IN NAME ONLY: PART 1

ORIGINAL EMAIL: OCTOBER 15, 2010

This blog: IN NAME ONLY; is a response to a comment from an earlier blog called: Skype | David & Dario: Part 1-4. I am replying in a paragraph-by-paragraph manner, because the comment, while shows that the commenter is truly thinking; there are elements of “over-thinking” certain issues.  One of those issues is: “who owns property since you are not your name or and someone else…some Wizard behind the scenes…owns YOUR NAME?”  Another issue,  if everything in the system is “IN THE NAME” and you don’t own your own NAME/name; then who has the fiduciary duties?

Okay…see what I mean?  The issue is getting complicated for me, just trying to describe it.  But, this is what the Patriot Rabbit does.

In addition to a line-by-line analysis; “we” have produced audio that is just over one hour long that goes along with this commentary.  It is something like a “fireside chat” between Aaron and I.  Although we vaguely talk about blog and comments; what is discussed in the audio, more than anything else is having an “IMPERATIVE MINDSET” versus indulging in “SUBJECTIVE THINKING”.   For the sake of providing a quick “Reason”; take the founders of the United States of America.  They formed a New Compact to get away from the “Arbitrary Nature” of the King of Great Britain.  It was an IMPERATIVE ACT for them.

And the RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION requires an IMPERATIVE MINDSET.   If I were asked to sum up this Imperative Nature into one word; that word would be… MUST.

This is a long three-part study, but necessary.  The rest of the first part is dedicated to Terry’s comment to me and the last two parts will cover my responses.

---

SUBMISSION:

Terry 
smonebull@???
2010/10/07 at 6:11 am

Skype | David & Dario: Part 1-4

A very inter­est­ing con­ver­sa­tion (about the 3 KEYS TO FREEDOM) and I can see the angle that Dario has taken to try and help out the ‘man on the street’ who unfor­tu­nately doesn’t ‘see’ any of this because of the rea­sons David has given. If Joe Schmo was helped out for the house then he would imme­di­ately revert back to every­thing else that got him into that sit­u­a­tion in the first place. A quick solu­tion, for one thing, does not make the entire problem/issue go away.

Some­thing I find most inter­est­ing is the aspect of alle­ga­tion of fraud on the mort­gages though. In fact, any­thing else for that mat­ter that has been entered into by way of a sup­posed ‘con-tract’.

My own research is lead­ing me to see that the cor­po­rate struc­ture of the world is essen­tially Vat­i­can dri­ven with all roads lead­ing to Rome. The UK and the City State of Lon­don cer­tainly seem to be a seat of the ‘Crown’ where the ‘Tem­ple Bar’ etc are located. There are obvi­ous con­nec­tions to the Vat­i­can from here and the belief that the ‘Crown’ is, in fact, the ‘Pope’ with a frontwoman called QEII.

As we know and as is well doc­u­mented, the ‘Pope’ claims to own the entire world.

This brings me to the ‘Name’. The Birth Cer­tifi­cate in the UK has 2 dis­tinct­ful points upon it which clearly state;
1) It should never be used as per­sonal iden­ti­fi­ca­tion
2) It is clearly marked as ‘Crown Copyright’.

Now, I know there is much talk about the ‘Name’ and its use­age but there does seem to be some very inter­est­ing aspects to this as well.

The ‘Name’ which is the ‘Given Name’ by the parent/Informant is, in law, ‘Prop­erty’. This prop­erty is ‘Given’ to the Crown rep­re­sen­ta­tive (The Regis-trar) and is recorded accord­ingly. It would appear that the ‘Name’ as ‘Prop­erty’ then has a Fidu­ciary Owner (The Crown).

How­ever, the child grows up believ­ing that the ‘Name’ is theirs and treats it as such.

Of course, the Birth Cer­tifi­cate lends itself to the fact that the ‘Name’ is indeed ‘owned’ by the ‘Crown’ (The Pope) as of course, the Pope seems to own everything.

It could be that when the ‘Name’ is ‘Given’ (Gifted) by the parent/informant to the regis-trar then, of course, it is then sent to the ‘Recorder General’s Office’ (obvi­ously a mil­i­tary appoint­ment) where a ‘con-version may take place. The ‘Name’ (which is prop­erty) is gifted to the State. One of the def­i­n­i­tions of ‘con­ver­sion’ in law is ”the con­ver­sion of real prop­erty to a per­son­al­ity and vice versa”. (Person-ality).

If we then look closer at this then it would be rea­son­able to accept that the ‘Name’ is owned by the Crown and that as such they have the Fidu­ciary respon­si­bil­ity for its ‘use’.

If the ‘Name’ has been used to enter into mort­gage agree­ments to pur­chase prop­erty then this tells me 2 things;
1) It is the ‘Name’ that is pur­chas­ing the prop­erty, not the ‘Man’/‘Woman’
2) The ‘Name’ may be ‘owned’ by the Crown, not the ‘Man’ using the ‘Name’

This tells me that a ‘fraud’ can­not be com­mit­ted by the ‘Man’ as the ‘owner’ of the ‘Name’ is not him.

Of course, it is easy to point out that the ‘Man’ has been using the ‘Name’ as an owner and there­fore should accept that respon­si­bilty but some­thing tells me it isn’t as easy as that and ‘mis-takes’ have been made.

We all know or cer­tainly sus­pect we are being treated as slaves as per the maxim that you are the slave to the one you are in debt to. How­ever, we also know that you may not own the ‘Name’ and by way of regis-tration of a house/property, you do not ‘own’ the prop­erty either. This is where they are split­ting titles using Trusts. There­fore, the lia­bil­ity of the alleged ‘debt’ goes to the ‘owner’ of the ‘Name’.

Money itself cer­tainly seems to be pri­vate and copy­right and tied into the sys­tem of the ‘Name’ and prop­erty. If the Crown owns every­thing then yes, they can deal with it in sim­ple Trust Law for­ma­tions to split titles and give the illu­sion of own­er­ship. They can do what­ever they want with the ‘Name’ as they ‘own’ it.

It would also be rea­son­able to con­clude that each time you ‘claim’ the ‘name’ (some­one else’s prop­erty — The Crown’s maybe) then that could be deemed an act of War. In fact, any­time you use it to claim own­er­ship of any­thing at all then it could be deemed an act of War as the Crown (Pope) is deemed to own everything.

So, if there is suf­fi­cient evi­dence to sus­pect you are not the ‘owner’ of the ‘Name’ then it would be fair to con­clude that if you make any claims on that name you are in fact plac­ing your­self firmly into the role of a Cit­i­zen and a ‘slave’ and com­mit­ting acts of War.

I did some research into ‘Inden­tured Ser­vants’ and it cer­tainly appeared that those who entered into it were totally owned by their ‘Mas­ters’. Stran­g­ley enough, around the same time that for­mal ‘Inden­ture Cer­tifi­cates’ of this nature were phased out, Birth Cer­tifi­cates quickly fol­lowed. This is around the mid-1800’s. Mas­ters were how­ever respon­si­ble for the feed­ing, cloth­ing, and aco­mo­dat­ing of the ‘servant/slave’.

Any­way, I’m just pick­ing up on the ‘fraud’ aspect and belief that the ‘Man’ com­mits this fraud by ‘sign­ing’ mort­gage agree­ments and I’m not fully con­vinced that may be true. The lia­bil­ity of the ‘Name’ used is not upon the one using it if the mis-take is cor­rectly iden­ti­fied and for­give­ness sought. In any case, the ‘Man’ does not own the house, the ‘Name’ does and the ‘Man’ does not seem to ‘own’ the ‘Name’. The only advan­tage the ‘Man’ has gained is to have shel­ter and if the mar­ket turned upwards then the pos­si­bil­ity of a ‘profit’ by way of ‘ben­e­fi­cial title’ of the house. We must not lose sight of the fact that the ‘Man’ may have put a lot of his own time and effort, sweat equity and ‘money’ into extend­ing, dec­o­rat­ing and improv­ing and main­tain­ing the house. All the ben­e­fit of this swiftly taken away by the manip­u­la­tion of the mar­ket prices being forced down­wards quite delib­er­ately (or so it seems to me now and even historically).

If we look at ‘usufruc­tary’ and the fact that ‘Man/Woman’ has nat­ural domin­ion of the earth (no-one can claim to ‘own’ it really) then it may be rea­son­able to assume that the ‘Name’ can be used but not claimed.

I agree with the aspect of the State being at war with the cit­i­zen as per the Lieber Code in the USA but is the State at War with Peace­ful Inhab­i­tants who make no claims of ownership?

Does a ‘Peace­ful Inhab­i­tant’ who oper­ates strictly as such have to look to form a new Nation State?

Can a Peace­ful Inhab­i­tant con­tinue to live and use the house he is cur­rently using if there is no other higher claim? Does the bank have a higher claim if they did not oppose the Man when he moved in?

If you realize you do not ‘own’ but merely ‘use’ the ‘Name’ in com­merce then can you be deemed to be ‘State­less’? If you ‘use’ the ‘Name’ in any­thing at all and you don’t ‘own’ it, and this fact has never been pointed out to you, then should you really carry the respon­si­bil­ity once you have realized the mis-take? (like fraud for example)

If I use the ‘Name’ to do a process of cre­at­ing my own new State and I do not ‘own’ the ‘Name’ I am doing the process in, then could that be deemed an act of War as well?

If we are say­ing there is no issue around the own­er­ship of the ‘Name’ then why is it used the way it is and who ben­e­fits from its ‘use’? I would sug­gest it quite rightly is ‘prop­erty’ and does have an owner/fiduciary with lia­bil­ity. If that ‘owner’ is me then it’s high time I started issu­ing ‘user’ agree­ments for any­one try­ing to extract my value by using my prop­erty. If how­ever as I sus­pect I am not the ‘owner’ of the ‘Name’ and realise my mis-take then it is high time the ‘owner’ started to meet his oblig­a­tions. If I can­not ‘own’ any­thing then why should I pay (and how can I ) and how can I (the Man) com­mit fraud?

As per the Birth Cert. It says clearly upon it ”not to be used as per­sonal iden­ti­fi­ca­tion” and of course, there is no law that I know of that says the ‘Name’ can be used as per­sonal iden­ti­fi­ca­tion or that the ‘Name’ is per­sonal iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. Unless one vol­un­teers to claim it as such of course which we now know may be an act of War as you tres­pass on some­one else’ prop­erty (The Crown’s), fall into dis­hon­our and cause con­tro­versy for the courts.

The Ego wants to ‘own’ the ‘Name’ and any­thing else it can ‘empire build’ with. I agree, it is time to con­trol the Ego. If every­one wants to ‘own’ it causes peo­ple to hoard and wants more.

Wow, my com­ment has turned into a book.

Any­way, there may be some other very valid points around the ‘Name’ I have not con­sid­ered and I may be totally wrong in my con­clu­sions so far. I am always happy to learn more and change my think­ing in line with new information.

Thank you

Continue: Part 2