However, this can not be correct. It is not correct because on the SS5, it states:

"WE CANNOT ACCEPT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HOSPITAL SOUVENIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD STUB OR A SOCIAL SECURITY RECORD as evidence of identity." A SS card is also not to be used for identity. Therefore, under state logic, if you take a BC and a SSN and put these two non-permissible uses for identification together - it is magic that you can turn them into a DL and Passport which are used for identification.

Therefore a more logical approach would be to ask the State a few questions [from a letter I wrote a chief judge]:

In summing up the “Name” issue in a legal sense: If a man were to be asked, – what is your name? Here could be some various interesting responses: What makes you believe I own such a thing? OR By what authority are you using a Name to identify a man? OR By what legislation do you rely upon to use a Name for personal identification? OR What evidence do you have to suggest that I am an executor or trustee of that estate? OR What evidence do you have the Name I am using serves to recognize the one using it?

The essence of the above is there is no legislation whatsoever that can ever identify a man through a [fictional] Name. As an observation, it actually states on the Form SS5 that a birth certificate [or berth certificate] can not be used for identity. A social security number can not be used for identity. However, when you put these two “non-permissible, non-identifying” documents together, it seems magic occurs in the form of a driver’s license or passport that is required AS identity. Who or what is being identified?

The bottom line is there is an appearance of some sort of activity in that “estate or trust name” whether it be obtaining a Form W-2, “applying for a license” or the like; therefore, under operation of law, a trustee, executor or some administrator must be acting on behalf of that “property”, FOR the infant, by operation of law who is deemed to be “missing or lost at sea”. When a man claims that he is JOHN DOE, through legal presumption, by adhesion contact, he is making a claim against the usufruct and will be held to account thereafter.

Of course the chief judge did not answer. There is no legislation that any state HAS AUTHORITY to use a BC, SSN for ID. If the state has no legislation, it has no authority, if the state has no authority, YOU, the man must provide your consent. See?