machinebike

Difference between Your name and a artificial name....

Recommended Posts

on documents.

Notice how you spell your name to identify yourself when communicating through paper?

Now notice how your name is spelled on documents? All caps.

Can you remember a time in your life you spelled your name in all caps?

If you do not, then why are they?

a fictitious "paper debt" requires a fictitious identity in order to "legally" collect from some one....a middle man, or commonly refered as "straw man".

'

Although I am using the phrase 'straw man' so you can relate to what I am sharing, but d not consider it to be an exact term refering to an all capitalized name.

Burtons Legal Thesaurus:

Capitalized---> utilize for profit, manipulate, take advantage of.

You may view "Capital gain" differently than what originally believed.

Ask your depository about the "straw man".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Burtons Legal Thesaurus:

Capitalized---> utilize for profit, manipulate, take advantage of.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary:

cap·i·tal·ized cap·i·tal·iz·ing

Definition of CAPITALIZE

transitive verb

1

: to write or print with an initial capital or in capitals

Capitalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

:roll:

I know MD didn't legalize Pot, so whatever you're smoking, you should probably stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amerikaner, you need to look in a legal dictionary that deals with

"commercial law".

If the letters of your name is altered other then how you spell it, there is a reason for it. If you cannot understand the writings, then try common sense.

Need proof? Get a pen and piece of paper and sign your name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Amerikaner83,

Did you really just somewhat debate with this guy? :shock:

What can I say, I'm feeling cantankerous :twisted:

Amerikaner, you need to look in a legal dictionary that deals with

"commercial law".

If the letters of your name is altered other then how you spell it, there is a reason for it. If you cannot understand the writings, then try common sense.

Need proof? Get a pen and piece of paper and sign your name.

...if the letters of your name "is" altered ...if you're going to nitpick things like this, at least use proper grammar when you do so, ok? :)++

And you should probably cite the source of your "thinking", eh? After all, it's not like the argument you made in the first post was all original.

You seem like an interesting character to be bringing up the words "common sense".

Name at least one verifiable case from a United States Courthouse that agrees with any of your "theories" (being a nice way to put it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
What can I say, I'm feeling cantankerous :twisted:

...if the letters of your name "is" altered ...if you're going to nitpick things like this, at least use proper grammar when you do so, ok? :)++

And you should probably cite the source of your "thinking", eh? After all, it's not like the argument you made in the first post was all original.

You seem like an interesting character to be bringing up the words "common sense".

Name at least one verifiable case from a United States Courthouse that agrees with any of your "theories" (being a nice way to put it).

It's another conspiracy theory. I don't know if he can provide a case in which a court bought theory, but here are some cases in which the courts thought it was bunk.

McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage - Google Scholar

Bryant v. Washington Mut. Bank - Google Scholar

"United States of America" "Penny Lea Jones" - Google Scholar

US v. Weldon - Google Scholar

US v. Beeman - Google Scholar

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's another conspiracy theory. I don't know if he can provide a case in which a court bought theory, but here are some cases in which the courts thought it was bunk.

McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage - Google Scholar

Bryant v. Washington Mut. Bank - Google Scholar

"United States of America" "Penny Lea Jones" - Google Scholar

US v. Weldon - Google Scholar

US v. Beeman - Google Scholar

:trainwreck:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guys around here tried this sort of stuff about 20 years ago or so...The whole gist of the argument was over a traffic violation and the local guys trying to get someone from the state or the judge to ask for payment in silver I believe....As I recall, it got really interesting about the time a bunch of paperwork was filed on the local attorney's in the case and 3 or 4 of the judges in town...I believe they had liens placed on real estate they owned...It got real messy...

Turns out, the local guys who were perpetrating the whole thing were listening to some guru who was sure he knew he could get way above the law by using it against them...The guru left town about the same time 3 of the local guys were arrested and served time for a few years for "simulating the legal process"...Just thought you would like to know..

Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing, we just refinanced our house, and I don't remember our names being anything other than Amerikaner83 and Squeaker...no AMERIKANER83 and SQUEAKER to be found.

edit - just checked the refi paperwork and nope...no all caps to be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised I am responding to some of these comments but I know our artificial reality has not sunk in yet, so I remain inspired.

This information should be questioned concerning who manages your 'life' account.

This concerns whoever you allowed to control your funds taken out of your depository, should be liable to giving you correct answers.

I'm not talking about the kind of answers someone hopes to hear in a courtroom, but the kind of answers someone hopes to hear in real life...TRUTHFUL answers.

Does any one here NOT like being told truthful answers? Anyone? What about honesty, does anyone like for someone to be dishonest to them?

Why dont you tryan put your servicer 'to the test', and ask them some questions you feel may not really matter, and see if you get a response.

And if the rare moment did occur and they told the truth, would you believe them anyway?

The Financial world known to us, exists on paper. And thats how we are recognized. A reason we have an identity made up letters/symbols/codes, so we can be identified and seperated from other entities, real or artifical.

