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.

The state does claim the NAME; they claim ownership of the assets held in the NAME, which they pledge to the IMF as collateral. But more obviously, the state is a corporation, so the NAME created by them is a corporation (actually a limited liability corporation, or LLC). I get it that the state does not own me, the man, but they have interposed themselves between me and my right to contract, claiming legal title and leaving me only equitable title to any asset I buy. But there is a Constitutional nation in the geography of the US, and the Fed govt is just a legal overlay on that. And the only connection between the two is the presumption of voluntary servitude, ie, being a 'US citizen' rather than an American Citizen. Prior to the bankruptcy trust being created, ordinary Citizens owned assets in their given names. Is that not possible now? Apparently it is not possible if your NAME has been claimed by the fed govt, without your consent...

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.

[COLOR="#000000"][COLOR="#FF0000"] The state says that I can have the 'benefit' of using the NAME to contract with other legal entities, which as you say is almost required in this modern age, but I only act as agent for the LLC when I do use it. I am me, and the NAME is just an imaginary shell which I can put on to operate in the 2nd dimension, the imaginary plane of Roman law/contracts. If the judge asks my name, I will give him my given name, and state that I am people, not person.

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.

Wait! I claim that I do have an option, that I am not forced to use the NAME owned by the state, I am allowed to accept the benefit of not paying for it when I use the NAME. I am only forced to use the NAME if I intend to pay in their private, false currency. If I pay in lawful money, I can buy an asset which the state cannot claim ownership to (see 12 USC 95 a (2)), and I can title it in my own name. The title is only evidence of ownership; as AJ says, I the living man makes the claim of ownership. And he acquires this claim through applying his labor to modify some part of God's creation to make it more suitable to his purposes. Money is a representation of exchangeable labor; FRN's are a representation of promised future labor.

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.

The new name would be an LLC recognized by the State, not the Fed govt. North Carolina has a Constitutional government outside the US Federal government. So the new name is a State citizen, not a US citizen. And obviously it would have to be somewhat different from the NAME claimed by the fed govt, which I could then quit using.

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

Yes, I understand that the living man has no standing in a Roman court; the judge is not a judge at all, he is an administrator, authorized only to resolve contract disputes between corporate entities, one of whom is making a claim of a contract violation. My view there is that the state is making a claim against its own property, and trying to con me into accepting liability for this violation. But I am not a corporation, and my actions can only be limited by common law; as a sometimes beneficiary of the NAME, I will give my permission for the judge, as acting trustee for the trust, and in his capacity as a fiduciary agent for the People, to resolve the corporation's internal bookkeeping conflict in whatever way seems easiest to him, and I will grant him my sovereign immunity so that he will not face personal liability for doing so. Now the problem with this position is that the judge will want to be swayed by the preponderance of implied contracts associated with the NAME, which, as you note, it is almost impossible to avoid, as they now pervade every aspect of our lives (the Federal government is a partner in your marriage, remember those kinky three-way vows?). There is a presumption that you the natural man have benefited from the socialist corporate government policies, so you have undertaken liabilities associated with this invisible contract. Must rebut this entire mass of presumptions.

Freed