Comments and criticisms welcomed.
http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html
Comments and criticisms welcomed.
http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html
I think you already posted this once today, what is the new information?Originally Posted by shikamaru
1. I posted this in this what I felt was a more appropriate area.
2. I only posted a snippet of what the entire article detailed.
I do remember from reading American Jurisprudence that under common law, a person could create any identity so long as it was not used in fraud.
Government created identities has to mean you are using someone else's creation.
I concur with that, even when you do not give them a name they create a named constructive trust pending on how serious the situation is you will be given the name John Doe or Jane Doe.
Questions is will one know how to deal with this situation is all depending upon the acceptance of the name.
Identity or law of identification is a separate branch of the Law of Evidence
A treatise on the law of identification; A separate branch of the law of evidence
The word identity descends from Latin, idem, meaning "same".Identification of Persons and Things.
1. It is proposed in these pages to introduce the law and rules of identity of persons and things as a separate branch of the law of evidence. It has become a question of growing importance and one that is daily before the courts; perhaps the question of personal identification is now one of the greater importance, not only because the doctrine that the identity of name was evidence of identity of person, has measurably exploded, except in the examination of titles to real estate; but because of the great number of important cases of mistaken identity, both in civil and criminal practice, and in cases involving the identity of the living and the dead. Parties to actions, the ancestor and the heirs to estates questions of pedigree, marriages, births and deaths; questions of vendor and vendee, ancient records and documents, and parties thereto, and the degree of evidence necessary toe stablish them, and the doctrine of idem sonans.
My question is if an policy enforcement officer can demand identification, is the identification, in fact, yours? It seems to be carrying government identification carries burdens of servitudes .....
Is the name a gift given to government first, followed by conveyance to a child?
I do not mind walking this through in baby steps if that helps you.
From your quote on Identification Of Persons and Things:
Read the following case carefully as in referenced to this entity called Person:identity of name was evidence of identity of person
The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.
Yes I know your going to say there is a distinction between persons and natural persons and I agree, BUT what you have shown me just says person not natural person. By laws of statutory construction when a law means something it says it has to be specific and not general, or somewhere within the same Article give definitions and specfically define natural person whenever they say person.
Ok, next lets look a little further down in your quote:
I assume the toe was a typo for to.the degree of evidence necessary toe stablish them, and the doctrine of idem sonans.
Also for this you added:
You did good friend, but your only partly there in understanding.The word identity descends from Latin, idem, meaning "same"
There is something called the sona language and the architects of the legalise society are masters at it. Your correct is saying " same " , but when you add the word "sonans" now were looking at the definition of " sounds the same ". BUT just sounding the same is not the same. So now you know why when someone points at a piece of plastic or paper and they ask is that you, you can unequivocally say: " I do not consent to be recognized by that name" , because your not a piece of plastic or paper.
Remember me saying: " mom and dad said what shall we call him, not what shall we write him " ?
Adding a couple more things to this:
In most courts the attorney's are allowed to lie to get what they want, but in most courts if you do not speak up then this is acquiescence to the facts. this is known as a tacit. "Silence is Futile". - the borg. Any copy brought into evidence by rules of evidence must be a certified copy, when they ask if that is you when pointing to the signature on a piece of plastic or paper another response you could say: " I do not have the original to compare it to, sorry no ".
Also there is nothing on that COLB/BC that contractually obligates you to that name, just learn to walk away from it. The inked footprint on it does not mean crap either, for one thing if it was you , it is no longer you because your not a child anymore and the actual forcing of the footprint onto the piece of paper voids the law 18 USC 242 among other things.
There is other thing too someone could argue that the fact we even use it. Well this is the necessity, you have a natural right to basic needs of survival no matter what name you use.
Just like there is confiscation for army necessity that was mentioned in the Liber Code we have the basics too for natural existence.
Hope that answer your question and then some, might have to think about a couple of those and do some due diligence to put the pieces together.
Not exclusively, more like consideration. The event recorded will get a name whether the parents fill out a form or not, either John Doe or Jane Doe. Government commences a survey and out of consideration allow the parents to name the event.
maybe gonna have to get used to each other
i am SO not used to Nara ever being on the receiving end, of that kind of condescension - from someone who is arguably on the same page as he is. Or, am i reading this wrong?
Hey mot,
The treatise Nara linked to, predates that Sona crapola that you linked to. Latin predates sona as well. Maybe you'll have to carry me through your understanding, as i am apparently unable to find my legs here. i've never heard of a "legalise society." Gotta' link to a member list?
Please leave typos alone, or i'll hammer you every time i catch you. i can't believe you checked him for toe; and then proceeded to omit an- from -other; AND used your, where you shoula' typed you're. THAT IS SO TROLL. Please refrain from doing that. Try minding your own composition more. My hat is off to you, however, for making correct use of that one too in there.
Maybe, i need to take you by the hand, and explain how chat room works?
Did you spend any time reading the linked treatise? Did you notice the OP solicited comments and criticisms of same? Near as i can tell, you answered Nara's understanding, without referring to the treatise itself. Now, follow me...Now, this alone, could generate pages of comments - and hurling, maybe. It should wet the appetite of any like minded readers, to click over and search the matter out.
If you bother to check this quote, you'll see it's in the handwriting of subscribing witnesses neighborhood. In fact, there are places where the treatise seems to almost glimpse graphoanalysis, in attempts to establish identity! No sona mumbo jumbo. Really man.
It's brass tacks controversies, in condensed form, that helped me imagine a dialogue that went a little like this...
"Sir, who signed this bond? Yer under oath now. This looks exactly like all these other signatures, that you just admitted were yours, and here's the guy - i'm about to get him to testify - that he witnessed you sign that there paper. " It references old old cases that predate the operative, corporate gubment paradigm of some researchers; that as far as i know, predate all of our most sacred, patriot, strawman cows. ha! And these last two assertions, might be worth discussing here, too.
In closing, i cannot resist pointing out a phrase from Nara's first quote of the treatise - which thing stoned me...Ya, duh, wow. Anyone else notice that? i never ever knew that such a doctrine existed. What a great find! Tell me more, someone, please.the doctrine that the identity of name was evidence of identity of person, has measurably exploded
assumptions, no condescension intended. Really, you are going to argue over a typo? where is that forum rule here?
The linked just had many definitions for the same word, TMI
Nara, not heard of it and the only time every mentioned here is in you post. Perhaps you have better reference?
Why over complicate things? low level agents are simpleton. someone always got a predation, no worries here, old cases are someone else's law.
Here is one you like, doctrine of toe. Spirit is not form, form is not spirit, wax the old.
cheers!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote