What's in a NAME?

[Keith Alan]

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]

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.

[salsero]

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

[shikamaru]

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.

Check out Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan concerning the concept of a person .....

My opinion: the name is simply a designator for a container. The container is the legal concept of person.
Last names did not become all the rage with governments until more organized systems of accounting develop to satisfy goverment's need for taxation and military enlistment.

The name is a designator of an account to handle debits and credits whether such pertains to legal charges or commerce.
An account is a chose in action or the right of the creditor to sue for debts owed.

Let us also not forget the association known as the body politic. The birth certificate serves as evidence of induction of a being into a political body. Citizenship is a status (of servitude) as well as an office within a (public) corporation.

[Chex]

My opinion: the name is simply a designator for a container. The container is the legal concept of person.
Last names did not become all the rage with governments until more organized systems of accounting develop to satisfy goverment's need for taxation and military enlistment. The name is a designator of an account to handle debits and credits whether such pertains to legal charges or commerce. Let us also not forget the association known as the body politic. The birth certificate serves as evidence of induction of a being into a political body. Citizenship is a status (of servitude) as well as an office within a (public) corporation.

La Carreta restaurants in Merrillville. http://www.yelp.com/biz/la-carreta-merrillville

The raids were part of a larger investigation that targeted Mexican restaurants in cities across Indiana, including El Rodeo eateries in Indianapolis, Lafayette, West Lafayette and Richmond.

Law enforcement officials were tight-lipped about what they are investigating, but they have made no arrests and filed no criminal charges as of yet.

The Marion County Sheriff's Office assisted with the raid of an El Rodeo restaurant Monday in Indianapolis, which a police report said stemmed from a grand jury investigation.

Officers took pictures of nine employees and seized cash, business documents and the cash registers, which they turned over to the grand jury, according to the case report.

Arnulfo Gonzalez, the registered owner of both restaurants, did not return messages for comment Tuesday and Wednesday.
http://www.nwitimes.com/business/loc...97d4c0403.html