What's in a NAME?

**Freed Gerdes** · 01-15-14, 10:42 PM

I would concur that oltice is a typo for office, and note that when this definition was published, corporate legal entities consisting of one person holding all the offices of a corporation may have been rare, but since the Treasury began registering birth certificates and obligating them into the Federal bankruptcy trust under security agreements, the proliferation of single occupant corporations has blossomed. So I would say 'rare' should be ignored.

Freed

**Keith Alan** · 01-20-14, 10:34 PM

I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.

**Michael Joseph** · 01-20-14, 11:27 PM

It is an Inter-vivos Trust or life trust holding = settled by others UNDER the Seal [or Authority] of another - you might say the Estate is held in WARD or guardianship of a higher power. But you are Trustee for "yourself and your posterity". Therefore it is a vessel of the Public Trust.

I go into much detail about this subject in future expressions. See if you can find ANY NAME listed in the Trust called Constitution. I will wait.

**Keith Alan** · 01-20-14, 11:46 PM

The constitutors entered their names as directors representing their constituents, but of course I think you meant in the articles.

If the birth certificate is evidence of a trust, where is the trust indenture?

**Freed Gerdes** · 01-21-14, 08:05 PM

The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

Freed

**Keith Alan** · 01-21-14, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Freed Gerdes View Post

The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

Freed

I very much appreciate the way you presented the information, because upon reading it something clicked, and I feel I have a better understanding, although still a bit cloudy.

For instance, I've been studying all I can about THE NAME, and the birth certificate, and I'm still at a loss in being able to find out exactly what they are.

THE NAME, I've discovered, is the appellation designated (by the parent) on the birth certificate, and not the newborn's given name. The legalese is hard to muddle through, but never is the child given a name.

The statement of facts used to prepare the birth certificate is just that - a statement of facts, otherwise known as an information. That's why the mother is identified as informant.

So anyway, I see an implied trust being formed, but never an expressed trust. That's why I wondered where is the trust indenture. The certificate serves as evidence that an entity was created, and that the baby definitely has an interest in it, but so do the state and the United States. I think that much is made clear on the face of the instrument.

So the Social Security trust is not part of the deal unless the parent elects to apply for a number for the child.

In other words, I do believe a trust exists, and that the living man has an interest in it, but it's up to him to give life to the trust by assuming one of the roles of the trust.

Now I think you must be correct about the Social Security trust, after an SSN is assigned and used by the person. That is where - as I see it - exiting the Fed becomes important, if one wants to come out of the beast system, which I do.

But I think it may be possible to exit the system by designating an attorney - like the Secretary - to represent my interest in THE NAME to the State, while recapturing my inalienable rights and responsibilities.

I did not create THE NAME, but I was given an interest in it which I can accept or reject, now that I know it exists. If I reject it outright by collapsing the trust, that will throw my family into turmoil and hardship.

Or I can find a way to make it work for everyone, and maybe I can do that by accepting it on my terms. It's all a big, silly game, but unfortunately my neighbors all think it's real life.

I used to have a friend who, when he went off his meds, became afflicted with delusions that he was a real life superhero. He actually believed that, without his work, the earth and everyone in it would be destroyed. He saw it as his personal responsibility to save the world from utter destruction.

When he was going through these episodes, I indulged him by going along with his fantasy, because he felt very much alone, and needed a friend. I knew that after a while I could get him back on his meds, or at least I could be there so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else.

That's how I see my neighbors in this world. So why not play along, as long as no one gets hurt?

**Anthony Joseph** · 01-21-14, 10:34 PM

no man or woman will claim a vested interest in your property (Name) by living voice in open court with full liability

"United States", "IMF", "SSA", "IRS", etc. cannot speak, believe or claim

in common law, a claim must be spoken (verifiable)

it behooves us to learn how to move, hold and keep our court(s) in common law

there is no "they"; only a man or woman attempting to administrate or take your property without right

in your court, that is a wrongdoer causing you harm and/or injury; and, no cloak/office/mask can protect him/her unless you allow it

**Keith Alan** · 01-21-14, 10:47 PM

That's true. My name is whatever I say it is. There is another NAME, similar to my name, in which I've been offered a secured interest. There may be an opportunity to use it on terms I might find agreeable.

**Freed Gerdes** · 01-21-14, 11:13 PM

The NAME is a fictional entity, a corporate person, existing only in the realm of the rational mind. You have a name, given to you by your parents. Once you are sui juris, you can pick any name you want for yourself, but your estate will still be held in the NAME that matches yours (but is spelled in all caps, indicating slave status/corporate entity). The trust is administered by the Secretary of the Treasury; he is the nominal trustee (FDR originally named 6 important cronies back in 1933, but they are long dead). The trust does not own the NAME; it has an account in the NAME, and expects you to be trustee de son tort for it. You as a natural person cannot own property, due to some survey rules the government put in place [I am not too clear on the legal aspects of why this is - perhaps someone can chime in here?]. And title to your property held in your NAME is liened to the IMF as collateral for the government debt. But as the beneficiary, you can end the trust any time you want; after all, you are the natural owner of your estate. You just have to get the liens removed, by your demand for lawful money, applied retroactively, to unwind the presumption made for you by the trustee. I do not consent...

Freed

Edit: you will notice that these days the Treasury assigns a SS# to the birth certificate, so the trusts have been merged, probably through the security agreement in favor of the IMF. If the Sec of Treas is not the trustee, he knows who is...
F

**Anthony Joseph** · 01-22-14, 12:15 AM

the Name is a gift

you may use your gift, or not, depending upon if you believe it is of benefit; or, it will cause you harm or injury

man is unbound - unlimited in his capacity; he has the inherent right to choose to 'do' and 'act' however he wishes, without recourse, unless he commits harm, injury or breach against another man

that is all there is to common law

**salsero** · 01-22-14, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Keith Alan View Post

I was exploring the idea that THE NAME was a corporation sole, and that a man was the agent for the corporation. It may well be that is true, but I'm having very little luck in finding good reading material about what THE NAME is in law.

I've read two different treatises on names, which were very informative, the most interesting aspect being that surnames originally appeared over (above) the given name. However, both works were British, and both went into great detail about how sovereign prerogative could nullify any change of name.

I found in English common law that deed polls were only evidence of a man wanting to change his name, and that in any event, a deed poll needed to be submitted to Parliament and the Crown for final approval.

It seems the Crown has always claimed the last say in the naming of individuals, even into ancient times.

In America, since the people supposedly won their royal sovereignty from the Crown, it would seem the law should recognize the final authority on choosing a name as resting with the adult individual.

A name distinguishes an individual and his status in society.

I've noticed in the statement of facts forms used to prepare birth certificates that parents are said to have the right to designate the name of the child.

Bouviers 1856 --DESIGNATION, wills. The expression used by a testator, instead of the name of the person or the thing he is desirous to name; for example, a legacy to. the eldest son of such a person, would be a designation of the legatee. Vide 1 Rop. Leg. ch. 2.2. A bequest of the farm which the testator bought of such a person; or of the picture he owns, painted by such an artist, would be a designation of the thing devised or bequeathed.

So now I'm trying to wrap my mind around what designating a child's name means, as opposed to giving a child a name, and how this relates to THE NAME as it appears on the birth certificate.

If I may comment. The Name is Property, a person, estate, individual and so on. A Name is NOT a man or a baby. The public policy statutes/courts/state have the legal authority to administrate the Name. It is the State's property. The Name is NOT your property. The mere fact when you claim that Name as yours, you, the man have consented to fall under the jurisdiction thereof, accepting surety-ship for that Property.

Births are not registered. The event is registered. If the birth of a baby was ever registered, this would be repugnant to law and suggest involuntary servitude. Please remember, we can volunteer servitude and we do this all the time when we, the men, make claims to that Property Name or Estate.

One further comment - and this is what everyone has to really think about. Consent is presumed by your actions. Then is it confirmed by your claims. You, the man must remember who ALL those laws pertain to. Man is ONLY REQUIRED TO OBEY AND FOLLOW HIS CREATOR'S MANDATES, not man's. This includes love one another and be of service to mankind [loosely speaking]. When man starts with "my constitutional rights" or using their statutes, he consents to play in their sandbox.

And it is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience.

For more info on this thinking - you can go to www.notacitizen.com

**salsero** · 01-22-14, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Freed Gerdes View Post

The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

Freed

**walter** · 01-22-14, 05:21 PM

**Anthony Joseph** · 01-22-14, 06:59 PM

no man, woman or 'government' has a right to disparage or deny the right of people (man) to be secure in their property [cf. 4th amendment "... persons, houses, papers and effects...]

can you have a 'person' without a name?

no one has a right to interfere with your property [cf. person, name]

property is NOT 'Ownership' or 'Title'; it is that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others at this time; and, until i say other wise

someone must come forward and verify a higher claim to said property than yours

come forward now; i will accept all claims to said property, verifiable under oath or affirmation in open court; and, the record will reflect what is true and who makes the highest claim

What's in a NAME?

What's in a NAME?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment