Is a name, an appellation property?
Printable View
Is a name, an appellation property?
Where did you put those two words together?
Appellation definition.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2...definition.jpg
Interesting.
I'm glad you dug that up.
Don't go with the term appellation :).
That is interesting all right.
I wondering about a policy enforcement officer demanding your name essentially.
I wonder if the demand is for the record and not the name so much?
The name is merely the keyword.
The policy enforcement officer is demanding your assistance in managing his principal's records.
I love Google Books :)
A Treatise on the Law of Names and the Changes of Names
Actually, if an officer does not have probable cause to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed, a person cannot be legally detained. Sadly, the definition of probable cause is whatever the officer is smart enough to articulate it is. In other words, an officer can create probable cause out of nothing.
Their SCOTUS has pronounced that all one is required to give an officer who has probable cause is "a name". Notice it is singular "a" name. The officer will then press for "full name" or "last name" or "date of birth" but there is no legal requirement for anything but "a" name.
Without probable cause, there is no requirement for anyone to even utter a word nor provide any information to a cop during a "field interview". Nor is there any requirement for anyone to have a legal name or last name.
Several times when I was an officer, I attempted to talk to persons in the street and the smart ones simply walked away from me, which was fine, since if I had PC, I usually just placed them under arrest without trying to bait them into a conversation to get it.
I can assure you, there is no difference in the terms at street level. If an officer uses any force or threatens force to stop you, it is an arrest, try resisting a 'civil detention' and you will be charged with 'resisting arrest' or 'aggravated assault on a police officer', the officer on the scene has nearly total discretion in such matters.
In the vast majority of cases, if an officer can articulate a reason for whatever he/she does or has done, it is supported by the department, that is how I was trained and I know it is the same today.
My point is, standing face to face with an armed and usually ignorant policy officer is NOT the time nor place to be discussing the finer points of legal terms. Give them a name if requested. You have done everything required of you, proceed then according to your own knowledge and skill from there.
As for the main question of this thread, it is pretty clear to me, they consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property.
They may consider a legal name (all CAPS) their property until they are properly informed that the FIRST MIDDLE LAST has been redeemed and claimed by the proper heir (True Name) as a landed estate of inheritance.
Provide the True Name, in my case it is Anthony Joseph, and no other information whatsoever.
"I do not understand the legal nature of your questions or requests."
"I am absent your claimed jurisdiction."
"I am absent your claimed controversy."
If they present you with a "Commercial Instrument", do not argue; you have 72 hours to timely and honorably exercise your inherent right of refusal to contract. Form and keep the proper and lawful record of your refusal. Be sure to send copies of your lawful clerical process to the clerk of court where the "Commercial Instrument" will be entered as a "case".
Attachment 836
Page 4 and page 9 of the attached file shows the result of my latest encounter. I was impeded on the right of ways by a county deputy sheriff. I was presented a commercial instrument claiming "DRIVER NOT BELTED". I refused for cause timely, also furnishing the attached MEMORANDUM (page 4), and sent this evidence to my evidence repository (LoR case jacket) in the US District Court near my area. Page 9 shows the result - NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME.
Thank you AJ!
Here is another example of redemption with a used car purchase.
Thank you martin earl. Your commentary, coming from a former law enforcement officer, is not only appreciated but lends some credence and jusification to the stance and approach I utilized during my latest encounter.
I have already acknowledged how much of an asset it is to have you here among our cyberspace gathering and I wish to further thank you for your insight and contributions as a former "insider" who can provide us with knowledge into the psyche of the roving law enforcement officer's "mentality" we may encounter in our daily lives.
I again wish to give proper credit where it is due and it always starts with David Merrill as he is the one who cured me of my "schitzophrenia" or "psuedonomania" as he calls it. I have expressed that in the past many times and I thank him again for being God's "conduit of truth" regarding one's "True Name", redeeming lawful money and proper record forming.
I am in the midst of redeeming and claiming my inheritance and naming the chief judicial probate officer as my "master of the bench" and "privy counsellor" regarding any attempted claims against my declared private estate property (FIRST MIDDLE LAST).
So far, it seems to be working in my favor; why else would a desperate court system starving for revenue decide to "TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME" just because some "joe schmoe" decided to send a MEMORANDUM along with his timely Refusal for Cause of their "Commercial Instrument Traffic Ticket"? There is revenue there waiting to be collected and yet they decide to "TAKE NO ACTION..."???
When I was in a Messianic Jewish congregation I began to study the Jewish tradition of Bible Study down at the federal repository, as I call it. Which is to say rather than Government Documents being a part of the campus library, I think of it as a Government Document library with a whole slew of tangential material, so much so that the campus utilizes it to teach a wider curriculum.
One thing I recall encountering was that the Talmud is Oral Law. That confused me at first because the Talmud is in book form. For a long time though, the teachings found in the Talmud were passed down from generation to generation orally. This was Jewish Bible Study and around the time of CHRIST the rabbis felt this tradition was in danger so they began to immortalize it by putting it to book form.
This is what common law has become - case law. Stare decisis. In some discussions and conversation this is becoming more clear to me. The action of drawing upon the written law (Laws of Moses) through a written constitution (Nehemiah 10) was an oral tradition - the constitution-forming itself, put into written form, like the Talmud that followed.
Legislation follows the same form. The 'saving to suitors' clause is the reason that redemption had to be written into the elastic currency of 1913. The 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 follows written tradition:
A false balance is an abomination to the LORD but a just weight is His delight. Proverbs 11:1
That is what the 'saving to suitors' clause says. Whenever men on the land can form jural society enough to run self-government, that self-government prevails and brings them (home rule) out of the laws of the sea. When men are incompetent to do so, then the law of the sea shall govern.
The first consitution in America is recognized as the Fundamental Orders of 1639:
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5069/capitallaws.jpg
When providing identity information and other personal and private information to organizations and entities, it is done contingent upon certain expectations about how that information will be used. It is generally taken completely for granted that the basic rights and guaranteed protections of law afforded to individuals and their identity information will be respected by credible organizations.
The NCIDP has found that this trust is misplaced more often than not.
The Identity Information User License Agreement (IIULA), as the NCIDP has standardized it, puts into legal terms and written legal contract those expectations. It also serves formal notice of the laws to anyone handling the identity information, depriving them of claims of ignorance of those laws and the protections that those laws guarantee.
The IIULA gives notices of the rule of law as applicable across the entire United States, dealing with Federal court case law and other nationally applicable law. State laws may vary and may offer additional protections (which are generically invoked by the IIULA wherever they exist and offer such additional protections), but State laws cannot contravene any of the nationally applicable legal standards noticed in the IIULA. Moreover, the relevant case law is largely well-settled Constitutional law establishing rights that cannot be infringed even by acts of the Federal Congress, and that are significantly protected against all but amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
http://ncidpolicy.org/iiula.html I haven't had the need to use this but it makes sense to me. It might be the right thing to take to the locals and have them sign one before any other chance encounters.
Q. Is a name property ?
A. You bet it is, if you claim it, otherwise who else does it belong to?
Their name is their property. My name is my property. I only give my name as a matter of trust.
no trust, no name. And no, they have no right to give me a trust named JOHN DOE, either.
By the way, what happens in their courts, with their name (whatever that is, has NOTHING to do with me) simply put, they have proven they are not worthy of my tust.
I checked and that Google Doc is still there. I have it on the openly shared setting too. There are pulldown arrows on the right side as I view the documents indexed.
I believe this is the same demonstration.
I am thinking that the problem is that you are in Canada? There might be some Google restrictions in Canada, I don't know.
P.S. Thank you for mentioning it!
YES, excellent! Their name, their account. "This name and account number are the property of the United States - Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States"
Thank you EZ;
That is redemption of lawful money on demand. There is a whole mythology built around there being an account at the Treasury. Money belongs to government. That is why they claim to be able to fine and imprison you for destroying their property.
However you have the right to redeem the note. Further than that, you have the right to make the demand and expect that the government will comply as this is your WORD - your DEMAND. You connect to your heritage by your word.
Make your demand. That is really where the Lesson Plan begins. From there things begin to fall into place.Quote:
Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Isa 58:14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
yes as long as you notice them,
my person had amount a few thousand in fines for no dl, no car insurance from the insurance company of British Columbia (icbc)
a couple of times a year my person would get a statement from icbc saying the account (which just happened to be the same number as the dl number) was over due,
after a couple years of this going on and i doing nothing about it is when i decided to do something about it,
so i covered the name and address on the envelope and replaced it with a new one, it said,
"Forward to creator and owner of the name"
then i put vital statistics address on it from the province in which i was born,
its been 7 months and i have not had another statement sent to me...crossing fingers still and hoping for the best,
but it looks like i hit a nerve,
FABULOUS and CONGRATULATIONS!!!
I was reading here http://books.google.com/books?id=sYk...%20law&f=false and found out that in the common law of England, subjects' names can belong to the Crown.
Some but not all names can be inherited. Names are established by custom and usage. Baptismal names are regarded the highest form of names.
I baptize Attachment 985 in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The baptismal name, ie christened or Christian name, is sanctioned by the Church. I'm going on memory now, but a strong case was made here - http://books.google.com/books?id=sYk...%20law&f=false - that name changes without authority are without legal effect.
I find that very interesting. It appears that a Christian name is sanctioned by the Church and its authority, while the surname is today sanctioned by the State. A person's front name is also sanctioned by the State, in lieu of being sanctioned by the Church. The idea that a man can adopt a new name at will - and without legal repercussion - appears to be spurious, at least according to that treatise. This explains why courts continue referring to people as AKA or alias, even after they begin using their Christian name only.
Now, connecting this with the idea that the NAME is subject to a trust, is another interesting exercise. I think the way to look at the NAME, rather than it being property, it is instead the authority the NAME re-presents to society that is subject to the trust. If someone assigns himself a new name, and begins using it according to an unrecognized authority, he is acting outside the bounds of civil society, and automatically is regarded with suspicion.
By itself, a name may indeed by property, but unless there is some kind of acting authority sanctioning its use, one is using it unlawfully in matters concerning Church and State. I am reminded of Moses' question to the Lord, where in response permission was given to refer to God as: I Am Who I Am. The Lord did not submit by providing a NAME. Moses and the people were given a license to use that appelation in place of a name.
It appears to me that defining what a NAME is makes for a very difficult proposition. I would say that a NAME is a symbol of authority (or lack of authority) to act in society. So in court, when a NAME is called to appear, what really is being asked is for the man to declare (by his appearance) the authority to whom he submits.
The question about whether a NAME is subject to a trust, then, seems to be entirely on the shoulders of the one bearing it. I suppose one could call that role an executor, unless the actor is incompetent. The man is free to choose unto whom he places his trust, and call on that authority to act in his stead.
JULIET
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
ROMEO
[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
JULIET
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
Not true :).
Check this link for more info: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist..._marriage.html
That treatise was probably written concerning the laws and custom of England rather than of the United States as well.
Too bad. Custom is custom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seosaidh
Declaration is what is used by most even today as far as name goes.
Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seosaidh
A family Bible was all the authority for many years.
If someone else can name you, they have power over you.
A name is also an account particularly upon registration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seosaidh
An account is a chose in action.
:D
i know someone who has done it,
if you want to make it rock solid then Authentic or legalize it,
http://www.redsealnotary.com/apostille-canada.html
http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/authentication/index.htm
"Governments and organizations sometimes require that documents for use in foreign countries be authenticated in order to be accepted. Authentication, for purposes in British Columbia, means the signature of the B.C. official who signed the document has been authenticated (sometimes called legalized) by the Government of British Columbia."
An account is a chose in action.
Chose is French ... meaning thing.
An action is a suit or lawsuit.
Lawsuits at common law were called actions for the actions were considered more important than the claim.
Doesn't do much good being a creditor if the debtor doesn't act to repay, does it?
A chose in action is a type of right.
A chose in action is also a right to sue for recovery.
Taxes due to the English King were a chose in action.
Once paid, the payment become a chose in possession.
An account is a type of chose in action giving the grantor the right to sue the grantee for failure to satisfy the account.
If there is a balance outstanding on an account that hasn't been paid in awhile, the grantor or creditor will go to court for recovery of monies owed.
THIS ... is why you want to be careful which accounts you open.
A name creates an account for administering credits and debits upon you. In this case, the credit and debits are charges, reputation, etc.
If you need citations for anything I've said, let me know. I have them for everything except the last sentence. It is conjecture.
STATISTICS CANADA
Statistics bureau
3. There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are
(a) to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistical information relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people;
Coding system for goods
22.1 (1) The Chief Statistician shall establish a coding system for goods imported into and exported from Canada to enable the Chief Statistician to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to those goods.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm
this is what happens with the birth of a name,
collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish,
publish = publishing rights, publishing rights = copyrights
the name is "statistical" by publication,
records a form,
analyse must be codifying,
it has to be codified before it can become an abstract,
this is why the arts play such a huge role in government,
publication,
they collected a name and published it,
we use the name and now are infringing on their publication rights,
so if thats the case we need to claim the information they collected before it was analysed, codified and published,