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.
"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.Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
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
I believe that our family bible is good evidence of names. My name is David Merrill as it is written.
i believe you; and, the name of your person is...?
I have no person. If having a person ever serves my best interest then it is likely I would choose the one I invented when I was twelve by applying for and receiving a Social Security Number. Until having a Social Security Number serves my best interest, I have no Social Security Number.
I have no last name.
I have no birth certificate.
I have no person.
Exactly. If you find me using a person, the chances are that I have one.until then... my claim is supreme
my point exactly...
you have these tools (person, SSN, BC, Last Name, etc.) at your disposal if you choose to use them
no one else has a right to use these tools, created for your specific use, as you would, when and if you choose to use them
these 'things' are your property
no one else has a right to administer or take your property without your consent
I said the last comment I made would be the last - but I can't help myself lol
Use is not the same as ownership. I have every right to use, control, possess but not own. Only the Creator has that right. What evidence do you have to prove that "things" - the DL, SSN, house, car, person, BC, last name etc is YOUR property? Those "things" are held in the "public trust" - it is true you have exclusive use of but those things are not yours.
I agree no one has the right to administer or take the property you are using without your consent. By providing the Name in any jurisdiction, your provide that consent.
And we can thank FDR for the removal of substance in order to PAY for things rather than use private internal script/ debt securities called FRNs.
Paisan, so far you have not answered the question I have asked: What evidence can you provide that proves you own a name or any "thing".
A response that "someone must come forward with a claim to what i claim is my property - until then... my claim is supreme - when the STATE OF XXXXX or the United States decides to speak, please let me know" is not responding to what I asked.
Let me give an example: If you are in a mortgage foreclosure situation, the name will be charged in the action. Do we agree up to here? If this is the case, then how would your claim that house is my property - let a man come forward with a claim to what is my property? It is the same thing with a car or even a bank account - we can look to Cyprus for that reasoning. If I am the owner of the bank account, then the State can NOT go into that account, including the IRS and take anything out of it. When you own something, it is your property to the exclusion of someone else and no one can take it. You can have exclusive use of something without owning it OR even be held liable for it - YAY!!!
These are just some observations. Tony
i don't have to prove what i claim to be my property is my property
someone must come forward with a claim to what i claim is my property
until then... my claim is supreme
when the STATE OF XXXXX or the United States decides to speak, please let me know
i did answer the question
my property is my property because, i say so; i am able and willing to voice it - paper means nothing
if someone else wishes to voice a claim, let them come forward and do the same
if a man or woman does so, fine
if we cannot settle the matter privately, it is brought before a jury in the public and there we have a chance to win our claim based upon who has the best proof and evidence; and, the customs and beliefs of the people who are seated as jurors [judge]
a non-living entity has no vocal chords and cannot voice a claim; when you voice your claim and there is silence from the "other side" you win
or
you can play in the paper world and be subject to words written on paper
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote