False Identity, or the real you?

False identity denies the real you, but let’s begin with what is well known. Increasingly, people are becoming aware the world is collapsing in on itself as the result of actions by so called ‘globalists.’ Most people firmly believe this problem needs to be addressed and quickly. How, exactly? Do they know what the real problem is? For 99.9% of the world’s population, either the wrong political party is in power, the banks are in control, or we need to give more service to others and less to self; or all the above. Legions are devoted to overturning these symptoms, all believing that if their solution was implemented, humanity would experience a global conscious awakening and enter a golden age.

All have missed the cause. None deal with, or attempt to overthrow humanities enslavement through false identity.

In most every country on earth, if not all, you are deemed by law to be a person, a citizen, or legal entity beholden to the state. All reference and claim to living flesh and blood is denied. You are the victim of a false identity and no political party change, banking change, or service to others will alter that fraudulent (enforced by law and guns) condition.

Do you really know who you are?

In your daily business you cause no damage to anyone. No victims are left in your wake. Notwithstanding, ‘government’ demands you obey thousands of codes and statutes regulating your life’s activities, and enforces compliance with fines, badges and guns. You have no choice but to comply, according to what you are taught. But did ‘government’ ever fully disclose exactly how you are made subject to all its codes and statutes? Did they fully explain how you voluntarily signed up for some ‘benefit”, or the truth of what happens when you voluntarily comply with some regulation?

NO, they hid most all of the consequences of what you were signing, or voluntarily complying with. Perhaps you didn’t sign anything. Perhaps it was your parents who unknowingly signed for you when you were born. Notwithstanding, your forced compliance absent full disclosure, is ‘fraud,’ and you are its victim to this day.

The real you was stolen or usurped without your consent, whereby your false identity is fraud. Fraud destroys everything that it touches in law — ‘void abinitio’ — without substance from the beginning. There is no statute of limitations on fraud. False identity, denial of the real you, is today’s real problem; the remainder are symptoms only.

Identifying the False Identity

How can you identify your false identity? There’s no need. Government has done that for you. When you were born, the government stole the name given by your mother, plagiarized it to create an ‘artificial person’ (corporation), registered this (ALL CAPS) version of your name on its database, then issued a birth certificate as a receipt.

There are four different levels of capitalization used in names of ‘persons’:

jane doe: The human-being.
Jane Doe: This (Capitis Diminutio Minima) form is the ‘natural-person.’ (Beware the word person, however, more in a minute.)
Jane DOE: This (Capitis Diminutio MEDIA) form is the ‘quasi natural/artificial person.’
JANE DOE: This (CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA) form is the ‘corporation / artificial-person.’

None of this process was disclosed to you or your parents. As a result we all have used this ‘artificial person’ name to represent us since the day we were born. Accordingly, your birth certificate, driving licence, social security number and passport all attest the ‘legal entity’ that government created by usurping your real name.

If you offer any one of those documents when asked for your ID, whom or what are you actually identifying? Think hard. Government issued identification is crafted to identify the ‘artificial person’ (corporation). In short, your (so called) ID does not identify the living you. It identifies a dead fictional entity in a Government database.

That means if you present one of those documents as your ID when asked, either you give false evidence, or you confess to being an ‘artificial person.’ Since your photograph on the document testifies that the evidence is not false, you cannot be other than the ‘artificial person.’ In consequence, living self is refused and free exercise of your rights is denied.

Freedom is the real problem we all face, certified by false identity, and no political party change, banking change, or service to others, will alter that fraudulent condition. Unless and until that fraud is banished, it will remain along with chaos, servitude, financial theft, slavery and wars.

Persons: aka persona

Despite we are conditioned to think that our legal names are who we are, each of us is a living, flesh and blood man or woman in truthful reality. Names are specific references to particular things, which means the name given us by our Mom is a ‘persona’ (handle) for our living flesh and blood being. In colloquial every day speech, therefore, we speak of other living individuals as ‘persons,’ each of which has a name.

We also have a (fraudulent) legal name, this a ‘persona’ for our false identity. If we call the persona for our living flesh and blood our ‘lawful name,’ then the ‘persona’ for our false identity is our ‘legal name.’

Black’s Law Dictionary (6th edition) defines the word ‘name’ as: “The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.” That is true. A ‘name’ is the designated persona or symbol of a thing, including legal entities, and living flesh and blood beings. The same dictionary defines ‘corporation’ as, “An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.”

Accordingly, we now have lawful names referencing lawful persons, additional to legal names referencing legal persons (corporations).

Persons: or living beings?

If we agree that we are born of nature, then a ‘lawful person’ may properly be described as a ‘natural person,’ as in Jane Doe (list item 2 above.) Massive complications now arise! The name (Jane Doe) is not born of nature. Jane Doe is the name given to one who is. Thus the phrase ‘natural person’ is an oxymoron. In the legal world, this phrase is deliberately intended to blur distinction between what the word ‘name’ means, and the living nature of Jane Doe.

Outside the legal world, the above description should have stated: Jane Doe: This (Capitis Diminutio Minima) name form refers to the natural living being. i.e. Jane Doe lives but her worded ‘name’ does not.)

How can this lawful/legal confusion be overcome? Only by ridding ourselves of the false identity created by bastardising our proper name, and the word ‘person.’ Substituting the term ‘living beings’ allows declaration of our birthright, independent from state interference. Life is the key word. False identity and fraudulent legality are cancelled.

“ To argue that your name is spelled in all caps is wrong, because then you are admitting it is your name. A name spelled in all caps is not your name, and to say it is your name gives jurisdiction to the court. Instead of saying, “My name is spelled in all caps on your papers,” one should say, “My godly name does not appear on your papers.” —Richard Anthony

[That page is a real eye opener.] I trust I have made release from our false identity sound simple. In practice it is not.

False Identity is not easily escaped

Most every attempt to escape this fraud is inexorably complicated by the confusions I have described. Many folks have tried but to little avail. Such (let’s be done with false identity) attempts include the freeman movement, sovereignty movement, and others who have concluded that freedom must be (legally) argued in a court of law.

A problem arises. No (Law of the Sea) maritime court, under which we all serve, has a word by which a judge may address a man or woman. Your ‘living self’ is not acknowledged, only your (fraudulent) legal identity. By acknowledging validity of the (legal) jurisdiction, every attempt to erase our false identity in such courts is self defeating. Just by stepping into their courts, you agree to be that which you propose to dispute. Expect to be arrested and sent for psychiatric assessment.

“In one instance, a federal judge, confronted with a tax protester whose argument consisted of the fact that all the tax and legal documents spelled his name out in capitals in a normal way while he insisted his name was spelled out with capitals and lower case letters and with punctuation in the middle (i.e. Edgar Francis., Bradley), ordered him to undergo psychiatric examination (which subsequently found him to be competent to stand trial). B.L. Kaufman, Judge Orders Defendant Tested, Cincinnati Enquirer, 6/17/98.

[Can you blame the judge? Here is a guy admitting the name on these documents is his name! Then turns around and says it’s not his name (because it’s not spelled that way). This guy is obviously confused (or deceived)]” —Richard Anthony

Reverse the narrative #1

Massive difficulty arises when we allow legal words and meanings to prescribe our speech and actions. There is good reason for ‘law dictionaries’ within the ‘legal’ jurisdiction. Step into the ‘living’ jurisdiction, conversely, and likewise it becomes essential to use words that are not and cannot be misconstrued. Most importantly, no legal system can possibly exist without human life. Life and living is the bottom line in all cases, so long as ‘legality’ does not rule contrary.

A case in point arose recently. Some of you will be familiar with the work of Judge Anna von Reitz, the world’s greatest advocate of American Common Law for American people. Her recent articles concern Jural Assemblies, and of these, her #1592 post deals with ‘Lawful Persons.’

What follows is not criticism of her work. Instead critical of the unholy fraudulent mess ‘legality’ has dealt the whole world; a situation completely overlooked by increasing numbers of patriots. Please carefully consider these three points extracted (in order) from her article. Then I will comment.

A person is not a living being.
Unincorporated Lawful Persons are sometimes called First Degree Sovereigns.
Sovereignty is an element of free will and it is only possessed by Lawful Persons;

It seems from this sequence that free will (last line) is only possessed by something that does not live, (first line).

That does not make sense as it is written, but it does make sense in light of explanations that follow.

If one accepts that ‘person’ is a word (persona) that identifies a living being, so the persona does not live, yet the being to which the ‘persona’ is appended truly does. It is imperative therefore, to distinguish the persona (name) from the lawful living entity to which it refers. In other words, ‘person’ is a legal identifier, while ‘living’ is a lawful fact of human existence.

