Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
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".

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 .....
I do not mind walking this through in baby steps if that helps you.

From your quote on Identification Of Persons and Things:
identity of name was evidence of identity of person
Read the following case carefully as in referenced to this entity called 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:
the degree of evidence necessary toe stablish them, and the doctrine of idem sonans.
I assume the toe was a typo for to.
Also for this you added:
The word identity descends from Latin, idem, meaning "same"
You did good friend, but your only partly there in understanding.
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.