Identity Theft

Celeritus

New Member
Jurisdiction
Ohio
I have endured an ordeal indefinitely, and therein during approximately 1972; the Supreme Courts alleged that Laws required any Civilian to relinquish the discretion of their Identity and Assets or such Civilians were in violation of a Law which required them to comply.
I refused to relinquish my Identity and Assets since the allegations that any Laws required any Civilians to relinquish their Identity and Assets to the Supreme Courts appeared out of context of Law and Constitution.
 
I have endured an ordeal indefinitely, and therein during approximately 1972; the Supreme Courts alleged that Laws required any Civilian to relinquish the discretion of their Identity and Assets or such Civilians were in violation of a Law which required them to comply.
I refused to relinquish my Identity and Assets since the allegations that any Laws required any Civilians to relinquish their Identity and Assets to the Supreme Courts appeared out of context of Law and Constitution.

That's so vague that no meaningful comments can be provided. What exactly is it that has happened to you? What is it, specifically, that the government is demanding of you that you refuse to do?
 
I have endured an ordeal indefinitely, and therein during approximately 1972; the Supreme Courts alleged that Laws required any Civilian to relinquish the discretion of their Identity and Assets or such Civilians were in violation of a Law which required them to comply.
I refused to relinquish my Identity and Assets since the allegations that any Laws required any Civilians to relinquish their Identity and Assets to the Supreme Courts appeared out of context of Law and Constitution.
One Asset is a Multi Billio
That's so vague that no meaningful comments can be provided. What exactly is it that has happened to you? What is it, specifically, that the government is demanding of you that you refuse to do?
The Supreme Courts of Ohio required complete discretion of my Identity, and to control any Assets of which I was denied any information, alrhough throughout my experience and any exposure; those Assets include a Multi Billion Dollar Trust, a small Mansion in California, and other Land there abouts, but derive from different Estates. Then I was denied any Knowledge of my Anatomical Sexuality as a Single Individual Minority. The details should not be necessary to comprehend that I have been denied information and opportunity while my Identity and Assets have been obstructed grom my Access and Knowledge.
Therefore I can attest that the Supreme Courts believes that a Law allows them discretion and control of any Civilians Identity and Assets of which they might adk us to relinquish.
 
One Asset is a Multi Billio

The details should not be necessary to comprehend that I have been denied information and opportunity while my Identity and Assets have been obstructed grom my Access and Knowledge.

Of course the details matter. There are circumstances in which a person may legally be blocked from accessing his own assets. For example, if you were declared incompetent to manage your own affairs the court would appoint a conservator to manage your finances and you'd not have the ability to make your own financial decisions.
 
I have endured an ordeal

What sort of ordeal?

and therein during approximately 1972

Huh?

the Supreme Courts alleged

"The Supreme Courts" (plural)? Which ones? Also, supreme courts don't "allege" things. Rather, supreme courts, like other courts, order and decide things.

that Laws required any Civilian to relinquish the discretion of their Identity and Assets

Which laws? What does "the discretion of their identity" mean?

any Laws . . . appeared out of context of Law

I see....

I was denied any Knowledge of my Anatomical Sexuality

Ummm...what?

The details should not be necessary to comprehend that I have been denied information and opportunity while my Identity and Assets have been obstructed grom my Access and Knowledge.

Perhaps they should not be necessary, but they are. Your two posts in this thread are nothing but gibberish.
 
Of course the details matter. There are circumstances in which a person may legally be blocked from accessing his own assets. For example, if you were declared incompetent to manage your own affairs the court would appoint a conservator to manage your finances and you'd not have the ability to make your own financial decisions.
The Post is focused upon any Supreme Courts statement to insist that any individual relinquish their identity to the Courts discretiion.
 
Whats vague about it ?

My response (#6 in this thread) details how your initial post and first follow up are vague gibberish.

The Post is focused upon any Supreme Courts statement to insist that any individual relinquish their identity to the Courts discretiion.

That makes no sense. How exactly might a person "relinquish [his or her] identity," and how could anything be "relinquish[ed] . . . to the Court[']s discretion"?

By the way, in another thread of yours, you also posted a bunch of nonsensical gibberish, which I also detailed, and I asked several questions that you ignored.

Here's another post of yours that is a bunch of gibberish.
 
The Post is focused upon any Supreme Courts statement to insist that any individual relinquish their identity to the Courts discretiion.


The Name Game, would be my guess.

 
There was a guy "down the street" a week or two ago that used this kind of convoluted gibberish. I don't recall what his deal was but it was just as lacking in lucidity as this fellow. Wonder if they're related?
 
Back
Top