The Name thing.

[walter]

I'm glad you responded to the thread. I've spent the better part of today trying to figure out exactly what goes on when the birth registry occurs. In light of what you posted, who (in your mind) is exercising usufructuary powers?

sorry for taking so long to get back but the last couple of days have been bizarre, i am exhausted right now so tomorrow i will try to find time to give a proper response,

in short i have been searching for a year or more now looking at the solb and bc with a fine tooth comb and came up with some interesting observations,

there is a lot going on and to explain it fully would most likely be no smaller then a chapter in a book,
so i will have to ponder and think of a way i can explain most of it with out writing a chapter in a book,
today i can barely write this,

nobody owns tomorrow so until then,

[shikamaru]

sorry for taking so long to get back but the last couple of days have been bizarre, i am exhausted right now so tomorrow i will try to find time to give a proper response,

in short i have been searching for a year or more now looking at the solb and bc with a fine tooth comb and came up with some interesting observations,

there is a lot going on and to explain it fully would most likely be no smaller then a chapter in a book,
so i will have to ponder and think of a way i can explain most of it with out writing a chapter in a book,
today i can barely write this,

nobody owns tomorrow so until then,

Does this include the history of those documents along with sources?

[David Merrill]

I have a feeling that mental models in action are more the mechanism. I certainly do not disqualify them. But it is like NYGman coming and demanding proof of success and then going back and reporting that there is nothing here. There is plenty here.

I am sure that Walter's observations are valid. Observations need a scientifically controlled control system though to culminate in a reproducible conclusion. - For a theory to become law.

I like one of the best examples around. Many cancer tumors exhibit a very similar complex waveform to a central South American intestinal fluke. Hulda Rutger CLARK stumbled across this fact and without a scientific control system in place assumed that the flukes are somehow the cause of all cancerous tumors. Kill the fluke and you will kill the tumor. She thought this was true because the process was curing cancer - rather than thinking in the realm of vibration and complex waveforms. Look at the Way Circuit - it is nothing more than an elegantly simple PNP comparator and when you put a sample of the fluke, and compare it to a tumor it makes a static noise on the speaker. You then use your complex waveform generator (sympathetic nervous system/abdominal brain) to soften and quiet the noise. Biofeedback teaches your liver and other chemical (vibration) generators to kill the cancer tumor. - To devitalize the cancer cells by cancelling the frequencies:

Hulda was laughed out of Americam medical practice because a fluke in South America cannot possibly be the cause of all cancer. She was basing a faulty conclusion on observations without a proper scientifically controlled environment. She collected reams of testimony for cancer cures in Mexico and by a lot of Americans who could not much care about flukes; they just wanted to feel good again and to live life healthy.

In other words I am very interested in Walter's observations but do not believe that the registration of the birth certificate is any kind of monetary instrument in itself. The closest that I have found is that it is instrumental in the formation of Identification and that is almost always essential for Credit. Of course! If somebody is going to lend you money (credit) then how in the world is he going to get paid back if he does not know your name or where to find you? Well, I suppose he could just trust you but that flies in the face of risk management...

The birth certificate is a fundamental component of Security. It secures the man or woman in a legal entity (name) through that little footprint. That little foot came firmly down in the survey of corporate fictions before it came in contact with the ground suae potestate esse - Lord of the Soil. Literally - moving in the power of the original estate.

Thank you in advance Walter. I understand it is a task to redact large amounts of observations into common threads and more difficult yet to organize those concepts into written posts so that they can be understood.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[shikamaru]

Will you post Black's Law .....

From Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.

license, n. 1. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting to a lease or profit a prendre) that it will be lawful for the licensee to enter the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be illegal, such as hunting game. See SERVITUDE. 2. The certificate or document evidencing such permission.

[Seosaidh]

sorry for taking so long to get back but the last couple of days have been bizarre, i am exhausted right now so tomorrow i will try to find time to give a proper response,

in short i have been searching for a year or more now looking at the solb and bc with a fine tooth comb and came up with some interesting observations,

there is a lot going on and to explain it fully would most likely be no smaller then a chapter in a book,
so i will have to ponder and think of a way i can explain most of it with out writing a chapter in a book,
today i can barely write this,

nobody owns tomorrow so until then,

Thank you for your consideration of my question. These kinds of things are very difficult to grasp completely. I'm only now learning about usufruct. It's a concept that makes sense on the surface, but when you begin applying it to a set of circumstances, it becomes more difficult.

It appears to me that birth regitration and certification creates a constructive trust, or in another way, an implied trust. So, in order to prove there is a trust, one has to identify the property subject to the trust, and the roles of the various actors within the trust.

If I re-framed my question, it might make it easier to answer. What is the property subject to the trust? My reasoning tells me it's the information contained on the registration. Now if that's the case, it leads one to conclude that the right to use that information is also passed into trust, which means the grantor (the mother) had that right, since she was the primary creator of the information.

Now we have identified the property, the grantor, and by implication the trustee: the state, and again by implication, the beneficiary. Usufruct appears to be divided, or rather, allocated by the grantor among all parties of the trust, since all parties use the information. I suppose it looks like this: the mother invites the state into the trust by allowing it to use, among other things, the NAME.

Regarding usufruct and my original question, it appears to me that all the parties are usufructs, including the infant. Remembering that the goal is to prove an implied trust exists, my original question would be better asked in theis way: does usufruct carry an obligation to exercise its power for the benefit of the beneficiary? It would seem that it does, but I can't find anything concrete anywhere to say that it does.

It could be my understanding of usufruct is flawed. At any rate, discussing the various aspects of this situation might help to clear this up for me, which is why I asked you the question. I want to thank you for your willingness to dive in completely, since I know that thinking through these concepts can be time consuming.

Cheers

[David Merrill]

It is amazing how many of these mental models in action will fly!

Reading your post I believe that the birth certificate and registration is more of a potential for a trust. Like voltage is potential current. But that is just today, my mental model. It fits with this construction that has had some applications and functions as well as anybody who just believes that the legal or full name is actually their name. That general public trust is just describing the potential trust in terms of a Massachusetts (common law) Trust.

[Seosaidh]

Now that trust indenture is a fun "mental model" to contemplate!

Cheers

[BONMAN]

THE NAME THING

?Opinions are valueless as evidence without exploration of the underlying facts and rational showing the path from the facts to the opinion.?
U.S. v. R.J. Reynolds, 416 F. Supp. 316, 325.

Question ; where is it found within any ?LAWS? that the government or any agency may create a ?CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST? ????? I can?t find any.
Apparently our ?SOCIETY? is based upon ?CONSENT?, either you ?CONSENT? to do ?Business? with the ?Government? through the application of a ?LICENSE? (see RCW43.24.030
"License" defined, below), or you do not ?CONSENT? to do ?Business? with the ?Government? (?Government? AKA a CORPORATION, most likely a Private Corporation)

I have only found authority to issue ?LICENSES? ; Not authority to issue or enact a ?CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST? See---RCW 43.24.020 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSE, and RCW43.24.030 "License" defined
"We have said, and we reiterate, that a license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the grantee, nor is it a property right. See syllabus by the court, No. 4, Prettyman Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442." Mayo et al. v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc. (1949) 40 So.2d 555.

Also questions of interest; Did the Government HIDE OR CONCEAL the definitions relative to the Federal Government in the ?CODES? of the ?STATES? seeing that the ?STATE? was or still is operating as a territory or possession of the ?UNITED STATES? and all ?LAWS? within the ?CODE? must be approved by the ?CONGRESS?
Based on the Revised Code of Washington I have come to the following conclusions, I think this may shed some light on this subject of the National ID and Driver License issue.
The Washington Dept. of License is only granted authority to issue Licenses, (see definition of ?License? below). A license grants authority to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions. A ?License? is a ?Certificate? that ; include license, certificate of registration, certificate of qualification, certificate of competency, certificate of authority, and any other instrument, by whatever name designated, authorizing the practice of a profession or calling, the carrying on of a business or occupation

STATEMENT OF FACT:
1. A DRIVER LICENSE IS A BUSINESS LICENSE
2. A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IS A BUSINESS LICENSE (license tabs, license plates, land registration -- torren act)
3. A ?CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE? IS A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE,( a ?certified birth certificate? is requested or required to obtain a ?Driver License?, in effect a business license requesting a business license)
4. The term TRADE OR BUSINESS, at (26 USC 7701 (a) (26), relates to, RCW 43.24.020
Powers and duties ? Licensing, the director of licensing shall administer all laws with respect to the examination of applicants for, and the issuance of, licenses to persons to engage in any business, profession, trade, occupation, or activity except for health professions. (does all laws refer to all State and Federal Laws ???? probably so )
5. My copy of birth record given to my parents at the hospital that I was born at clearly shows my true name written in proper grammar, signed by the M.D. and head Nurse, as well as by my parents, (the form of an affidavit), the ?certified birth certificate? issued by the ?State dept. of Health? indicates my ?Name? in ALL CAPITAL letters, that is not proper grammar for a real life man or woman. This fact seems to indicate some type of change occurred after the STATE got a hold of the birth record, hence the STATE turned it, the birth record, into a CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, aka a BUSINESS LICENSE, apparently a license to engage in a TRADE OR BUSINESS ???????
6. So if the Driver License is a business license the name on the license is the business name ( all capitals) and not the name of the man or woman as is usually given in proper grammar at the time they came into the world.
7. RCW Chapter 46.21 Driver license compact assures all ?States? and Federal Government are addressing the same subjects as related to ?Driver Licenses? ; and also ; RCW 70.58.055, VITAL STATISTICS, Certificates generally; assures that ?this State? comply with the Federal Government ?recommendations? for ?UNIFORMITY? so that all are addressing the same subjects as related to ?Certificates?(Business or Professional License, or, TRADE OR BUSINESS, at (26 USC 7701 (a) (26)

8. It seems that the National I.D. is only applying to Businesses since the National I.D. is based on the ?Driver License?.

9. Interesting also, my daughter seemed to think she needed a STATE I.D. for her 1 year old son, the I.D. has prominently emblazoned on the face the following , LICENSE # xxxxxxxxx. Signifying that the I.D. card is merely a ?BUSINESS LICENSE?. By the way Name spelled in all Capitals

10. Social Security Number is an application to do Business with the with the ?Government?, it is a ?LICENSE?. The application for a ?LICENSE? gives your ?CONSENT? to do ?Business? with the ?Government? through said "License" , (?Government? AKA a CORPORATION, most likely a Private Corporation), if this is in doubt try to conduct ?Business? with the ?Government? WITHOUT a ?LICENSE?, aka, Social Security Number, or any other document tied to the Social Security Number, Driver License, etc.,etc., or having to declare under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. Person, or U.S. Citizen, either of which have been granted permission, (a License), to do ?Business? with the ?Government? through said "License", or as an ?Employee? of the Government
Confirmation of this is found on the Social Security Application form SS-5 (1-76) edition, where it states at line 1, and line 2;
Line 1; Full name you will use in work or business.
Line 2; Full name given you at birth.
See newer SS-5 editions for similar statements.
These are or could be 2 separate things or entities, see RCW 19.80.005
Definitions, below for more detailed explanation.


"We have said, and we reiterate, that a license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the grantee, nor is it a property right. See syllabus by the court, No. 4, Prettyman Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442." Mayo et al. v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc. (1949) 40 So.2d 555.

[walter]

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...son/jefl81.php

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison Paris, Sep. 6, 1789

That letter says a lot about usufract,


i will try to hit the key points of interest with out sounding long winded,
remember my research is from canada's acts and statutes,

The solb and bc are based on the Torrens title system which was created in Australia over a hundred years ago,
i believe that it was so successful that they expanded it to cars and people,
remember that they don't register people only events,
also remember that we must consent to servitude other wise its slavery,

the is no law that says you need a bc, we apply for that benefit,
but there is a law that says we must register a live birth,

the government created one (bc) but not the other (solb), but both are on their forms, what form do you want to be seen as?
one remains in the shadows while the other is all they see, (sea)

i read this book that the US government printed and gave out to Dr.s in the 30's about how and why to register birth, deaths,
the book says that the census groups were the ones pushing for registration yet the census is not the main reason for it,
the census is the number two reason, so whats the number one reason of registration?

Edward Mandell House explains it best,
'[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.

http://9-11themotherofallblackoperat...ell-house.html

the first form that the government gets from the event of a birth is from the Dr. or midwife,
its a NOTICE, if they don't comply they will be fined, in some provinces the fine is 1k,

the second form is the STATEMENT that ma & pa fill UP, (not fill IN, big difference)
solb is ON file, the bc is IN file,

they have a one year limit to file the solb, if not done by then ANYONE with info on the birth can file the solb,
who is anyone and how did they come across that info?
well the office clerks at vital stats have the info on their desk from the NOTICE the Dr. had to filed,
so with that being said does an office clerk that has never met you or your ma & pa hand you over for servitude?
i think not, that would be slavery also they don't register people only events,

so the solb does not place you in that venue, (jurisdiction)

then the State says to ma and pa, hey ... would you like some benefits? (baby bonus, medicare, tax exemption, etc)

along comes form three, which once sent off we never ever see again, there is no application that i have seen yet to ask for a copy of it, and that is the application for the bc,
i feel this application is what is sent to the internationals and is being used as the servitude deed for owning an allegiance,
the ancient art of pledge, (I pledge allegiance)

only then one is delivered the bc, (certificate)
the bc is an extract,
extract of what?
extract of an abstract,

Torrents title,
the pink slip for the car was given for the mso of the car,
perfect title (allodial) for equity title (fee simple)

a TRUST is born, possession is 9/10ths of the law,
equity is 9/10ths of the law,
the holder of the perfected title holds 1/10ths,
that's why babies, cars and land titles can be RE-posed (re = "back to the original place, again,")

abstract
"abridgement or summary of a document," mid-15c., from abstract (adj.). The general sense of "a smaller quantity containing the virtue or power of a greater"

a-bridge was created between the three forms,
the bc comes from a greater power,
the bc was created from info the government FOUND,
found? was it lost? no it was abandon on their door steps,

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
what happened in London on this year after that act was created?
the great fire, earlier 911(false flag)
lost at sea,


on the solb there is no mention of the word "canada",
canada first appears on the bc,

the solb is first registered in the municipality with its own separate number, (first jurisdiction)
it is my be leave (can not prove it yet) that the number is an annuity compiled of each date and year added to the next,
then there is a departmental use only number in the upper right hand side,
this number appears again after the abridgement has been made,

the bc reg. number IN file consists of the year you were born (four digits) - the province the birth was reg. in ( two digits) - and then the departmental use only number that appears in the top right hand side of the solb,
abridgement between the documents, jurisdiction transfer,
the birth of a person, to use only, you did not create the person so its not your, you were granted signing power,

three jurisdiction were involved before the bc was handed out, municipal first, provincial second, federal third,

usufruct is happening here,
the government holds all the originals and would only give you copies of them,
they are en-trusted with them to SECURE there safe keeping,

they own the form of the solb but not own the "filled up" words on it,
they will not give them back,
so they are claiming ownership of the originals,

who then hold liability?
who then is EN-TRUSTED to act?

i asked vital stats if i can come in off the streets to view the original documents, i wanted to do this because there were notations written on the right hand side of the solb that my ma and pa did not place on it, someone tampered with a verified signed true document and i wanted to see the original,

she responded with NO, the public can not do this, i responded with what if i don't come in as a member of the public in person, but on the private as a man? this is when she stopped corresponding with me, even after a follow up request,

what i have found out is that insurance companies use marginal notations as a code to determine the sea worthiness of vessels sent to sea to determine premiums,

is this why a solb has a section for occupations?
is this why a solb has a section for number of births from the mother?
why would these things be listed on a birth registration form?
who put these notations there?
when were they put there?
and of course why?

these are some of my finding i have come across,
and i am not finished with them yet,

[Seosaidh]

Jefferson's letter is a great find! It gives a good springboard from which to further our understanding about usufruct, and trust in general. But I think the particular language we use is more important because, since these concepts are so ethereal - some even sublime - the more precise our language is, the better prepared we become for understanding.

It appears to me that usufruct is the right to use a thing, nothing more or less. A trustee is one who has a fiduciary responsibility to exercise his usufruct for the benefit of another - beneficiary. That being stated, in the case of the birth registration and certification, the usufruct is only one aspect of the property subject to the trust. No one can rightfully dispute that the parents of an infant are the creators of the infant in a temporal sense, for without either one, the infant would not come into being.

Therefore it follows that, when the mother (or, as you mentioned, another person having been notified a birth has occurred) causes the birth to be registered, it is she who is voluntarily consenting the infant's information to be recorded, ostensibly for the benefit of the infant. But what if the information (and the right to use it) are granted to the state for the state's benefit? Wouldn't this preclude a trust existing, and render the transaction as a mere contract? And that the infant, while still in the mother's care, in reality remains the subject of a different trust - the express trust created by nature (Providence)?

While all this is interesting to contemplate, it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. In the end, we are still trying to understand what the real relationship is between individual beings and government. If indeed our information is the property subject to a trust, and nowhere is the trust expressed plainly, it behooves us to construct - as best we are able - a trust that will withstand even the most careful scrutiny of reason and the courts.

At the base of the problem is the reality that we are unaware of an express trust being created anywhere having to do with registration of birth. At least, that's the problem I have. All I find is the possibility of an implied trust.