind. To allow commerce to occur, we use the proxy trade names (fake entity) to do the business for us.

However, places like the legion, VFW, or other private clubs/associations are still operating in the private and require membership to participate in trade. These operate in the private domain. IF you believe you ARE the trade name, the result is the loss of rights. You are not the credit card. You are not the driver’s license. Trade is between people who are NOT incorporated or enfranchised. Commerce is between entities (persons, PERSONS, Persons, businesses, corporations, trade names, etc… - all verbs or combinations of adverb-verbs or adverb-adjective-pronoun). But, if you are participating in commerce, it is presumed you ARE the name.

18 USC 1001 was enacted for the United States and all possible federal jurisdictions to protect converting people through fraud into entities. This includes any corporations under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. These codes are enacted to protect mankind from the government and from the federal overreach that could entrap mankind into giving up rights. This entrapment is done by converting rights into privileges, requiring a license, and then charging a fee there of... But, none of these rules, codes, acts, or statutes apply to mankind. Unless you ARE the(1) name(2). You may want to consider owning the name.

Anytime you watch the news or the current fear porn, ask yourself, are they coloring the fact? Are they stating adverb-verb combinations and not actual subjects? If they are calling it a BLUE SHIRT, it is just their opinion. If it is THE SHIRT, they are talking about an action. All of this word magic is to color the fact to heighten emotional opinion.

What is your favorite color? Coloring the fact!

Still from Bridge of Death - What is your favorite color?