Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 165

Thread: What's in a NAME?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    What's in a NAME?

    **
    What is*NAME?

    he*designation*of an*individual*person, or of a firm or*corporation. In law a man cannot have more than one*Christian name. Rex v. Newman, 1 Ld. Raytn. 062. As to the history of Christian names and surnames and their use and relative importance in law, see In re Snook, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 566.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/name/#ixzz2qUo0q8l8

    **What is*INDIVIDUAL?

    As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or*natural person*as distinguished from apartnership,*corporation, or*association*; but it is said that this restrictive signi- fication is not necessarily inherent in tbe word, and that it may, in proper cases, include*artificial persons. See Bank of U. S. v. State, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 400; State v. Bell Telephone Co.. 30 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583; Pennsylvania it. Co. v. Canal Com’rs, 21 Pa. 20. As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or*belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in*opposition*to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/individual/#ixzz2qUeTcFgl

    ** What is*ARTIFICIAL PERSON?

    A nonhuman entity that is created by law and is legally different owning its own rights and duties. AKA jusistic person and legal person. Refer to*body corporate.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/artifici...#ixzz2qUg6GJqT

    ** What is*BODY CORPORATE?

    A*corporation

    ** What is*CORPORATION?

    An*artificial person*or*legal entity*created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a*particular*oltice, but ordinarily*consisting*of anassociation*of numerous individuals, who subsist as a*body politic*under a specialdenomination, which is regarded In law as having a*personality*and existence distinct from that of its several members, and which is, by the same authority, vested with the capacity of*continuous*succession, irrespective of changes in its membership, either*in perpetuity*or for a limited term of years, and of acting as a unit or single*individual*in matters relating to the common purpose of the association, within the scope of the powers and*authorities*conferred upon such bodies by law. See Case of Sutton’s Hospital, 10 Coke. 32; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636, 657. 4 L. Ed. 629; U. S. v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160, 11 Sup. Ct. 57. 34 L. Ed. 640; Andrews Bros. Co. v. Youngstown Coke Co., 86 Fed. 585, 30 C. C. A. 293; Porter v. Railroad Co., 76 111. 573; State v. Payne, 129 Mo. 468, 31 S. W. 797. 33 L. R. A. 576; Farmers’ L. & T. Co. v. New York, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 2S3; State BL.LAW DICT.(2D ED.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/corporation/#ixzz2qUh4BV2S

    **What is*OFFICE?

    “Office” is defined to be a right to exercise a public or private*employment, and to take the fees and emoluments thereunto belonging, whether public, as those of magistrates, or private, as of bailiffs, receivers, or the like. 2 Bl. Comm. 36. Itow- land v. New York, 83 N. Y. 372; Dailey v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 330; Blair v. Marye, 80 Va. 495; Worthy v. Barrett, 03 N. C. 202; People v. Duane, 121 N. Y. 307, 24 N. E. 845; U. S. v. Ilartwell, 6 Wall. 393, 18 L. Ed. 830. That function by virtue whereof a person has some employment in the affairs of an- other, whether judicial,*ministerial,*legislative, municipal,*ecclesiastical, etc. Cowell. An employment*on behalf of*the government in any station or*public trust, not merely transient, occasional, or incidental. In re Attorneys’ Oaths, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 493. The most frequent occasions to use the word arise with reference to a duty and power conferred on an*individual*by the government; and, when this is the connection, “public office” is a usual and more discriminating expression. But a power and duty may exist without immediate grant from government, and may be properly called an “office;” as the office of executor, the office of steward. Here the individual acts towards legatees or towards tenants inperformance*of a duty, and in exercise of a power not derived from their consent, but devolved on him by an authority which quoad hoc is superior. Abbott. Offices may be classed as civil and military; and civil offices may be classed as political, judicial, and ministerial. Political offices are such as are not connected*immediately*with theadministration*of justice, or the execution of the mandates of a superior officer. Judicial are those which relate to the administration of justice. Ministerial are those which give the officer no power to judge of the matter to be done, and require him to obey the mandates of a superior. It is a general rule that a judicial office cannot be exercised by deputy, while a ministerial one may. Waldo v. Wallace, 12 Ind. 569. “Office” Is frequently used in the old books as an abbreviation for “inquest of office,” (q. v.)Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/office/#ixzz2qUnBlfIX
    **

    Question: Under the definition of corporation, the word, 'oltice' appears, which I believe is a typo for 'office'. I also noticed under the same definition that these occasions are "rare" that an individual artificial person might be an incumbent to an office.

    So my question is, how much weight should be given to "rare"?
    Last edited by Keith Alan; 01-15-14 at 07:40 PM. Reason: Ask a question

  2. #2
    I would concur that oltice is a typo for office, and note that when this definition was published, corporate legal entities consisting of one person holding all the offices of a corporation may have been rare, but since the Treasury began registering birth certificates and obligating them into the Federal bankruptcy trust under security agreements, the proliferation of single occupant corporations has blossomed. So I would say 'rare' should be ignored.

    Freed

  3. #3
    I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

    I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

    I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

    It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

    In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

    A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

    I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

    Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

    So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    It is an Inter-vivos Trust or life trust holding = settled by others UNDER the Seal [or Authority] of another - you might say the Estate is held in WARD or guardianship of a higher power. But you are Trustee for "yourself and your posterity". Therefore it is a vessel of the Public Trust.

    I go into much detail about this subject in future expressions. See if you can find ANY NAME listed in the Trust called Constitution. I will wait.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

    I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

    I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

    It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

    In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

    A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

    I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

    Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

    So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.
    If I may comment. The Name is Property, a person, estate, individual and so on. A Name is NOT a man or a baby. The public policy statutes/courts/state have the legal authority to administrate the Name. It is the State's property. The Name is NOT your property. The mere fact when you claim that Name as yours, you, the man have consented to fall under the jurisdiction thereof, accepting surety-ship for that Property.

    Births are not registered. The event is registered. If the birth of a baby was ever registered, this would be repugnant to law and suggest involuntary servitude. Please remember, we can volunteer servitude and we do this all the time when we, the men, make claims to that Property Name or Estate.

    One further comment - and this is what everyone has to really think about. Consent is presumed by your actions. Then is it confirmed by your claims. You, the man must remember who ALL those laws pertain to. Man is ONLY REQUIRED TO OBEY AND FOLLOW HIS CREATOR'S MANDATES, not man's. This includes love one another and be of service to mankind [loosely speaking]. When man starts with "my constitutional rights" or using their statutes, he consents to play in their sandbox.

    And it is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience.

    For more info on this thinking - you can go to www.notacitizen.com

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

    I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

    I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

    It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

    In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

    A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

    I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

    Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

    So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.
    Check out Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan concerning the concept of a person .....

    My opinion: the name is simply a designator for a container. The container is the legal concept of person.
    Last names did not become all the rage with governments until more organized systems of accounting develop to satisfy goverment's need for taxation and military enlistment.

    The name is a designator of an account to handle debits and credits whether such pertains to legal charges or commerce.
    An account is a chose in action or the right of the creditor to sue for debts owed.

    Let us also not forget the association known as the body politic. The birth certificate serves as evidence of induction of a being into a political body. Citizenship is a status (of servitude) as well as an office within a (public) corporation.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 01-25-14 at 02:14 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    My opinion: the name is simply a designator for a container. The container is the legal concept of person.
    Last names did not become all the rage with governments until more organized systems of accounting develop to satisfy goverment's need for taxation and military enlistment. The name is a designator of an account to handle debits and credits whether such pertains to legal charges or commerce. Let us also not forget the association known as the body politic. The birth certificate serves as evidence of induction of a being into a political body. Citizenship is a status (of servitude) as well as an office within a (public) corporation.
    La Carreta restaurants in Merrillville. http://www.yelp.com/biz/la-carreta-merrillville

    The raids were part of a larger investigation that targeted Mexican restaurants in cities across Indiana, including El Rodeo eateries in Indianapolis, Lafayette, West Lafayette and Richmond.

    Law enforcement officials were tight-lipped about what they are investigating, but they have made no arrests and filed no criminal charges as of yet.

    The Marion County Sheriff's Office assisted with the raid of an El Rodeo restaurant Monday in Indianapolis, which a police report said stemmed from a grand jury investigation.

    Officers took pictures of nine employees and seized cash, business documents and the cash registers, which they turned over to the grand jury, according to the case report.

    Arnulfo Gonzalez, the registered owner of both restaurants, did not return messages for comment Tuesday and Wednesday.
    http://www.nwitimes.com/business/loc...97d4c0403.html

  8. #8
    The constitutors entered their names as directors representing their constituents, but of course I think you meant in the articles.

    If the birth certificate is evidence of a trust, where is the trust indenture?

  9. #9
    The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

    Freed

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

    Freed
    A few things stick out - a natural person is still a person, meaning property. All property is vested in the state. As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

    I do not agree that you, the man own that property commonly referred to as a Name. Do you have evidence to support such a claim? I agree you are an accommodation party - or let's call a spade a spade, simply said, a presumed surety, then by your claims, consent to that fiduciary position. I agree, you have USE, control, possession of that Name but you are not the owner or beneficiary, creditor or for that matter debtor. These titles all fall under the jurisdiction thereof.

    I do not agree you get to "tell the trustee" anything, as that would be intermeddling. You, the man get to inform the trustee or executor or whatever that government fiduciary's title is to ADMINSTRATE ACCORDING TO THEIR LAW, THEIR OATH AND THEIR JOB DESCRITPION to take care of state property accordingly under the rules of usufruct. Control and possession and use is not the same thing as ownership. I never occurred any debt, the entity's Name that I use incurs debt. See? Man has no debt, persons have debt. See? The trust has nothing to do with me - really. The trust or estate [per IRS] has to do with their property that they MUST administrate according to law. The entity I use is a resident and citizen of the US. That entity was created and accepted by one of the subsidiaries of the US and the US purchased an interest in that entity for the US government's benefit.

    There is more but that is enough for the moment Tony

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •