Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Court proceedings and Legal Process
VEdriver62
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:25 pm

Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby VEdriver62 » Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Been reading about this for the past week or so and it seems this is, or might be, a useful tactic for those going to court.

A quick summary. Our birth certificate creates a legal entity version of us all. Its 'registered' with the state and, it seems, it may ultimately owned by the Crown (which has nothing to do with queen Elizabeth.)

The Crown takes copyright over the name therefore if we use that name in interactions with 'authorities' we are breaching copyright. Authorities, by asking/demanding, are aiding and abetting the crime.

When in court, or similar, and asked to state your name, say, your Honor before I give you my name I need you to tell me "if its legal for me to use the legal name?" (or similar) It seems its highly unlikely they will say yes but if then do then tell them you require their affirmative reply in writing and seek an adjournment until you get the reply in writing.

A bloke asked this question in court in Brittan recently and the magistrate refused to answer and left the court room. After putting him the cells for a couple days they then let him go without charge.

Without stating your name they have no joinder and therefore no contract with you and they cannot proceed. This is how the bloke in Brittan got away by using this tactic.

These resources will help you understand all this more. I strongly recommend you get a good understanding of this matter before using it.

Note; that while the laws of Brittan and the US are different to Australian laws, they are also very similar in many ways because we all have the same legal heritage and the legal systems in the respective countries are based on the same principles and traditions. The laws in the respective countries all have much the same requirements.

https://kateof...¬ read through the list and select articles of interest.

also http://losethen...¬ This is in the US but the knowledge contained therein applies here as well.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8461
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Defending yourself - Is it illegal to use your legal name?

Postby Hardy » Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:33 pm

The Crown takes copyright over the name therefore if we use that name in interactions with 'authorities' we are breaching copyright.

No court has ever agreed with such an absurd proposition. No, not even the court you mention in Brittan, wherever that is. Indeed, that suggestion is so incorrect and stupid that I'd need a full day to write all the reasons why. Let's just start with it is not possible to claim copyright in a person's name, and how did your name appear on the charge and summons if you did not provide it to the police in the first place?

When in court, or similar, and asked to state your name, say, your Honor before I give you my name I need you to tell me "if its legal for me to use the legal name?"

In the Magistrates Court the accused person is not asked to state their name. Your case is called and you either make an appearance and the case against you is presented to the court, or you fail to make an appearance and the case is determined in your absence, or a warrant is issued for your arrest. If you get in the witness box to give evidence you are required to take the oath and state your name. If you don't want to state your name you will be told to leave the witness box.

Anyway, go ahead and believe the crap you see online and give it a try. Make sure you email me a copy of your court order and the transcript when you get acquitted so I can publish your victory here and eat humble pie.

Without stating your name they have no joinder and therefore no contract with you and they cannot proceed.

The crackpots who preach this garbage know nothing about criminal law (hint - it has nothing to do with a contract or joinder. Legislation is not a contract, taxation is not a contract, an infringement notice is not a contract). These people are usually anti-government reactionaries and anarchists who know nothing about the legal system or legal history beyond what they have seen written by equally crazy un-educated conspiracy theorists, and they claim that all the lawyers (even the ones who spend their whole lives helping people fight against the government) are in on the conspiracy and are pulling the wool over people eyes. Most of these people claim that their rights and freedoms spring from the bible and can not be infringed by parliaments.

Its illegal to use your legal name.

No, it's quite legal for you to use your legal name. No offence is committed by someone who uses their legal name, no matter how it is used. You can write it or state it without fear of being fined or charged. I am quite happy to guarantee you will remain free from prosecution if you use your legal name. I am very confident you can legally use your legal name - even the judges say you can. Hope that clarifies everything for you. So if anyone ever gets accused of acting illegally when all they have done is use their legal name then I will be quite happy to defend them in court free of charge.

VEdriver62
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:25 pm

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby VEdriver62 » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:28 pm

As a lawyer do you not agree that a name spelt in all capitals is a legal identity?

As a lawyer do not agree that when a magistrate asks a defendant to state their name they interpret the name as the legal entity to in order to get a joiner and therefore a contract with the defendent in a civil or commercial court?

I am very certain that you as a lawyer when in a civil court, you ask the court to produce the injured party when you represent your clients and if at any time, you are in a commercial court defending your clients, you ask the court to produce the contract that was signed by your client and move for dismissal if the contract is not produced?

As a lawyer do you not agree that in order to practice law one must have been admitted to the BAR and have BAR membership?

As a lawyer do you not also agree that if a police officer is questioning people and writing legal documents (speeding tickets) they are practicing law without a license as are many others who practice law through in their interactions with members of the public and complete legal documents when they are not members of the BAR?

I am also certain that you as a lawyer know that attacking the messenger is inferior to attacking the thought.

bluesky
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby bluesky » Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:22 am

Sorry VEDriver62; you've been suckered by some elaborate bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign ... n_movement

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8461
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

OK, but is it legal to use your illegal name?

Postby Hardy » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:48 am

VEdriver62, The simplest response to everything you write is to accuse you of being a fuckwit. But that could be unfair, because there is a chance you are a decent person (or human if you prefer) - so perhaps very gullible, naive, uneducated and inexperienced would be kinder descriptions. Interesting that you are on a traffic law forum to raise an issue that has little to do with traffic law. People like you regularly dump these pythonesque ideas on me. Seems you guys spam all the lawyers you can find with this bullshit just to be trolls or to make yourself feel better in the way evangelists do. You certainly did not come here to make an inquiry about or seek a legal opinion about the stuff you claim you discovered online only in the past week. Your original post did not make any inquiry at all. You came here to dump a load of shit pretending it is legally and factually correct. You are worse than a spammer. Indeed the FBI has classified people like you as domestic terrorists. So no need to pity yourself that my response is directed at both your message as well as the messenger. I've noticed the "lose the name" websites claim judges and lawyers won't answer the question whether it is illegal to use your legal name. Which is not true, because it has been answered many times and I'll answer it again for you here.

Everything you have stated is wrong in fact as well as wrong in law. It is all nonsense, and how you describe a court working is quite hilarious! What you claim happens in court is not what happens in court. I have already stated above that Magistrates don't commonly ask defendants to state their name or spell it out in either lower case or capitals. There is no contract formed or created in a court room. Seems like you believe that every interaction in society is contractual and requires your consent before it can affect you. Far from it. Clearly you have not been taught what contract or joinder means in a legal context. Contracts are founded on consideration passing between the parties, and no such thing happens in a criminal court room. FFS, judges and magistrates do not and can not enter into contracts with litigants or defendants - it is illegal for them to do so. Which is one good reason why you will never see any magistrates or judges being sued by litigants for breach of contract.

There are some people who claim that a person's name is a separate legal entity which is somehow distinct from the human being which is not a legal entity. The courts have rejected that argument because it is nonsense. You think the Crown has copyright in your name. It hasn't. It's not possible for you or anyone else to claim copyright in your name. Nor is it possible to claim copyright in a legal entity. Whoever told you that stuff is just making it up - perhaps they are wishing it were true, but unfortunately no matter how many times they state it it is never going to be true. Everything you say goes against all legal fundamentals. Nothing remotely similar to what you say is taught in any university or is printed in any text book written by a lawyer. Consequently it is not possible for that argument to benefit you either inside or outside court.

You can only claim copyright in a creative or artistic work. Your name (no matter how it is written) is simply an identifier and not a creative or artistic work. A human is a legal entity irrespective of whether or not they have a name. To say an identifier becomes the thing it identifies is as stupid as saying my car registration number is a motor vehicle. A legal entity is one that can sue or be sued. It can be either a human or a corporation. A corporation is identified in Australia by its ACN. A human is commonly identified by name and date of birth. A human is a person whether or not they have a name. Humans are not cloaked with a corporate entity or a corporate name. A name in capitals is identical to a name not in capitals - it has exactly the same meaning and effect. You exist as a single legal entity no matter how many different names you are known by. You are a single legal entity with or without a birth certificate. The issue of a birth certificate does not create a legal entity. It is merely evidence of the fact that a legal entity has already been created and assists us to identify that entity. Likewise the issue of a death certificate does not destroy a legal entity. It is merely evidence of the fact that a legal entity has already died. Having a birth certificate is not a pre-requisite to being entitled to commence a court case against another person or the state, nor is it a prerequisite to being charged with a criminal offence or sentenced by a court. It is possible to be charged with an offence, taken to court, found guilty and imprisoned without anyone knowing your name or true identity. You could try it yourself - imagine you walked into your local police station carrying a sword with a bomb strapped to your chest waving an ISIS flag chanting stuff about allah and threatening to blow up the building. Make sure you carry no ID and then refuse to identify yourself throughout the whole legal process that follows (assuming you are still alive) and see where you end up. The most basic foundations of your legal theory are totally flawed.