EVERY letter counts. Every symbol, every code, every dot, EVERYTHING printed on a paper documents was printed that way for a specific reason, not because they decided to be creative with your name.

Look at your check and you name. It is written as how a business could be written, then take a magnifying glass to the line where you sign your name and notice 'Authorized signature' written in fine print.

You authorize funds taken from the business account set up in likeness of your name.

But don't take my word for it, go to your depository and ask them directly.

But will you believe them? :shock:

BV, Id like for you to answwer the question concerning "truth and honesty" in my other post, or it will become more difficult for me to view your answers as....honest.

Edited by machinebike
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised I am responding to some of these comments but I know our artificial reality has not sunk in yet, so I remain inspired.

This information should be questioned concerning who manages your 'life' account.

This concerns whoever you allowed to control your funds taken out of your depository, should be liable to giving you correct answers.

I'm not talking about the kind of answers someone hopes to hear in a courtroom, but the kind of answers someone hopes to hear in real life...TRUTHFUL answers.

Does any one here NOT like being told truthful answers? Anyone? What about honesty, does anyone like for someone to be dishonest to them?

Why dont you tryan put your servicer 'to the test', and ask them some questions you feel may not really matter, and see if you get a response.

And if the rare moment did occur and they told the truth, would you believe them anyway?

The Financial world known to us, exists on paper. And thats how we are recognized. A reason we have an identity made up letters/symbols/codes, so we can be identified and seperated from other entities, real or artifical.

EVERY letter counts. Every symbol, every code, every dot, EVERYTHING printed on a paper documents was printed that way for a specific reason, not because they decided to be creative with your name.

Look at your check and you name. It is written as how a business could be written, then take a magnifying glass to the line where you sign your name and notice 'Authorized signature' written in fine print.

You authorize funds taken from the business account set up in likeness of your name.

But don't take my word for it, go to your depository and ask them directly.

But will you believe them? :shock:

BV, Id like for you to answwer the question concerning "truth and honesty" in my other post, or it will become more difficult for me to view your answers as....honest.

BV, Id like for you to answwer the question concerning "truth and honesty" in my other post, or it will become more difficult for me to view your answers as....honest.

Which other post??????

How dare you. My responses have been honest. You, however, provide no answers at all. You merely respond with more questions and unproven theories.

It appears your definition of "truth and honesty" is based upon what you want to hear. Since you've provided no evidence whatsoever to support your theories, I can only respond with my opinion and court precedent.

I've not accused you of "dishonesty". I've merely questioned your belief in theories to which you have yet to provide any proof.

Start questioning my honesty, and I'm done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which other post??????

How dare you. My responses have been honest. You, however, provide no answers at all. You merely respond with more questions and unproven theories.

It appears your definition of "truth and honesty" is based upon what you want to hear. Since you've provided no evidence whatsoever to support your theories, I can only respond with my opinion and court precedent.

I've not accused you of "dishonesty". I've merely questioned your belief in theories to which you have yet to provide any proof.

Start questioning my honesty, and I'm done.

speaking of "done"....this machine bike ride is just about over...

Whaddaya say, ProSay...wanna be banned again? Just about there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which other post??????

How dare you. My responses have been honest. You, however, provide no answers at all. You merely respond with more questions and unproven theories.

It appears your definition of "truth and honesty" is based upon what you want to hear. Since you've provided no evidence whatsoever to support your theories, I can only respond with my opinion and court precedent.

My response,

If your opinion is based on what is legal and not lawful, howe truthful can yuor opinion be? Legfal is not based on truth and honesty, that's one reason why 'legal' exists....If its not lawful but nobody understands the system enough to disagree, then what happens? It becomes legal.

So I guess what i am trying to say so you understand, is...If yuo give your opinion and advice based on legal stuff, you are being truthful and honest concerning what is legal, but not necessarily what is lawful.

I've not accused you of "dishonesty". I've merely questioned your belief in theories to which you have yet to provide any proof.

My response,

I wasn't accusing you of accusing me....I was trying to say, I feel I am sharing what is lawful but if I am mistaken, then i will correct it. But if you share something you feel is true and honest, but later you learn it was not, but according to the courts, it was.....would you still share because that is what the court says or will you change to what you have learned to be correct?

You wrote a response concerning the reply where you stated 'according to the law and the courts.

I asked you what law.

I did not say you were speaking dishonest, what I meant is...if you learn something to NOT be true, do you still continue sharing what you learn not to be true, or do you try to correct it, or just because its what the courts say.

Legal documents, thats how the courts are structured so what I share, I do not expect it to go over well in court. My intentions are to learn and try to correct the mistakes outside of the court.

Courts are for what is legal. We are meant for what is lawful. They have them mixed and we suffer because of it.

Proof:

If a mortgage was lawful, it would not need to be legal.

If the letters of your identity are altered in any way, that could change who you are ON PAPER. How many documents have you signed your name in all caps? How many Government docs do you receieve with your name in all caps?

In a "lawful" dictionary (concerning a live being), it may not be different in meaning. BUT in a legal dictionary, it does have a different meaning.

Is legal different than lawful? It must be, why else would they have their own legal dictionaries? Thats more proof.

If you want more solid proof, just ask your servicer or the depository (Bank).

You can even ask in writing. But when they do not give you answers, there is also more proof.

Thats what I refer to when I mention common sense....

How is your name spelled on the docs and how do you spell it, is it different? Common sense....yes it is different.

Another example of common sense.....can something printed off a printing press be described with a word we associate having self contained value (money)? I cant see how when it was just printed with no backing, but needs us to inject its backing from our time and labor. Value comes from us, would we refer to ourselves as money?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What can I say, I'm feeling cantankerous :twisted:

...if the letters of your name "is" altered ...if you're going to nitpick things like this, at least use proper grammar when you do so, ok? :)++

And you should probably cite the source of your "thinking", eh? After all, it's not like the argument you made in the first post was all original.

You seem like an interesting character to be bringing up the words "common sense".

My response:

Common sense meaning...Do you spell your name differently than how it is spelled on the paper? Most likely.

Are there legal dictionaries for legal terms and are they different than a lawful dictionary? Yes. So if there is different definitions, then are there different meanings? Common sense...yes. Can you see? The proof is right in front of us but may choose to seek proof elsewhere.

Name at least one verifiable case from a United States Courthouse that agrees with any of your "theories" (being a nice way to put it).

My response...

I do not know of any. Courthouses are for legal. I am trying to share for what is lawful and is not meant to be turned into a court case. It is meant for someone to understand they are not asking the right questions.

This legal mortgage stuff continues because we don ask the right questions and disagree with what is being done. So why wouldnt they throw a family out of their house so they can generate more profits......because we don't question their actions based on what is LAWFUL, we are questioning their actions based on what is LEGAL.

In other words, its legal to throw a family out of their house for not paying on a phony debt, BUT... because living beings are being harmed, it is UNLAWFUL.

Society has placed more importance on legal documents for profit sake, but neglects the living beings that causes the documents to exist in the first place!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Courts interpret the law. That is what I meant by "according to the law and the courts".

I did not say you were speaking dishonest, what I meant is...if you learn something to NOT be true, do you still continue sharing what you learn not to be true, or do you try to correct it, or just because its what the courts say.

Nothing you have written has been proven to be true. You have absolutely no proof of what you claim, yet you continue to espouse it as truth.

Legal documents, thats how the courts are structured so what I share, I do not expect it to go over well in court. My intentions are to learn and try to correct the mistakes outside of the court.

It usually doesn't go over well in court when you have no evidence to support your claims. Armed with nothing but opinions, theories, and a legal dictionary, you're going to "correct" so-called mistakes that you can't prove are mistakes in the first place? Good luck with that.

Proof:

If a mortgage was lawful, it would not need to be legal.

If the letters of your identity are altered in any way, that could change who you are ON PAPER. How many documents have you signed your name in all caps? How many Government docs do you receieve with your name in all caps?

In a "lawful" dictionary (concerning a live being), it may not be different in meaning. BUT in a legal dictionary, it does have a different meaning.

Is legal different than lawful? It must be, why else would they have their own legal dictionaries? Thats more proof.

None of that is proof. It's merely your opinion. Again, you can't back any of it up with either law or court precedent.

This has become more than tiresome. You're the one making the claims, so provide the evidence to back them up. Not opinions, theories, or definitions. Actual hard evidence.

Over and out.

May the Force be with you.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Edited by BV80
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a more honest, level headed, giving, and hard working poster on this board than BV80. You have the nerve to question his honesty and integrity. You sir are a moron and I can only hope your act is just to get a rise out of people and are not as much of an idiot as you come across. BV80 is too nice and level headed to say that. I'm not, you're an idiot. I'll say it and I won't back down from the statement.

You post garbage that is your right to post and then you ask for opinions and debate. However, anybody that posts anything, and I mean anything that is not in line with your thinking (which by the way is everybody) you question where they get their definitions and you try to come across as you are smarter than they are and you are just trying to help us/them understand.

BV80, as he always does, posts case law to support his position. What do you have to support yours? Nothing other than trying to make us look like we just don't understand. He posted FEDERAL COURT PRECEDENT you imbecile.

If you're trying out for some wrestling character where you are just so over the top stupid and moronic but your act is where you look down on those and come across as superior when you're really an idiot, you've won the championship belt. You've succeed and call Vince McMahon because you need a job.

"Does any one here NOT like being told truthful answers? Anyone?"

Yes we all love being told truthful answers. However we don't need you pi**ssing on our leg and trying to convince us it's raining.

What about honesty, does anyone like for someone to be dishonest to them?

No that is why we detest you.

Now I'm done, put me in time out and give me my points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.