If we were to read Judge Anna’s statements in reverse, a different meaning becomes crystal clear. Let me paraphrase.

Living beings are the only possessors of free will.
This element is their sovereignty.
These beings actually live.

Now the argument makes complete (living or natural) sense, but contrary to the legal sense first expressed by Judge Anna. There is no false identity because legal use of the word ‘person’ has been removed.

Judge Anna is ‘legally’ correct in saying, “A person is not a living being.” The ‘legal system’ succeeds by using the word ‘person’ to denote fictional entities that do not live. By legal definition, therefore, the freedom of every man woman and child to live becomes subservient to state permissions, and all natural rights to life are denied.

Reverse the narrative #2

Let me quote a second example from Judge Anna.

So we each have our own Proper Name, which is a Lawful Person — sometimes referred to as a “Natural Person.

By legally blurring the distinction between living and non living, a lawful living person may be referred to as a ‘natural person.’

Seemingly legitimate, this in effect is the same error as referencing ‘sovereign citizens’. However, as Judge Anna has made resoundingly clear on many occasions, one who is ‘lawfully’ sovereign cannot be a (legal) citizen, and vice versa. (Citizen is a legal word for ‘legal entities.’) In exactly the same manner ‘Lawful Person’ is a misnomer in the lawful (living) sense, but legitimate in the (non-living) legal sense.”

Let me paraphrase Anna’s offering from the lawful (living) perspective:

So we each have our own Proper Name, that when legitimately used as a persona to identify a living being, properly identifies oneself as born of nature; a “Natural Person.”

‘Person’ here denotes one who lives, which completely refutes the (legal) statement, ‘A person is not a living being.’

Observably, the word ‘person’ now has a dual meaning, one being a true identity and the other a false identity. The word ‘person’ falsely refers to a fictional legal entity, and legitimately to a living being as though one and the same.

Do you see the source of never ending confusion, heart rending legal obfuscation, crippling financial stress, widespread trauma and unceasing battles?

Do you see how simple it all becomes when all ‘persons’ are living beings and no ‘legal persons’ exist?

Two stories on the same page

Let’s pursue this clarification further. Frank van Dun, a philosopher of law, expressly uses the word ‘person’ to denote individual people, just as we all do in everyday colloquial speech. He also clarifies any discrepancies by describing ‘natural persons’ as flesh and blood beings born of nature, distinct and separate from ‘legal persons,’ which, by fictional invention, cannot and do not live.

In complete contrast, seemingly, Judge Anna uses the word ‘person’ to denote a ‘persona,’ which, being what it is, cannot live. (To re quote: “A person is not a living being.”) Because this definition is strictly legal, Judge Anna finds it essential to also state that unincorporated Lawful Persons, which really means flesh and blood living beings, are sometimes called First Degree Sovereigns – who have free will.

Have I succeeded in convincing you that views from an American Common Law Judge directly oppose those of a philosopher of law? If so, I have failed you.

Truth is that both uphold the same views, albeit Judge Anna describes from within the legal (statute) perspective as American Common Law obliges. Meanwhile, van Dun elaborates from within ‘law’ based in nature. Both tell the same story. Both are on the same page. Said differently, Judge Anna tirelessly expresses the seeking of freedom, which of course draws flak from sociopathic rulers and those who refuse American Common Law freedoms. Van Dun expresses the same seeking of freedom, but from the (natural) law perspective. Precisely because ‘lawful’ greatly differs from ‘legal,’ different words, terminology and phraseology must be used in respective context. Their message of freedom is identical, nonetheless. Ridding false identity remains the most pressing solution that political parties, banks, quantum science, and preaching more love and service to others, abysmally fail to address.

Let’s eliminate all forms of false identity

Let’s agree that living beings have a proper given name, once and for all. Let’s also agree that usurpation or bastardisation of this name for any reason is nothing but a false identity; outright theft of one’s private property; utter denial of our unalienable right to live. We each are living persons, so let’s deal with the legal fraud exactly for what it is; void from the beginning. Insist that all dissenters grasp the fulness of natural law and resolve their dispute with Creator as the supreme lawful adjudicator.

In all, your ‘life’ will be the victor! When at last a global conscious awakening allows that we live as the free independent beings we were born to be, we will enter a golden age such as we’ve never envisaged.

Nature’s invitation to truly live.