Is a name property ??

[walter]

Baptismal names are regarded the highest form of names.

I baptize YOU (1).pdf in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[David Merrill]

I baptize YOU (1).pdf in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I hope your post and link do not get YOU into any trouble!

[Seosaidh]

I baptize YOU (1).pdf in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The baptismal name, ie christened or Christian name, is sanctioned by the Church. I'm going on memory now, but a strong case was made here - http://books.google.com/books?id=sYk...%20law&f=false - that name changes without authority are without legal effect.

I find that very interesting. It appears that a Christian name is sanctioned by the Church and its authority, while the surname is today sanctioned by the State. A person's front name is also sanctioned by the State, in lieu of being sanctioned by the Church. The idea that a man can adopt a new name at will - and without legal repercussion - appears to be spurious, at least according to that treatise. This explains why courts continue referring to people as AKA or alias, even after they begin using their Christian name only.

Now, connecting this with the idea that the NAME is subject to a trust, is another interesting exercise. I think the way to look at the NAME, rather than it being property, it is instead the authority the NAME re-presents to society that is subject to the trust. If someone assigns himself a new name, and begins using it according to an unrecognized authority, he is acting outside the bounds of civil society, and automatically is regarded with suspicion.

By itself, a name may indeed by property, but unless there is some kind of acting authority sanctioning its use, one is using it unlawfully in matters concerning Church and State. I am reminded of Moses' question to the Lord, where in response permission was given to refer to God as: I Am Who I Am. The Lord did not submit by providing a NAME. Moses and the people were given a license to use that appelation in place of a name.

It appears to me that defining what a NAME is makes for a very difficult proposition. I would say that a NAME is a symbol of authority (or lack of authority) to act in society. So in court, when a NAME is called to appear, what really is being asked is for the man to declare (by his appearance) the authority to whom he submits.

The question about whether a NAME is subject to a trust, then, seems to be entirely on the shoulders of the one bearing it. I suppose one could call that role an executor, unless the actor is incompetent. The man is free to choose unto whom he places his trust, and call on that authority to act in his stead.

[walter]

JULIET

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

ROMEO

[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

JULIET

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

[shikamaru]

I was reading here http://books.google.com/books?id=sYk...%20law&f=false and found out that in the common law of England, subjects' names can belong to the Crown.

Some but not all names can be inherited. Names are established by custom and usage. Baptismal names are regarded the highest form of names.

Good catch .
How much do we wish to bet that these customs and usages persist to the present day?

[shikamaru]

The idea that a man can adopt a new name at will - and without legal repercussion - appears to be spurious, at least according to that treatise. This explains why courts continue referring to people as AKA or alias, even after they begin using their Christian name only.

Not true .

Check this link for more info: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist..._marriage.html

That treatise was probably written concerning the laws and custom of England rather than of the United States as well.

Now, connecting this with the idea that the NAME is subject to a trust, is another interesting exercise. I think the way to look at the NAME, rather than it being property, it is instead the authority the NAME re-presents to society that is subject to the trust. If someone assigns himself a new name, and begins using it according to an unrecognized authority, he is acting outside the bounds of civil society, and automatically is regarded with suspicion.

Too bad. Custom is custom.
Declaration is what is used by most even today as far as name goes.

By itself, a name may indeed by property, but unless there is some kind of acting authority sanctioning its use, one is using it unlawfully in matters concerning Church and State. I am reminded of Moses' question to the Lord, where in response permission was given to refer to God as: I Am Who I Am. The Lord did not submit by providing a NAME. Moses and the people were given a license to use that appelation in place of a name.

Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?
A family Bible was all the authority for many years.
If someone else can name you, they have power over you.

It appears to me that defining what a NAME is makes for a very difficult proposition. I would say that a NAME is a symbol of authority (or lack of authority) to act in society. So in court, when a NAME is called to appear, what really is being asked is for the man to declare (by his appearance) the authority to whom he submits.

The question about whether a NAME is subject to a trust, then, seems to be entirely on the shoulders of the one bearing it. I suppose one could call that role an executor, unless the actor is incompetent. The man is free to choose unto whom he places his trust, and call on that authority to act in his stead.

A name is also an account particularly upon registration.
An account is a chose in action.

[walter]

Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?

i know someone who has done it,

if you want to make it rock solid then Authentic or legalize it,

http://www.redsealnotary.com/apostille-canada.html

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/authentication/index.htm

"Governments and organizations sometimes require that documents for use in foreign countries be authenticated in order to be accepted. Authentication, for purposes in British Columbia, means the signature of the B.C. official who signed the document has been authenticated (sometimes called legalized) by the Government of British Columbia."

[Seosaidh]

Not true .

Check this link for more info: http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist..._marriage.html

That treatise was probably written concerning the laws and custom of England rather than of the United States as well.

Yes, exactly.

Declaration is what is used by most even today as far as name goes.

Yeah, I'm still learning.

Perhaps all the authority you need is an affidavit filed into some public record or some document at the county recorder?
A family Bible was all the authority for many years.
If someone else can name you, they have power over you.

I want to do that. I'll get there.

A name is also an account particularly upon registration.
An account is a chose in action.

I'll need to look that up. I'm not sure what that means.

[shikamaru]

I'll need to look that up. I'm not sure what that means.

An account is a chose in action.

Chose is French ... meaning thing.
An action is a suit or lawsuit.

Lawsuits at common law were called actions for the actions were considered more important than the claim.
Doesn't do much good being a creditor if the debtor doesn't act to repay, does it?

A chose in action is a type of right.
A chose in action is also a right to sue for recovery.

Taxes due to the English King were a chose in action.
Once paid, the payment become a chose in possession.

An account is a type of chose in action giving the grantor the right to sue the grantee for failure to satisfy the account.
If there is a balance outstanding on an account that hasn't been paid in awhile, the grantor or creditor will go to court for recovery of monies owed.

THIS ... is why you want to be careful which accounts you open.

A name creates an account for administering credits and debits upon you. In this case, the credit and debits are charges, reputation, etc.

If you need citations for anything I've said, let me know. I have them for everything except the last sentence. It is conjecture.

[walter]

STATISTICS CANADA
Statistics bureau

3. There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are

(a) to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistical information relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people;

Coding system for goods

22.1 (1) The Chief Statistician shall establish a coding system for goods imported into and exported from Canada to enable the Chief Statistician to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to those goods.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm

this is what happens with the birth of a name,
collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish,

publish = publishing rights, publishing rights = copyrights

the name is "statistical" by publication,
records a form,
analyse must be codifying,
it has to be codified before it can become an abstract,

this is why the arts play such a huge role in government,
publication,
they collected a name and published it,
we use the name and now are infringing on their publication rights,

so if thats the case we need to claim the information they collected before it was analysed, codified and published,