Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
"Can I please have your name?"

"my name is my property, however, at this time you may call me ______"

simply answering when called is not a divestment of property
Final comment and then I wish you the best.

Can I please have your name? my response would be - what makes you think I own such a thing? Please identify yourself: I am from the Pre-existent Father, a Son in the Pre-existent One. or I am a self-aware flesh and blood living soul - do you rebut this? A piece of paper can NEVER identify a man. A piece of paper is an IMAGE of the real property. Does one prefer to live in a house or have a piece of paper re-presenting the house?

What evidence can you provide to this group that YOUR name is YOUR property?

THe evidence I have that proves that Name is not mine but I am a MERE USER of said property begins with the BC. The BC certificate I requested had a letter sent that stated BC FOR JOHN SMITH. No where on that BC is MY signature. It has a state seal signed by an official trustee for the state. It is a certified COPY where the state retains the original document - held in trust where the state receives benefit. I, a man can not have that original document. PERIOD. If I were the owner of MY PROPERTY NAME, then the state must turn that document over to me.

There is other evidence that the name has been created for the benefit for the state and that MAN wrongly makes claims against that property or estate. But the above gets the ball rolling for those this info resonates.

If we were living pre-1930s, I would agree with you. However, we are not. I do not believe the common law is 100% dead, but lets just say after the Erie RR case -1938, public policy is the ruling system. Again, I would never say 100% bringing up common law in a jurisdiction would NOT work, I am saying the odds are against it. As far as those that support common law, in my opinion, the reason why you may get a free pass and the case would be dismissed is due to THEY do not want their trade secrets exposed. It is easier to let one slide then risk many.

If common law is working for you in everything - Mazel Tov. I wish you the very best.

And I agree with you - simply answering when called IS NOT a divestment of property. The state has NOT given up any rights to its property, it is a simple matter of who is consenting to be surety to the claim being made.

Tony