What's in a NAME?

[salsero]

Not necessarily.

In law, there is distinction between absolute ownership (Roman Civil Law::dominion) and qualified ownership (Roman Civil Law::servitude).
To be honest, there wasn't even absolute ownership in English Common Law save the radical title of the King.
As far as states go, all ownership is subject to the state (as far as they are concerned).



1) No one owns an ACCOUNT. The account is the property of the issuer, in this case, the bank. An account is a chose in action (right to sue for recovery of a debt owed). Interestingly enough, taxes are a chose in action of the king (or government). Not only that, the legal title of the notes transfer from the depositor to the bank. The bank becomes the legal owner of the notes deposited into the account.

A levy and a withdraw are different beasts. A levy has to do with taxation (or conscription into a martial force). A withdrawal has to do with a deduction of funds from the account to the requester.
Foreclosure is another beast all together. Foreclosure is the final action a creditor will take to recover property pledged as collateral for a debt based on a CONTRACT the debtor indorsed.

Under Common Law, creditors had more power than they do now, believe it or not. Quite a few protections have been put into the law since medieval English times in protection of the debtor.

You don't even what to know how insolvents were treated under Common Law .



Originally in Common Law, only men of note had first and last names. Those names were recorded by the private families. This was for purposes of inheritance of passing on titles and property.



The liabilities of ownership also comes from customs of Common Law. Owner of property or holder of title was subject to the King's dues. This was primarily providing military aide as well as funds to ease the King's wants ....

Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Persons, banks, corporations, cars, houses, property, boats, children, bank accounts, etc are ALL legally titled WITH State OWNED PROPERTY CALLED A NAME, ESTATE, TRUST, INDIVIDUAL, ETC. It can not be MINE, MY, I, OR ME. Agree or disagree, it really is unimportant. It just is based on fact of fiction - yes that is the proper ridiculous, lack of common sense way of stating it. I never said I liked what I was writing.

When there is a judgment against the person and that person "has assets" whether a car, bank account or a house or whatever, that "stuff you OWN" is going to be taken. A levy is different than a withdrawal I agree, but I was writing in concept not legal brief. My point is if you own it, it can not be taken. Everything you cited is all well and good and it may very well be a "basis or history" on current law today; however, IT IS MY OPINON, that since all titles were seized in the 1930s and after the Erie RR decision [basically doing away with common law], all I can wish you all "pro-common law is alive and well today" is by all means go for it. As long as someone is obtaining remedy and cure, I luv it. Please provide the group with detail info on your successes. I am willing to admit MY ERROR.

I bothered to check out this link http://www.nationallibertyalliance.o...aw#comment-230 - I had seen much of this stuff previously. Excellent info to be aware of. But I personally see NO REMEDY there. ALL I DO KNOW, if we all do not wake up soon from this "illusion called life", maybe when Hillary becomes president in 2016, as her balls are big enough to push that red button, then we can start the planet all over again - because all this warring is really a downer. And Hillary seems to be just the right leader of our collective consciousness reflecting back to We, the People exactly what we are.

God Bless