Thanks for the comments, guys. I'll take them in order:

Keith, your corporate person is a legal fiction, an imaginary entity which exists only in the abstract, rational world of thought. It serves as a public utility, perhaps being the acceptor of service is its highest goal. Because the federal government is a corporation, and it wants to control the populace through Lex Mercatoria, and has no jurisdiction over natural man, the living being, there is incentive for the government to make sure everyone has a corporate person. And it is to their benefit for this corporate entity to be in contract with the government, otherwise their statutory courts have no jurisdiction over the corporate entity (statutory courts are not actually courts, they are administrative offices to resolve contract disputes between corporate parties (and are corporate subdivisions of the federal corporation). Because so much of US business is run by corporations, and because corporations cannot contract with natural persons, it is actually beneficial to you to have a corporate entity under your control. [corporation: (from the Latin corpus - body, ie, without head]. You are the head of your corporate entity. It is not an agent for anyone; it is your servant, your gateway into doing business (negotiating contracts) with other corporations. And statutory courts exist to resolve disputes involving those contracts. Anyone can create a corporate entity by simply recording your desire to do so with the Secretary of State; this puts it into the public record, so others can see who owns the entity. You can operate without a corporate entity, but you will not be able to buy electricity service, phone service, have a bank account, etc.

Walter, who should own your NAME? Who can legally own your NAME? If you claim your NAME and record it in the public record, then your corporate person is indeed your NAME, all of it, given birth names and family nomen. When capitalized, YOUR NAME is the corporate fictional entity that exists only in the realm of rational thought; uncapitalized, it is you the natural person. You are the lawful owner of YOUR NAME. As noted to Keith above, you need a corporate entity to operate in our corporate world, and YOUR NAME is the ideal PERSON for you to use (keeps it simple). As to the trust set up by the Treasury at your birth, it is a typical trust that anyone might set up for say an orphan child. The Trustee takes on the responsibility to hold the title to and manage the estate until the child reaches maturity, which legally is sui juris. There is no Security Agreement - did you sign one? The Trustee took it upon himself to make the choice for the beneficiary to pledge his assets as security towards the federal debt. Until you put in an appearance and make a claim for your estate, that presumption by the Trustee stands. YOUR NAME is just the label under which the records are kept. Actually, the Trustee claimed your birth certificate, accepted it for value, and sold it (pledged it) as collateral for the debt. So there is a presumption that you have mortgaged your body, and the government gets to keep title to it until the debt is paid (never gonna happen). But that was also a presumption by the Trustee which will stand until you rebut it. When you make a demand for lawful money, you rebut the presumption by the Trustee that you want to be responsible for the federal debt. This unwinds all actions taken by the Trustee based on that now false presumption. The Trustee must pay back the debt secured by your birth certificate, so he can free it to give to you, the lawful owner. He must also pay back all the debt presumed to be secured by your assets, removing the lien imposed by the use of debt money, so he can deliver legal title to those assets. Legal title reverts to YOUR NAME. The Treasury keeps the account titled in YOUR NAME, but it is not a trust any more, as a trust is only valid when it has assets in it.
And Walter, I showed that part to my son, and he sputtered a variety of ill-conceived objections, too, because the concept of trusts is too legal for him, hence he is afraid. Education is the only thing that will overcome mindless fear, and we cannot force people to seek knowledge. They can remain in the trust, debt slaves for life.

ag-maniac, by bearer I presume you mean the person who answers for YOUR NAME. If you answer as YOUR NAME, and not as agent for YOUR NAME, then yes, the presumption has been confirmed: you are the beneficiary, and for today's court case, you will be assigned the status of trustee de son tort, liable for whatever contract YOUR NAME has been found to have violated. As accommodation agent for YOUR NAME, you have the right to choose with whom you will contract, so you can Refuse for Cause any statutory violation the court offers to contract for, but only if YOUR NAME is not a statutory citizen. If YOUR NAME and all your assets are still pledged to the national debt, then YOUR NAME is in contract with the corporate US government, and all statutes apply to it. Now you see why the Trustee pledged YOUR NAME as security for the national debt: it is about getting you into contract, so the statutes apply. Thus the court will find that it has jurisdiction, and that you the man will have to meet the obligations inherent in violating the statute. For instance, NC has a concealed carry permit program. Under the Constitution, you have a right to carry any weapon you want, concealed or not, but as a statutory citizen, you may have the privilege of carrying concealed only after you buy a permit. You begin to see what power the whole program of a bankruptcy trust, with its attendant pledge of your body and assets, gives to the corporate government: they can now turn unalienable rights into paid privileges...

Keith, at 17459 in the Consent to Service of Process thread, that is an example of the matrix, since I doubt that more than 100 people have read that statute. The solution there would be to not register the certificate of title to your vehicle with the state. I am preparing a letter to DMV here in NC to explore that situation even now; the state is not likely to allow a situation where some vehicles are not plated (half the people who saw it would start investigating how they could avoid registration...), but at the minimum I want to get the vehicle off the state's tax rolls, as the state has no claim of ownership. I am not aware of any such statute here, but my approach would be to demonstrate that I am not a statutory citizen, and then employ UCC 1-308 because the terms of the contract were not fully disclosed, thus I did not consent knowingly. Certainly there is nothing in the drivers license form that suggests such an implied contract; nowhere did I agree to obey traffic laws. There are hundreds, you can't know them all, and half of them are stupid, so obey the ones that make sense and assist the peaceful flow of traffic, ignore the rest, and drive responsibly.

Freed