The Name thing.

[walter]

the first and middle name were given to you from parents,
statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact,
since it was given to you then they are your property,
those given names hold a claim to the land and assets,

the last name was never given to you,
it was assigned to you, not your property,
you must be holding it in trust then,

the BC only states name,
name of what?
property of whom?
who signed the BC?
who holds liability?

what we got going here is a Usufruct,
government does not like you using that word with them,
reveals the true story of the name and title,

[Seosaidh]

the first and middle name were given to you from parents,
statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact,
since it was given to you then they are your property,
those given names hold a claim to the land and assets,

the last name was never given to you,
it was assigned to you, not your property,
you must be holding it in trust then,

the BC only states name,
name of what?
property of whom?
who signed the BC?
who holds liability?

what we got going here is a Usufruct,
government does not like you using that word with them,
reveals the true story of the name and title,

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?

[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?

[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

[Chex]

does usufruct carry an obligation to exercise its power for the benefit of the beneficiary?

Latin: the beneficiary of a trust.

Modern trust law prefers the word beneficiary but the older cases refer to the older Latin term of cestui que trust.

"A trust is an equitable obligation binding a person (who is called a trustee) to deal with property over which he has control (which is called the trust property) for the benefit of persons (who are called beneficiaries or cestui que trust) of whom he may himself be one, and anyone of whom may enforce the obligation. Any act or neglect on the part of a trustee which is not authorised or excused by the terms of the trust instrument, or by law, is a breach of trust."

Six pages here

http://www.cfhlaw.com/attorneys/anthony_j_correro.htm :

He has advised clients in an immense variety of securities, mergers and acquisitions and corporate finance deals, ranging in size from $3.1 billion to $100,000, including the $3.1 billion sale of First Commerce Corporation to Bank One; the purchase of Sugarland Bank by MidSouth Bancorp for $1.2 million; the $500 million purchase of Zapata Corporation by Tidewater, Inc.; the sale of VitaRx to McKesson Corporation for $62 million; Amedisys's acquisition of HMR Acquisition, Inc.; public offerings of oil and gas interests for a single client aggregating $1 billion and the private offering of oil and gas interests for a single client of $100,000; as well as initial public stock offerings for several companies.

Andy wrote the Louisiana Bank Holding Company Law, which ushered statewide banking into Louisiana, and since then has handled over 30 bank mergers in the state, representing both buyers and sellers.

[Seosaidh]

Six pages here

For some reason, that link isn't working for me.

[Chex]

Naked ownership is a term used in Louisiana, roughly analogous to the "reversionary interest" in common-law jurisdictions.

Reversion, in the context of real property, means the return to the grantor or his/her heirs of real property after all interests in the property given to others have terminated.

Reversion occurs when the property owner transfers a vested estate of lesser quantum than he started with. Reversion is also called "reverter."

For example, if A grants land ?to B until he marries Y? or ?to Z so long as the land is used for church purposes?, then there is a possibility that the land will revert to A if B marries Y, or if the land is no longer used for a church. http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/naked-ownership/

Definition of 'Naked Trust'

A straightforward type of trust into which a trustor transfers assets (money or property) in order to pass them on to beneficiaries. The initial owner of the assets (the trustor) loses all control over them once they are placed in the trust. The trustee has only nominal control of the assets in the trust. The trust's beneficiary has absolute entitlement to the assets once he or she turns 18. Also known as a "bare trust," "dry trust" or "passive trust."

Investopedia explains 'Naked Trust'
This estate-planning tool is commonly used by parents or grandparents to transfer assets to children or grandchildren. The college financial-aid implications of putting money into a naked trust for children should be considered before establishing the trust.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/...#ixzz2BUjsI2Kc

Definition of 'Named Beneficiary'

This term refers to any beneficiary named in a will, a trust, an insurance policy, pension plan accounts, IRAs , or any other instrument, to whom benefits are paid. Named beneficiaries are the beneficial owners of the property and will share in the proceeds at the time of disposition. In an annuity policy, for example, the policyholder and the named beneficiary may be the same person.

Investopedia explains 'Named Beneficiary'

Beneficiary designations can be complex. For example, by naming a specific beneficiary in a life insurance policy, the proceeds of the insurance policy will not be subject to the will or to probate and will pass directly to the named beneficiary. There are many different kinds of beneficiaries, such as primary or contingent beneficiaries, and the named beneficiary need not be an individual. A named beneficiary of an insurance policy, for example, can be the estate of the deceased, in which case the actual beneficiaries will be designated in the will.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/...#ixzz2BUkBs1nm

[Chex]

the first and middle name were given to you from parents, statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact, since it was given to you then they are your property, those given names hold a claim to the land and assets, what we got going here is a Usufruct, the true story of title,

Of beneficiary: Nothing more needed to be said.

"Is Social Security a contract? A private insurance policy is clearly a contract because the policyholder (them) makes a promise to pay money to the insurance company,(SSA) which in turn agrees to likewise pay the policyholder (beneficiary you). Who paid my premiums LOL since I was fourteen?

(c) No other property exempt
Notwithstanding any other law of the United States (including section 207 of the Social Security Act), no property or rights to property shall be exempt from levy other than the property specifically made exempt by subsection (a).

Sec. 207. [42 U.S.C. 407] (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.

furnish his/hers employer with Form W-4 (or its equivalent) for withholding.

Okay since I paid the premiums whats my return?

Lets see in the year 1973 I was 14 and retired after age 52 that means I paid premiums for 39 years of a A private insurance policy and I don?t have nothing?