http://freekeene.com/2008/08/20/freeman-or-lawless/
There are allegations that the government people create a corporation in your name at birth. The corporation, like all corporations, is referenced in ALL CAPS. Surely you've noticed this scheme on anything "legal" like drivers' licenses or birth certificates. I don't know if the allegations are true, but just in case it is, I've decided I will start going by a name that won't cause any confusion with the corporate name of IAN BERNARD.
My decision was between two names, Ian Freeman or Ian Lawless. While Lawless sounds cool, I am not without law. I have my own private law. I will not aggress against others and their property. So, I'm not comfortable calling myself Lawless. Freeman it is.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 20, 2008, 02:08 PM NHFT
http://freekeene.com/2008/08/20/freeman-or-lawless/
There are allegations that the government people create a corporation in your name at birth. The corporation, like all corporations, is referenced in ALL CAPS. Surely you've noticed this scheme on anything "legal" like drivers' licenses or birth certificates. I don't know if the allegations are true, but just in case it is, I've decided I will start going by a name that won't cause any confusion with the corporate name of IAN BERNARD.
My decision was between two names, Ian Freeman or Ian Lawless. While Lawless sounds cool, I am not without law. I have my own private law. I will not aggress against others and their property. So, I'm not comfortable calling myself Lawless. Freeman it is.
I think this is a pretty good site about it, is this pretty accurate Ian? :-\ I'm not sure because I just learned about it yesterday and I'm trying to learn more because it sounds pretty good. :) I like Lawless! :D
http://www.thetruthwillout.com/common_law.html
I can't say for sure. This is new territory, but I sure like http://thinkfree.ca and http://adventuresinlegalland.com
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 20, 2008, 05:04 PM NHFT
I can't say for sure. This is new territory, but I sure like http://thinkfree.ca and http://adventuresinlegalland.com
I'll check out one of those links, I've already been on the first one that you wrote. Thanks! :)
wait. so am I supposed to refer to you as Ian Freeman now?
Most people just call me Ian, but that is my new last name.
I'm pretty sure your parents chose your name.
Government paperwork simply uses the chosen identity... you can chose anyone you'd like.
Only in a few instances are you given an actual government ID... the first usually being when your parents acting in a custodial manner apply for a SSN.
Nothing in the government's magic pieces of paper says anything about using a name other than the one given to you by your parents (except to defraud). Of course, when you do business with THEM, they are going to want you to use whatever name THEY permit you to use.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 20, 2008, 02:08 PM NHFT
So, I'm not comfortable calling myself Lawless. Freeman it is.
And dreepa breathes a sigh of relief... ;)
Okay a little off topic, but there was this guy that used to play in the NBA in the 1970s his name was Lloyd Free...he changed his name to World B. Free. He was a pretty darn good player too, bit of a ball hog but could shoot the lights out. So if anyone has any ideas the name "World B. Free" is taken. ;D
Quote from: Free libertarian on August 21, 2008, 09:05 AM NHFT
Okay a little off topic, but there was this guy that used to play in the NBA in the 1970s his name was Lloyd Free...he changed his name to World B. Free. He was a pretty darn good player too, bit of a ball hog but could shoot the lights out. So if anyone has any ideas the name "World B. Free" is taken. ;D
That's pretty neat! :D
Quote from: KBCraig on August 21, 2008, 12:03 AM NHFT
And dreepa breathes a sigh of relief... ;)
I am so jealous of Dreepa for having a name like that!
this information comes from an article written by attorney larry becraft.
"Nom de Guerre": Names in CAPS
(updated Jan. 31, 2005)
Many years ago when printing was in its infancy, there were no established rules for highlighting certain features of text. Since color was not available, capitalization became a means for emphasis. For example, in 1626 Sir Robert Cotton gave a speech in Parliament regarding debasement of coin and his speech was eventually reprinted in 1651. Examination of just the first page of this document published in 1651 shows almost a random pattern for capitalization.
A student of the law may visit a typical law library and possibly find one of the the oldest sets of books common in such libraries: Howell's State Trials, which is an 18th century publication that reprinted historic, old English cases regarding a wide variety of topics. Review of this page of Howell's State Trials shows that even in 1629, the names of cases (their "styles") were capitalized.
When the United States Constitution was ratified and Congress started operating via that constitution, the first laws were printed in newspapers and later archived. By 1845, Congress decided to print the laws it passed in a publication officially known as the United States Statutes at Large. Review of just a few pages from the first volume of this work, Vol. 1, Statutes at Large, demonstrates frequent use of capitalization for many words appearing in print.
The first reporter for the United States Supreme Court was Dallas, who also happened to be the reporter for the Pennsylvania courts. He thus published in the first volumes of the U.S. Supreme Court reporter decisions of Pennsylvania courts. Subsequent reporters like West Publishing simply recopied Dallas's reports when they published theirs. Here in this file, U.S. Supreme Court, you may review sample pages of the first volume of West's Supreme Court reporter. Please notice that the styles of cases and many other items were capitalized. See also similar items for Alabama.
As seen above, court cases were printed for more than a hundred years before the 1780s with capitalized styles. Below, please find cases for the years indicated where styles of cases were capitalized:
1787 1821 1821 1822 1833 1835 1842 1842 1844 1846 1846
1846 1857 1857 1858 1862 1862 1862 1863 1864 1870 1870
The items appearing above were obtained from some historical research materials found in my office and thus may not be of the finest reproduction quality (some of these copies are themselves 20 years old). Nonetheless, it is obvious that for hundreds of years, styles of cases and other legal materials were frequently capitalized for purposes of emphasis. The custom of capitalized styles of cases continues even today.
In recent years, there has been promoted an argument that capitalized styles of cases means something sinister. Some advocates of this argument identify the source for this contention: a book written by a man named Berkhimer. Allegedly in this book, the author states that a "nom de guerre" is a "war name" symbolized by a given name being written in capital letters. I have tried to find this passage in this book but have been unable to do so. The argument contends that because of events in 1933, we have been made "enemies" and government indicates our status as enemies by the nom de guerre. If this is true, then why have the styles of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court since its establishment been in caps? This argument has gotten lots of people in trouble. For example, a number of people such as Al Thompson and Keith Anderson have defended themselves against criminal charges with this argument, but have been thrown into jail nonetheless. I have not even seen a decent brief on this issue which was predicated upon cases you can find in an ordinary law library.
In any event, several courts have rejected this argument:
1. Jaeger v. Dubuque County, 880 F.Supp. 640 (N.D.Iowa 1995)
2. United States v. Heard, 952 F.Supp. 329 (N.D.W.Va. 1996)
3. Boyce v. C.I.R., 72 T.C.M. ¶ 1996-439 ("an objection to the spelling of petitioners' names in capital letters because they are not 'fictitious entities'" was rejected)
4. United States v. Washington, 947 F.Supp. 87, 92 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)("Finally, the defendant contends that the Indictment must be dismissed because 'Kurt Washington,' spelled out in capital letters, is a fictitious name used by the Government to tax him improperly as a business, and that the correct spelling and presentation of his name is 'Kurt Washington.' This contention is baseless")
5. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)
6. In re Gdowik, 228 B.R. 481, 482 (S.D.Fla. 1997)(claim that "the use of his name JOHN E GDOWIK is an 'illegal misnomer' and use of said name violates the right to his lawful status" was rejected)
7. Russell v. United States, 969 F.Supp. 24, 25 (W.D. Mich. 1997)("Petitioner * * * claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons"; this argument held frivolous)
8. United States v. Lindbloom, 97-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 50650 (W.D. Wash. 1997)("In this submission, Mr. Lindbloom states that he and his wife are not proper defendants to this action because their names are not spelled with all capital letters as indicated in the civil caption." The CAPS argument and the "refused for fraud" contention were rejected)
9. Rosenheck & Co., Inc. v. United States, 79 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2715 (N.D. Ok. 1997)("Kostich has made the disingenuous argument the IRS documents at issue here fail to properly identify him as the taxpayer. Defendant Kostich contends his 'Christian name' is Walter Edward, Kostich, Junior and since the IRS documents do not contain his 'Christian name,' he is not the person named in the Notice of Levy. The Court expressly finds Defendant WALTER EDWARD KOSTICH JR. is the person identified in the Notice of Levy, irrespective of the commas, capitalization of letters, or other alleged irregularities Kostich identifies as improper. Similarly, the Court's finding applies to the filed pleadings in this matter")
10. United States v. Weatherley, 12 F.Supp.2d 469 (E.D.Pa. 1998)
11. United States v. Frech, 149 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 1998)("Defendants' assertion that the capitalization of their names in court documents constitutes constructive fraud, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction and venue, is without any basis in law or fact").
Jon Roland of The Constitution Society web site wrote the following about this argument:
Typographic Conventions in Law
Jon Roland, Constitution Society
One of the persistent myths among political dissidents is that such usages as initial or complete capitalization of names indicates different legal entities or a different legal status for the entity. They see a person's name sometimes written in all caps, and sometimes written only in initial caps, and attribute a sinister intent to this difference. They also attach special meanings to the ways words may be capitalized or abbreviated in founding documents, such as constitutions or the early writings of the Founders.
Such people seem to resist all efforts to explain that such conventions have no legal significance whatsoever, that they are just ways to emphasize certain kinds of type, to make it easier for the reader to scan the documents quickly and organize the contents in his mind.
They also seem to go to enormous lengths looking for dictionaries or court rules to tell them what such typography means, without ever seeming to find what they are looking for, other than the actual usages themselves in important court cases.
Well, there is an authoritative reference, the one used by courts and lawyers all over the world. It is The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, compiled by the editors of the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review Association, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and The Yale Law Journal, 16th ed. 1996. Copies can be obtained from any law book store or by writing The Harvard Law Review Association, Gannett House, 1511 Massachusetts Av., Cambridge, MA 02138.
To explain how typographic conventions originated, and what they mean, I am reminded of the story of the first grader whose teacher became alarmed by the crayon drawings of one of her students. She called in the school counselor and she became alarmed, so she called in a child psychologist, who also became alarmed in turn. Fearing for the mental health of the child, they called in her parents.
The parents, now themselves concerned about their child, arrived at the meeting. "What happened?", the father said. The school staff persons showed his daughter's art work to him and to his wife. The father looked the drawings over, and said, "Look pretty good to me. I couldn't do that well at that age."
"But the colors!" the teacher said. "She does everything in black, grey, and brown!" said the counselor. "It seems morbid" said the psychologist.
So the father said, "Why don't we ask my daughter?" The school staff looked aghast at this audacious suggestion, but, not having any better ideas, they asked the little girl to come in.
She saw her parents, and the school staffers, all gathered around her art work, looking concerned, and became a bit concerned herself. But her father knew what to say. "Hon, your teachers want to know why you are drawing everything in black, grey, and brown."
"I gave most of my crayons to the other kids when they used theirs up", she said. "Black, grey, and brown are the only colors I have left."
Lawyers continued to hand write legal documents long after typewriters were invented. As a profession, they tend to be the last to adopt new technology. When things were hand written, they had only a few ways to highlight words. They could use block printed characters instead of cursive, or they could underline. Typesetters converted the block printed characters to all caps, sometimes with different font sizes, and the underlined words to italics.
As lawyers and legal staff began to use typewriters, they could not conveniently underline, and they didn't have italic fonts, so putting words in all caps was about the only way they had to show emphasis. Judges began rewarding lawyers (or so they thought) with better decisions if they put some words, like the names of parties, in all caps, to make it easier for overworked judges to quickly scan through many pages of pleadings and make sense of them.
