What's in a NAME?

[salsero]

Thanks for your clear delination, Salsero. I admit my error: I have no claim on THE NAME. It is a legal fiction created by the state, for their benefit. What had me buffaloed was their 'claim' on the name, which carries with it the strong presumption that the user of the name is a debt serf, an employee of the socialist government corporation, and thus subject to jurisdiction under Roman (contract, lex mercatoria, UCC) law. Obtaining that jurisdiction is the entire purpose of the state's claim on the name. The state created it (first), thus they own it, and I can only use it; I have no right to tell the trustee what to do with his property. More importantly, I am not the beneficiary of the trust, and I have no obligation to use THE NAME. But now there is a problem; the 2nd dimension legal fictional jurisdiction that overlays the real world. I the natural man (people, not person) cannot contract with corporations; I must act within the office of a corporate person. So how to get electrical service, phone, bank account, etc? The whole purpose of the state claiming THE NAME is to establish their right to tax the property held by THE NAME. Just using THE NAME carries the presumption that 'you' (the people who acts as accommodation agent for legal person THE NAME) are a card-carrying employee of the trust, and that all you acquire in THE NAME belongs to the government.

Suppose that I create another NAME for my use, not owned by the government. I can easily file for a dba with the state, and that corporate person will be recognized, and the legal system will recognize that I own it (I recognize that I did not create the legal system, so let's say that I own the exclusive interest to use this new corporate person, at least free of any presumption that it suffers from some prior claim by the government). It will also fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC legal system, but without all the baggage of the presumption that I am a US citizen, ie, debt slave. This should greatly simplify proving the claim that 'I am not a US citizen, subject to your jurisdiction.' I (as agent for the NEW NAME), am still subject to the UCC, but now only for actual contracts, thus shedding all the presumptions associated with using the NAME that the state has assigned to me (think of it as going off the grid). I perceive that the use of a NAME provides the contracting parties with the basic presumption that certain rules (the UCC) are in effect, and that your NAME has agreed to accept service of process there. But at least creating your own NAME would take the government's interest out of the contract. Then you get the DMV to issue an identity card in your own NAME, and you drive on that. Now there is no presumption that you are in contract with the state or federal rules, codes, and regulations. Only common law applies.

My understanding of the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 is that the US government pledged all its assets to the bankers as security collateral for the debt. But the US corporate government did not own all the property in America. By using the debt obligations created by the endorsement of private bills of exchange (FRN's), the corporation perfected its claim on more and more of America, but it does not have a claim on privately held property. Some have said here on this blog that the people are deprived of money, thus cannot 'buy' anything. The stated benefit for the debt slaves is described by the corporation as being indemnified from having to actually pay for anything, ie, join us in this bankruptcy fraud (but we get to tax you for the privilege). But there is lawful money. Today it begins to look like a black market, but by using lawful money you can buy property and discharge all debts on it, including previous claims to it held by the corporate government. But if you put that property into YOUR NAME, you just re-create the government's claim on it, and they will still want to tax it... and you will have to take positive steps to rebut their presumptions. So maybe put it in the NAME you use that acknowledges God's trust, ie, your given name.

btw, Doug Casey calls FRN's "I owe you nothing"s. He calls Euro notes "Who owes you nothing"s... only gold is honest money, honest weight.

ps to Chex: gold is not currently money, due to the usurpation of fiat everywhere, but gold is wealth. It represents stored labor and resources in the real world.

Freed

All the state wants is you to be surety, it is just business. The state does not claim the name, it wants you to claim the Name. No use is not the same as ownership - you MUST rebut the presumption though. It is true, they automatically presume you are the surety for that property. Say you are in court, for example, you are asked to state YOUR name: you respond back with a question: What does your authority or legislation that a Name can identify a man? There is evidence that the Name is an estate and not a trust. Everything operates in a trust or like a trust because of the bankruptcy since nothing can be paid. Also NOTE: man or person has not OPTION but must use the name to do commerce UNLESS man wants to live in the mountains of no where. Commerce is required on planet earth, so let us get over this. The only question is who is liable for the Name? How would you separate this new name from the old one if it is a dba? You are still wanting to play in their sandbox. Re-read what you wrote carefully. This is why all the titles were "seized", the country needed "credit", only man's labor is real; HOWEVER, man is not the creditor, he is the SOURCE for their fictional credit. Do you see the difference? Creditor is a fiction, source is not a person. See? The FRB came into being in 1913, it was 20 years later, I believe the charter ran out, FDR had to do something. The only thing I can recommend is that when you are thinking of men v person, to remove assumptions and try and separate the two. Man does not fit into statutes at all, therefore, if you play in them, you open yourself up to controversy