Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 165

Thread: What's in a NAME?

  1. #11
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    the Name is a gift

    you may use your gift, or not, depending upon if you believe it is of benefit; or, it will cause you harm or injury

    man is unbound - unlimited in his capacity; he has the inherent right to choose to 'do' and 'act' however he wishes, without recourse, unless he commits harm, injury or breach against another man

    that is all there is to common law

  2. #12
    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

  3. #13
    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

  4. #14
    Civil Code of Québec


    DIVISION II
    USE OF NAME

    55. Every person has a right to the respect of his name.

    He may use one or more of the given names stated in his act of birth.

    1991, c. 64, a. 55.

    56. A person who uses a name other than his or her own is liable for any resulting confusion or damage.

    The holder of a name as well as his or her married or civil union spouse or close relatives may object to such use and demand redress for the damage caused.

    1991, c. 64, a. 56; 2002, c. 6, s. 2.

  5. #15
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    no man, woman or 'government' has a right to disparage or deny the right of people (man) to be secure in their property [cf. 4th amendment "... persons, houses, papers and effects...]

    can you have a 'person' without a name?

    no one has a right to interfere with your property [cf. person, name]

    property is NOT 'Ownership' or 'Title'; it is that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others at this time; and, until i say other wise

    someone must come forward and verify a higher claim to said property than yours

    come forward now; i will accept all claims to said property, verifiable under oath or affirmation in open court; and, the record will reflect what is true and who makes the highest claim

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by walter View Post
    Civil Code of Québec


    DIVISION II
    USE OF NAME

    55. Every person has a right to the respect of his name.

    He may use one or more of the given names stated in his act of birth.

    1991, c. 64, a. 55.

    56. A person who uses a name other than his or her own is liable for any resulting confusion or damage.

    The holder of a name as well as his or her married or civil union spouse or close relatives may object to such use and demand redress for the damage caused.

    1991, c. 64, a. 56; 2002, c. 6, s. 2.
    I can not address CN. However, please take note of what your actually wrote and what it means. Every PERSON has a right to the respect of HIS NAME. A person is a fiction and if HE claims that name, HE is provided a benefit to have it respected subject to the laws, statutes, etc of CN.

    A PERSON who uses a NAME other then HIS is liable for any resulting confusion or damage. GREAT!. You were given a name by your parents, ie John. This is YOUR name. JOHN DOE is a ction created by the state.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    no man, woman or 'government' has a right to disparage or deny the right of people (man) to be secure in their property [cf. 4th amendment "... persons, houses, papers and effects...]

    can you have a 'person' without a name?

    no one has a right to interfere with your property [cf. person, name]

    property is NOT 'Ownership' or 'Title'; it is that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others at this time; and, until i say other wise

    someone must come forward and verify a higher claim to said property than yours

    come forward now; i will accept all claims to said property, verifiable under oath or affirmation in open court; and, the record will reflect what is true and who makes the highest claim
    No, you can not have a person without a Name except by general reference. The Name is the "thing" that gets securitized and thus is a person. If parents do not name their baby, the hospital will do it for them. BABY SMITH. All property must have a title so that the state can recognize it.

    I disagree, the state not only has the right, it is its property.

    We kind of agree but our wording is different. I agree a man must come forward and state he has a higher claim but the issue is not about that property being yours, it is an issue that everything on the planet belongs to the Creator and we are just mere users of said property, with right of use, control, enjoyment and possession but not ownership.

    Man through his consent is subject to the state jurisdiction. Without man's consent and agreement, there is no jurisdiction.

    There mere fact is the kourt will not move forward until you, man provides the kourt a name should give you a first clue.

    I, a man am here for that matter does not give the kourt jurisdiction. I, a man who you can call John provides an open door for the court to ask the plaintiff if he would like to amend the complaint aka John.

    I am here for that matter and as a friend of the kourt, I believe that I can help the kourt settle the matter with passably this usufruct compliant certified certificate.

    If you can provide evidence that you own that Name you are using, I would most welcome that information. Anything done in that property or Name automatically vests within the state, as the state is the beneficial owner of said Name. We are naked users. But we must remember as owner, who obtains the benefits, is too subject to the liabilities.

    Anything is possible or not where remedy is concerned. If you have been successful with Karl's method more power to you.

  8. #18
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    a Name is a gift and a tool - property

    simply because you write it down on paper as 'John Henry Smith', does not automatically divest you of said property; nor does it invest in another

    if a valid contract is entered into using the Name, said contract is the law; contract wisely

    if a claim is made against your person/name, your property (person/name) incurs injury unless said claim is true and verifiable

    in common law, the realm of man, a claim must be made in living voice

    your person is not you, it is your property; and, if someone trespasses upon your property, that someone is liable

  9. #19
    Well, here's a thought: I think if you respond to a name, then you're accepting that designation. If you're using a name, and you give it to someone, and they accept it, then there is agreement about the name.

    Think about it. "Can I please have your name? "

    "Yes, you can call me Keith."

    "Thanks, Keith."

    Agreement. Consent. Law.

  10. #20
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    "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

Posting Permissions

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