Then computers came along. People started using them to produce legal documents. But a lot of them only had capital letters on their printers, or did not distinguish between upper and lower case. Programs in COBOL are examples of this. It was also found that it was easier to read words printed in all caps on forms, and to distinguish the newly-printed words from the pre-printed words on the forms.
In the meantime, there were advances in typesetting typography. People became able to print special symbols, bold face, different fonts and sizes, superscripts, underlined, and colors. And with that came demands for using differences in typography to highlight words in legal documents, including treatises, law review articles, briefs, etc.
Now we have personal computers and laser printers that can do anything the typesetter can do, and legal workers are now under pressure to produce nicely composed legal documents according to the same conventions that typesetters are asked to use.
This explosion of choices could have led to confusion, so the various courts have established rules for how they want legal documents prepared, and these rules are matched by similar but sometimes different rules of the major law review editors.
Basically, they have settled on three font styles: upper-and-lower case Roman, Italics, and Roman all-caps with larger point size for initials. Of course, if these are saved as ASCII text files, the Italics are lost, and the all-caps only show up as a single point size. Sometimes, to show Italics, as a legacy of underscoring, the words to be italicized are surrounded by underscore characters, as we do in the text above in the text version of this article.
The Bluebook calls for different typographics for the same kinds of things in different places. For example, a case cite like Marbury v. Madison would be italicized in the body of a law review article, but not in a footnote. Why? Who knows. It doesn't have to make sense. It's what they do. If you submit it using different conventions, the editors will change it to their journal's conventions.
The important thing to remember, however, is that there is no legal significance to the typography of a name, other than how well it distinguishes one object from others with which it might be confused. It is the object that matters. A misspelling is a "scrivener's error". Doesn't changed anything. Just needs to be corrected. Caps, complete or initial, don't mean anything. Just whatever the writer thought would aid the reader to get through the document quickly and with a minimum of confusion.
The nom de guerre position is one rabidly advocated by Wrong Way Law. It is all based on hype and emotions; the speakers who advocate this argument know how to push the emotional "hot buttons" at patriot pep rallies. I have reviewed the "best" briefs regarding this issue and they are all trash. Yet I continue to see people call themselves "John, of smith," "Jack: Smith," etc., and I just simply conclude that such parties have attended a Wrong Way Law seminar and have accepted a pack of lies. Further, it is remarkable that all the people who believe this idea have never checked it out; they just accept it because some patriot guru claimed it was correct.
I don't like to get caught up in legal 'gobleygock'. The gov't makes all kinds of claims as to what I am responsible for, and what I am to do. Their conventions and procedures mean little to me. They certainly do not change what I am responsible for.
Quote from: 'David'I don't like to get caught up in legal 'gobleygock'. The gov't makes all kinds of claims as to what I am responsible for, and what I am to do.
That same kind of sentiment actually makes me wonder why Ian cares so much about this and the so-called "allodial title" thing. IF "name in caps" is actually a corporation the government creates - so what? The fact of the matter is they will use violence on the meatbag that is you and the only thing that distinction makes is how the bureaucrat filling paperwork will do.
If you operate from a mode of personal responsibility, unless you're actually just curious about "the system" the corporation/caps thing is pointless.
It sounds to me that some people who want to commit fraud simply popularized the justification they use to sleep easier at night. "It's a government corporation, not a real person who owes the debt!".
I think it's kind of wierd to change your name based on some silly conspiracy stuff.
But regardless, I like Freeman.
(http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/images/thumb/f/f8/300px-Gordon_Freeman.jpg)
Now you just need a crowbar. ;)
Quote from: dalebert on August 21, 2008, 09:58 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on August 21, 2008, 12:03 AM NHFT
And dreepa breathes a sigh of relief... ;)
I am so jealous of Dreepa for having a name like that!
You could just change yours. No need to be jealous: Dale Lawless
Law is very deliberate about little things. As I said, I don't know if the conspiracy claims are true about the ALL CAPS "person", but I do know that Sam believes he wasn't arrested recently because the cops couldn't verify his "legal" name. There seems to be some validity to separating yourself from the legal name and instead acting as the agent for the legal name.
Mostly though, it's just personal. Freeman is more descriptive of who I am today and who I want to be, while Bernard is a vestige of my past.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 21, 2008, 05:05 PM NHFT
I do know that Sam believes he wasn't arrested recently because the cops couldn't verify his "legal" name. There seems to be some validity to separating yourself from the legal name and instead acting as the agent for the legal name.
And with all the rules police and the courts break, you think they didn't arrest him because of some obscure legal name thing?
Quote from: dalebert on August 21, 2008, 09:58 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on August 21, 2008, 12:03 AM NHFT
And dreepa breathes a sigh of relief... ;)
I am so jealous of Dreepa for having a name like that!
Yeah, me too. Actually, the day I met Dreepa, at a NorCal FSP Local Group meeting, there was also a guy named John Galt in attendance! :o
But Dreepa is in a fight-to-the-death struggle in the coolest name award competition by an employee of one of my clients, who is named... Jonny Reckless. 8)
Ian Freeman ... hmmm
well we perform Christenings a little different here in the Shire
we baptize you by throwing you in a cold lake or ocean and let you out once you answer to your assigned name
or if you want to go a more voluntary route, we could have a name change event of some sort ... some people are even added to an official list and some even get Shire cards for their wallets :)
I keep seeing your name typed and wanna say "Spice must flow" but that would be rude.
Good luck with the name change. It's been years since mine (and I did it the "legal" way) and I still run into issues.
Quote from: Coconut on August 21, 2008, 07:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 21, 2008, 05:05 PM NHFT
I do know that Sam believes he wasn't arrested recently because the cops couldn't verify his "legal" name. There seems to be some validity to separating yourself from the legal name and instead acting as the agent for the legal name.
And with all the rules police and the courts break, you think they didn't arrest him because of some obscure legal name thing?
I don't suggest this will prevent you from being arrested, but if you refuse to confirm their suspicions about who you are it makes their job much more difficult.
This is the main reason why they demand your name and DOB. They want your consent to link you to their corporate person, especially if it's "wanted".
Go watch some videos of Irene Gravenhorst. She's a crazy conspiracy Canuck, but how she handles the cops is pretty interesting.
It is interesting when one thinks about one's name.
It's something that is used everyday to identify who you are, an yet it was just given to you by someone else before you were even born.
It's like a constant reminder that someone else is in control of your life.
I like the way NA Indians do it (Or the way I recall movie Indians doing it.) where the child gets his real name later in life after some event or personality trait.
Oh, another thing to think about is why do I have to go to a judge to change my name?
That's always made me wonder.
Quote from: Puke on August 22, 2008, 05:31 AM NHFT
It is interesting when one thinks about one's name.
It's something that is used everyday to identify who you are, an yet it was just given to you by someone else before you were even born.
It's like a constant reminder that someone else is in control of your life.
I like the way NA Indians do it (Or the way I recall movie Indians doing it.) where the child gets his real name later in life after some event or personality trait.
Roman Catholics do the same thing. I selected my own, new, name at age 12/13 as part of Confirmation, which is the "coming of age" sacrement. Not only that, but I did it in a legally Muslim country, so the very act of expressing my (then) religious beliefs was illegal and a small F.U. to the state. :icon_pirat:
I also did a NA Indian-style vision quest, which involved solo camping and fasting in the wilderness for 4 days, in my mid-twenties (hey, I'm from Marin County, so sue me :P ), and selected another name then.
So the name the government has on file for me is not my real name. My real name is almost, but not quite, as long as Francisco D'Anconia's, and just as floridly Latin, with every part of it ending in a vowel. >:D
Quote from: Puke on August 22, 2008, 05:32 AM NHFT
Oh, another thing to think about is why do I have to go to a judge to change my name?
That's always made me wonder.
Because it's THEIR legal name they assigned you when your parents filled out the birth certificate. There's a difference between legal and lawful names...
Freeman is a good NH name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Norton_Freeman).
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 22, 2008, 01:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: Puke on August 22, 2008, 05:32 AM NHFT
Oh, another thing to think about is why do I have to go to a judge to change my name?
That's always made me wonder.
Because it's THEIR legal name they assigned you when your parents filled out the birth certificate. There's a difference between legal and lawful names...
Please Explain.
I'm defining legal and lawful to mean the same things... per acts of law.
See Black's Law Dictionary.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 23, 2008, 10:55 PM NHFT
See Black's Law Dictionary.
Oh man, the last thing I expected to see from you was quoting the magic incantations!
Quote from: error on August 23, 2008, 11:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 23, 2008, 10:55 PM NHFT
See Black's Law Dictionary.
Oh man, the last thing I expected to see from you was quoting the magic incantations!
:P I didn't quote them.
You and I may think it's fantasy, but it's very real to the state worshippers. The world they live in is sick. Their language is english-like - but not actually english, as they can redefine words to suit them and confuse the average joe. It's not necessary for us to understand their language. In fact, it's a good thing to not know, so you can honestly ask bureaucrats what they mean when they say things to you.
"I don't speak your language, what do you mean by x, y, z."
I don't really understand the difference, but I know enough to know they are different. Black's Law 2nd Ed is on Google Books. Sometimes it's useful to translate one of their terms.
Legal Land is a maddening rabbithole that is of course nothing more than a cover for violence, but let's play in their world for a moment.
Everyone thinks they know what a "person" is. It's a "human being" according to dictionary.com. That's the english definition.
Here's their (legalese) definitions, from Black's Law 2nd Ed:
QuotePerson:
A man considered according to the rank he holds in society.
This is a long way from "human being"! Don't stop at just one definition, though. Dig deeper.
QuoteMan:
Male of the human species above the age of puberty.
Consideration: (Black's doesn't have the tense "considered")
The inducement to a contract. The cause, motive, price, or impelling influence which induces a contracting party to enter into a contract
Considered in regular english means "carefully weighed".
According:
In practice. To agree or concur...
Rank:
The order or place in which certain officers are placed...
Society:
An association or company of persons (generally not incorporated) united together for any mutual or common purpose.
Association:
The act of a number of persons who unite or join together for some special purpose or business. An unincorporated society; a body of persons united and acting together without a charter but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies for the prosecution of some common enterprise.
Ugh. That's enough of that. Dig on if you wish.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think it's safe to say "person" has a drastically different meaning to the legal land people than it does to most of us. All of their "statutes" apply to "persons". Things that make you go, hmm...
So, my translation of the legalese "person": "A human being, carefully weighed according to the rank he holds in society - an association he is either held in by his consent, ignorance, or men with guns."
What about that rank in society part? You don't remember becoming an officer in the government, do you? If not, it must be the "person" they created when your parents got your birth certificate. We just unwittingly respond as the "person" when govt people attempt to interact or
contract with us. "Are you FIRSTNAME LASTNAME? What's your Date of Birth?" Most people just answer with the info they've been trained to answer with, and they've created "joinder" with the "person". (At least, those are the allegations as I understand them.) It's time we tried something different. This could be fun. :icon_pirat:
All we have to do is have enough people noncooperate and withdraw from their "society" and hopefully the men with guns will learn their lives are easier if they leave us alone.
Now, you can be certain the average bureaucrat doesn't know this stuff. They are just hired to follow orders. Judges and prosecutors on the other hand should be well aware of the scam.
That is some crazy shit.
WHile I don't subscribe to the "I say magic words or have magic papers that make bureaucrats disappear" theory; it is quite fascinating to see this insane legal bullshit with one's own eyes.
It's too bad 99.99% of Americans have no clue how fucked up the "system" is. (Gov't schools educating stupid.)
Quote from: Puke on August 24, 2008, 06:34 AM NHFT
That is some crazy shit.
WHile I don't subscribe to the "I say magic words or have magic papers that make bureaucrats disappear" theory; it is quite fascinating to see this insane legal bullshit with one's own eyes.
It's too bad 99.99% of Americans have no clue how fucked up the "system" is. (Gov't schools educating stupid.)
It's neat to see some people catching on to the same crap the "elite" use and hide from us. I hope this is only the beginning and this spreads like wildfire! :)
I have watched Robert-Arthur: Menard also regarding the definition of "person". He is very intelligent and knowledgeable about misleading words in law (or more appropriately "statutes"). His videos "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" and "The Magnificent Deception" on google are very informative. He is also in the video "Hijacking Humanity - chapter 3: commerce and law" which is where I learned of the other two videos.
The first time I heard of this difference between the legal definition and the general definition of "person" was when I was watching Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class on google several years ago. Michael says the same thing as Robert. I've also read and heard many others present the same information. A really good book to read is "Citizen/Slave - Understanding the American Sovereign Spirit" by Robert Hart, who is a common law civil rights litigator in Nevada. He also spells out the definition of "person" as well as many other words used like "citizen".
NH does have a definition of "person" within it's statutes. It reads:
TITLE I
THE STATE AND ITS GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 21
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Section 21:9
21:9 Person. – The word "person'' may extend and be applied to bodies corporate and politic as well as to individuals.
Source. RS 1:8. GS 1:8. GS 1:9. GL 1:9. PS 2:9. PL 2:9. RL 7:9.
Where does it say "human being" or "spiritual being in physical form"? 'Cause I don't see it.
And what is the legal definition of "bodies" and "individuals"?
Quote from: Paul Comeau Jr on September 29, 2008, 03:41 PM NHFT
I have watched Robert-Arthur: Menard also regarding the definition of "person". He is very intelligent and knowledgeable about misleading words in law (or more appropriately "statutes"). His videos "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" and "The Magnificent Deception" on google are very informative. He is also in the video "Hijacking Humanity - chapter 3: commerce and law" which is where I learned of the other two videos.
The first time I heard of this difference between the legal definition and the general definition of "person" was when I was watching Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class on google several years ago. Michael says the same thing as Robert. I've also read and heard many others present the same information. A really good book to read is "Citizen/Slave - Understanding the American Sovereign Spirit" by Robert Hart, who is a common law civil rights litigator in Nevada. He also spells out the definition of "person" as well as many other words used like "citizen".
NH does have a definition of "person" within it's statutes. It reads:
TITLE I
THE STATE AND ITS GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 21
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Section 21:9
21:9 Person. – The word "person'' may extend and be applied to bodies corporate and politic as well as to individuals.
Source. RS 1:8. GS 1:8. GS 1:9. GL 1:9. PS 2:9. PL 2:9. RL 7:9.
Where does it say "human being" or "spiritual being in physical form"? 'Cause I don't see it.
And what is the legal definition of "bodies" and "individuals"?
Yeah, really! Good observations, thanks! :)
Welcome back to the forum, Paul. ;D
Haven't seen you here in a while...
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 20, 2008, 08:04 PM NHFT
I'm pretty sure your parents chose your name.
Government paperwork simply uses the chosen identity... you can chose anyone you'd like.
Only in a few instances are you given an actual government ID... the first usually being when your parents acting in a custodial manner apply for a SSN.
or in my children's case the hospital applies for one FOR you. I had NO intention of applying for a SSN for my daughters, and a few weeks after each of them was born I received a ss card. Of course I had to sign something in the hospital I'm sure, but they had me do the paperwork when I was still drugged up, not to mention they fingerprinted me for the first time ever too.
My dad had managed to keep me from being fingerprinted my whole like despite several tries by the local police department to print all the kids at the elementary 'in case anything ever happens to you, this will help us save you'. my dad didn't buy in.
My question Ian, is how do you propose to 'non-cooperate' with their, in my eyes, legally binding contract that your parents took out for you?
Quote from: ali-cat on September 29, 2008, 11:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 20, 2008, 08:04 PM NHFT
I'm pretty sure your parents chose your name.
Government paperwork simply uses the chosen identity... you can chose anyone you'd like.
Only in a few instances are you given an actual government ID... the first usually being when your parents acting in a custodial manner apply for a SSN.
or in my children's case the hospital applies for one FOR you. I had NO intention of applying for a SSN for my daughters, and a few weeks after each of them was born I received a ss card. Of course I had to sign something in the hospital I'm sure, but they had me do the paperwork when I was still drugged up, not to mention they fingerprinted me for the first time ever too.
My dad had managed to keep me from being fingerprinted my whole like despite several tries by the local police department to print all the kids at the elementary 'in case anything ever happens to you, this will help us save you'. my dad didn't buy in.
My question Ian, is how do you propose to 'non-cooperate' with their, in my eyes, legally binding contract that your parents took out for you?
Just an FYI...
You will go through all manner of verbal abuse at the hospital if you're watching and refuse to fill out the SSN paperwork for your kids. Part of the threat process will include: "You won't be able to take them as a tax deduction unless you have a SSN for them." The response: "I've never taken this child as a tax deduction before, I don't need to now." The real reason: We were sold into slavery by our parents' naivete' but now that we know better we will
not sell our children into slavery in order to gain a few crumbs on our tax returns! The other threat will be that the State will be called if you don't get the SSN (and do some other things) and you will be reported as abusive and neglectful. Even if you stand your ground, you will have to be very vigilant because in many cases, well-intentioned but misguided, hospital workers will "do you a favor" by marking the space for your child to get the SSN even if you've specifically said that you don't want it. I know someone who works for the IRS (yeah, I know... what can I say... we argue about it all the time... :( :'( ) and they told me that as long as you don't take the kid as a tax deduction and the kid gets the SSN before they start working (at 14, 15, whenever...), then no SSN is legally required. One other problem with not having an SSN that you will have to go through is that after a certain age (above "toddler" age), any checks written to the kid will become harder and harder to cash. (Birthday, holidays, other gifts... you'll have to tell people to make the check out to you, who has a SSN, or better yet to give you cash...)
I know (through someone else) a person who filled out some paperwork and rescinded their SSN. In doing so they were told that if they change their mind, they agree that they can never rescind it again. They were also told that any money that is in their SSN account currently is forfeit and they can't get it back. Even after going through it, they still had a hard time getting their employer to stop withholding the SSN amount. I don't know for certain, but I believe they still withhold for Medicare, but that doesn't seem right to me since they don't have a SSN to get the benefits anymore.
I'm pretty confident that SS won't be around when I retire... or can't retire as the case may be. :P
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 22, 2008, 01:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: Puke on August 22, 2008, 05:32 AM NHFT
Oh, another thing to think about is why do I have to go to a judge to change my name?
That's always made me wonder.
Because it's THEIR legal name they assigned you when your parents filled out the birth certificate. There's a difference between legal and lawful names...
Here's a website defining the differences of names.
http://www.natural-person.ca/capital.html
Quote from: ali-cat on September 29, 2008, 11:54 PM NHFT
My question Ian, is how do you propose to 'non-cooperate' with their, in my eyes, legally binding contract that your parents took out for you?
I didn't sign that contract.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 21, 2008, 05:05 PM NHFT
Law is very deliberate about little things. As I said, I don't know if the conspiracy claims are true about the ALL CAPS "person", but I do know that Sam believes he wasn't arrested recently because the cops couldn't verify his "legal" name. There seems to be some validity to separating yourself from the legal name and instead acting as the agent for the legal name.
I would be willing to bet they didn't arrest him simply because they open themselves up to legal liability if they wrongfully arrest someone because they failed to ensure they had the right person.
The supremes have said that you have to identify yourself, but what are they gonna do if you don't, put you in jail for a few days, weeks? Prolly.