When filling out information, when asked for last name do I simply not fill it in? Or when asked, do I use true name for first and last? I am still trying to unhinge my mind from the ugly head.
Frederick Raymond III of the family Yahne
Printable View
When filling out information, when asked for last name do I simply not fill it in? Or when asked, do I use true name for first and last? I am still trying to unhinge my mind from the ugly head.
Frederick Raymond III of the family Yahne
I know who I am, and I know What I do business as. I am First Middle dba FIRST M LAST, SS# XXX-XX-XXXX.
If the purpose is to clearly and unambiguously communicate separate liability of the LEGAL NAME from the true name, I think it may be better to sign thus:Quote:
Originally Posted by John Howard
FIRST M LAST By: First Middle, Authorized Agent
My rationale: A dba is legally considered to be merely an alias of the owner for business purposes, and liability flows through the dba directly to the owner. This is why some people find it desirable to incorporate their business, so as to separate their personal liability from that of their business entity.
Excerpt from Uniform Commercial Code in a Nutshell, 6th ed. page 228: (With respect to negotiable instruments)
If A signs the name of A to an instrument and the signature is an authorized signature of P, the following rules apply:
1) If the form of the signature shows unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of P who is identified in the instrument, A is not liable on the instrument. [Sections] 3-402(b)(1), 1-201(b)(33). Example: Peter Principal Corporation, by Alice Agent, Treasurer.
2) If (i) the form of the signature does not show unambiguously that the signature is made in a representative capacity (Case #3 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2) or (ii) P is not identified in the instrument (Cases #1 & 2 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2): A is liable on the instrument to a holder in due course that took the instrument without notice that A was not intended to be liable on the instrument.
END OF EXCERPT
It seems the surest way to remove any ambiguity is to identify along with the signature the representative capacity under which the true name is signing. Thus the use of "By" before the signature and the title "Authorized Agent" after the signature. "Agent" or "Representative" would suffice as well. Use of dba alone would appear to be ambiguous, even though the true name and LEGAL NAME are not the same.
"Under Sec. 3-402(b)(2) [the signer] is prima facie liable... (if) the form of the signature does NOT unambiguously refute personal liability (ibid. p. 231)
For example, the excerpt above provides three cases where "Alice Agent" would be liable to a holder in due course.
Case #1 Alice signs "Alice Agent."
Case #2 Alice signs "Alice Agent, Treasurer."
Case #3 the name "Peter Principal" is written on the note and immediately below that name Alice signs "Alice Agent."
It is interesting to note that personal checks generally have the words "Authorized Signature" repeated over and over in micro-print to form the signature line on the check. Look at any personal check under a magnifying glass and see for yourself. This is a great way to introduce people to the "all is not what it seems" idea btw. When I just tell people about this, they usually do not believe it. But seeing is believing. To use the Matrix analogy, it is as good a "red pill" as I have found.
The micro printing of "Authorized Signature" is clear evidence that the banking system understands (but wants us not to understand) that the LEGAL NAME is not the same person as the one with the true name. Anyone signing such a check without making an unambiguous indication that true name is not assuming liability for LEGAL NAME is going to thereby assume liability on the instrument. This completes the illusion in the mind of most people that they are in fact the LEGAL NAME printed at the top left corner of their personal checks.
I really enjoy your slang!Quote:
Originally Posted by Doskias
You have it right - it is conditioning. Do you have a last name? Your family's name is Yahne, which is a really beautiful name - I have never seen it. I think it is similar to a musician in pronunciation.
Does having a last name serve you? Under the circumstances in which your are called to give a last name?
The issue evolves around Information. Information indicts. Juries consider Information; evidence and testimony. If you lie about your name then you indict yourself.
Try viewing the entire situation in context of contract or trust law. What benefit would you get from dawning the legal entity? You, Frederick Raymond will in almost any situation (contract) become the trustee responsible for settling charges against the Frederick Raymond Yahne which is usually expressed as constructive trust FREDERICK RAYMOND YAHNE III. In international circles and commonly in France (long story about a Mary there) you would express yourself correctly Frederick Raymond YAHNE III.
You might get your mind wrapped around this quickly or take a look at the suitor Lesson Plan:
1) Identity
2) Record forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money
In other words this is a big step but it is really simplifying things to the fact that you have always been named Frederick Raymond. Any variation expresses a relationship. The only sounds that indicate you as a man sound like when you pronounce Frederic Raymond. If you vary that then the linguistics indicate there is a variation going down.
I agree with your take on that MOTL.....& I also like your well thought out posts....your thoughts on the following please:Quote:
Originally Posted by ManOntheLand
Alfred Adask likes to use the phrase "At Arm's Length" before/above his signature to set him apart from the trust name....what say you?
Thanks for the kind words a.m.!
I am a regular reader of Alfred Adask. He has reported some magical results from using "At Arm's Length" in dealing with arrests and criminal charges, if I recall correctly. I think the power of knowing the distinction between trust name and true name is immense, (regardless of how you express it) and makes the system far less likely to want to deal with you in a public forum, lest you "infect" others with your knowledge.
Having said that, in terms of refuting presumption of liability of the signer of an instrument, I do not personally use "At Arm's Length" but I think it is probably a sufficiently unambiguous way of expressing your intent not to be a surety for the trust name, as long as the LEGAL NAME and true name are both used.
For example:
FIRST M LAST By First Middle, At Arm's Length
This would at least suggest that you are acting in a representative capacity, rather than as a surety for FIRST M LAST. I prefer a more explicit expression of that idea by using a title e.g. "agent", "authorized agent", or "authorized representative":
FIRST M LAST By First Middle, Agent
I think the intention to separate the trust name from true name would be sufficiently expressed if you just wrote: At Arm's Length (signature)
BUT, it is not enough to merely set oneself apart from the trust name, it is also important to refute the presumption that you are signing as a surety (i.e. accepting the liability) for the trust name.
To sign an instrument without accepting liability, the rules in U.C.C. require a named principal, and for the agent who is signing the instrument to indicate the agent's representative capacity. Otherwise, agent will be presumed the liable party, even if a principal is named.
Under those rules, therefore, this signature:
FIRST M LAST, first middle
would be presumed to indicate that first middle is a surety for FIRST M LAST.
But this signature:
FIRST M LAST, by first middle, At Arm's Length
unambiguously refutes the liability of the signer.
Thank you all for the explanations and direction. This really helped me understand when and where to use legal name versus true name.
I am still doing research on the family name. It is pronounced /ya/-/ne/ (both vowels with macrons, for some reason forum replaces the macron with a ?)or in correlation with English words, yay-knee. The furthest I have been able to go back is from 1791 when my ancestor came from Saxony, Germany to the United States of America. Strangely I believe the family name is a variation of John in German. Other than people I know that is family, the only other time I have seen the name is as a first name in France primarily and once/current French controlled territories and all were females. I can though with much confidence believe that it is an unique family name.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
I have been reading tons of posts here and am grateful to have come across this forum. I have been sharing this with my grandfather so it is nice to have someone I can take to and converse about it with.
When heritage meets destiny there is peace.
The objective of being at peace is to be removed legally from the actual theater of war. The constitutions are void on the actual theater of war.
You are welcome and it is great that you are posting here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doskias
You have a great head start on the rest of us!! I have attached an example, a fellow had his Notice of Appeal STRICKEN. [Wouldn't that be a bitch? The trial judge simply striking your notice of appeal as a mistake?] Look quick though - the whole matter might be vacated as though it never happened? Funny if you look close how SIMON has no oath of office? (Attached.) It stirs images of another famous SIMON - Simon MAGUS of the Bible.
Crosstalk:
Quote:
Good morning! The brain trust originated from my tendency to program macros instead of answering the same questions over and over to different suitors.
Sorry sometimes simple things get complicated for me.
That is not uncommon. FIRST MIDDLE LAST is the constructive trust (paragraph 22) – First Middle Last is the Trustee and your name is First Middle – always has been.
Each time the above trusts are referenced in the Trust Document, they are printed in all capital letters.
The trick if for you to understand your name is not First Middle Last just because you use it to express your relationship (trustee) with the account held in the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust.
If for some reason you wish to express your full or legal name but not really be using it then write it First Middle LAST so that you can separate yourself from any assumptions you meant to use it. – That you gave it for legal purposes. Does that help?
An example was last night when taking the first in a series of classes. There was a Student Information Sheet in the Workbook to be filled out. It had a line for Name, Address, Phone but the instructor told us all that they “needed” our Date of Birth – Day/Month/Year format. [For Address I wrote: By name.] She did not say why. I did not put it in there. Why did she need it? She would probably say, Oh, we wont do anything with it!
But why do you need that Information?
Don’t worry, we won’t give it out to anybody!
But why do you need that Information?
It’s okay – trust us. We wont do anything with it.
I do not have a Date of Birth. (No DoB for you then!)
What you need to do is be careful about giving out Information unnecessarily – on naked contract.
For your second question, I think it would be nice to have First Middle LAST on a check. Here a prominent local attorney managed to express what I mean correctly in the phone book. John Ferguson was not even thinking about it – he probably just did not want anybody to know his address because that secret society (BAR) creates enemies. I would like to see that. I think in France (a Mary myth revealed) that would be conventional. I saw a travel documentary where a Bed and Breakfast in France had the dining room placements in that fashion and when the Club de Paris announces names they use it too.
Somebody pointed out something important about one of my points above:
Quote:
I'm concerned that you're using a private website run by Paul Andrew Mitchell, apparently not updated since Jan. 2010, to determine a valid oath for Judge SIMON not appointed until 2011.
http://supremelaw.org/
Then again it might explain why the judge is coaxing the clerk into striking a Notice of Appeal; he doesn't know what he is doing?