You can write your name in any case or font you like - it makes no difference to its meaning. A name written with blue ink is the same name even when it is written in red ink or crayon or pencil. You can even write it upside down if you like - as long as it states your name we know who is being identified. I am not aware of any law that prohibits a name being written in lower case, although some forms request you to write in upper case to make the forms easier to process. The main reason names are sometimes written in capitals is to make them easier to read when handwritten, and easier to identify on a page when typed. Your name in all capitals is no different to your name in lower case, or mixed case, or even in another language script, or braille or Pitman Shorthand. The only thing your name does is identify you as a person, and when combined with your date of birth is usually capable of identifying you as a unique human being. There are alternatives to using a name and DOB - people could identify themselves as unique human beings by having a number (pick any number system you like - roman numerals, hexadecimal, binary), or fingerprint, DNA profile or iris scan, but history has shown that in all societies using a name is more practical than any other form of identification. People do not have and can not have a corporate name. Without identification social systems like taxation and land ownership and legal systems become very difficult to manage and enforce - which I guess is your goal.

If you don't think an infringement notice has been legally issued to you because the police have used a font that you don't think is legal then you could just ignore the notice. Then ignore the warrant that is issued in default of payment, and then ignore the sheriff when he turns up to arrest you and tow away your car. Eventually though you will be in court on a PEW where you will have a chance to raise the issue that you don't accept the paperwork because you don't like the font used and the court will respond by sending you to prison if you don't pay the warrant amount.

Although you don't need to be a member of the Bar to practice law in Victoria, you certainly need to be registered as a legal practitioner, which is a good thing because it helps people work out who is publishing stuff that is credible and who is the looney. Why do you capitalise random words? Is there a difference between a "bar" and a "BAR"?

Finally, there is plenty of legal support for my view and nothing from any lawyer or legal authority that refutes it.
You should see how Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Alberta Queen's Bench slam-dunks all of your nonsense in his epic 2012 judgment Meads v. Meads (you might know it as MEADS v. MEADS): http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... qb571.html
(which is summarised here if you haven't time to read the whole thing).
And also take a look a the following amusing follies of the Sovereign Man litigants:
http://asdupdates.com/wordpress/archives/3676
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 8/374.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 2/138.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 3/105.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 0/451.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 014/7.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ ... /1007.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 15/18.html

"Before the District Court Judge the applicant filed extensive written submissions and relied on his asserted “inalienable human rights”, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (“Constitution”), and particularly s 92 of the Constitution, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Bible.": http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2007/50.html

Gravy
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby Gravy » Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:30 pm

I was looking for some light entertainment and came across a webpage that discusses the above nonsense:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

I'd not heard of rationwiki before, but I like it! It's much less politically correct than Wikipedia and much more direct in its arguments! I particularly liked the section titled "Freeman successes". Gold.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8461
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby Hardy » Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:07 pm

Nice find, Gravy. Love the one where the judge refused the guy bail pending appeal because he could not accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can not be verified.
Reminds me of a case I saw last week at Sunshine when one of these twits was in court applying to have an infringement notice declared invalid and set aside on the basis that the police had no authority to issue it, Imperial Acts Application Act, Magna Carta etc etc etc. In his own application, the goose told the Magistrate that all the laws of Victoria were invalid etc, and that the Court had no jurisdiction or power. The Magistrate then told him he had better file his application at a court which had power to deal with it. Application struck-out.

Day
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby Day » Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:28 pm

Gold!! :mrgreen:

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8461
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby Hardy » Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:33 am

Here are some choice extracts from the Meads v Meads decision:

Mr. Meads launched into an explanation of a number of things. He said that when he was born, he was given a register of birth, “a corporate identity”, bonded and registered in the Bank of Canada and in the state stock exchange, and that registration had an imputed income.

"You sir, are the judge in this matter. And so I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh and blood man, and as the creditor and beneficiary for and the private record, do here nominate and appoint you, Judge Rooke, fiduciary trustee liable under your full commercial liability, and your unlimited civil liability capacities, for my full protection and benefit as a de jure court.

For the record, I, Dennis Larry Meads, and for the record a child of the almighty God Jehovah, and not a child of the state. For the lord and saviour Jesus the Christ is my spiritual advocate and in this instant matter at hand, and that God’s laws rule supreme in my life and this court, and I, Dennis Larry Meads, being a flesh and blood man pray that the judge, you sir Mr. Rooke, Justice Rooke, and court follows this claim in God’s law, and if they should they decide not to they should make the claim right now that they are above God’s law and prove beyond the breath they let out pray again that the almighty God, all of us and protect us all, will abide with us in his laws."

[43] From a review of these documents, it appears that Mr. Meads is purporting to split himself into two aspects. One gets his property and benefits, the other his debts and liabilities. The ‘Mr. Meads with liabilities’ has entirely indemnified the ‘Mr. Meads with property’. He also appears to instruct me and the Bank of Canada to use a secret bank account, with the same number as his social insurance number or birth certificate, to pay all his child and spousal support obligations, and provide him $100 billion in precious metals. Mr. Meads has also purported to create various contractual obligations for those who might interact with him, or who write or speak his name.

[44] This is, of course, nonsense. As I have noted to Mr. Meads, these materials have no force or meaning in law, other than they indicate an intention on his part to evade his lawful obligations and the authority of the Court and government.

[70] These Reasons in many instances identify reported caselaw that comments on OPCA litigants, OPCA gurus, and their misconduct. It should be understood that the reported caselaw is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of encounters between this Court and OPCA litigants are not reported. These litigants and their schemes have been encountered in almost all areas of law. They appear in chambers, in criminal proceedings, initiate civil litigation based on illusionary OPCA rights, attempt to evade court and state authority with procedural and defence-based schemes, and interfere with unrelated matters.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

[73] A critical first point is an appreciation that the concepts discussed in these Reasons are frequently a commercial product, designed, promoted, and sold by a community of individuals, whom I refer to as “gurus”. Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards – one does not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws. There are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and some coloured writing. You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire, and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state. All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals.

[74] And all these “secrets” can be yours, for small payment to the guru.

[75] These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which accompanies an OPCA scheme. When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr. Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr. Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay child and spousal support.

[76] So where is that Mr. Meads (all capitals)? At one point in the June 8 hearing Mr. Meads said that Mr. Meads (all capitals) was a “corporate entity” attached to his birth certificate. Later, he told me that the other Mr. Meads was a “person” - and that I had created him! Again, total nonsense.

[77] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.

[78] Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer’s failure to properly understand and apply the guru’s special knowledge.

[79] Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide pre‑prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in court. Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case.

[80] When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leave court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully) understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.


What struck me after reading many cases involving these litigants is that they all believe in the truth of the bible and rely on god in their arguments. They believe the bible provides a superior law to parliament's laws, and that christians are bound by god's law and are not bound by parliament. Like me, you might have been amazed that someone could actually believe in something so bizarre and crazy as a birth certificate creating a copyrighted name and forming the basis of a commercial bond that can be redeemed for millions of dollars. But it becomes a lot easier to understand this when you consider that these people already believe in all the impossible stuff that happens in the bible. Having religious faith probably reinforces your propensity to be gullible and reduces your inclination to be sceptical, analytical or logical.

Another interesting story is that of Russell Porisky and his followers: http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=8968

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8461
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby Hardy » Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:56 pm

A bloke asked this question in court in Brittan recently and the magistrate refused to answer and left the court room. After putting him the cells for a couple days they then let him go without charge.

Without stating your name they have no joinder and therefore no contract with you and they cannot proceed. This is how the bloke in Brittan got away by using this tactic.


Found that case - it was far from a victory for the bloke you refer to. My understanding of what happened to Jimmyw in Britain is that he was a bankrupt who was arrested (after handing himself into police). A warrant had been issued because he refused to be interviewed by his trustee in bankruptcy. He was made bankrupt after he refused to pay council rates/taxes on the grounds that as a "freeman on the land" he believes he is exempt from all taxation laws - actually exempt from all legislation is a better description. After being arrested he was placed in the cells (18 hours) pending his appearance at court where he refused to concede his identity (even though he happily gave his ID to police when he handed himself in). He told the judge his name was "Jane Doe 557" with a date of birth of 1/1/1900. So far he has not been charged with anything in this proceeding - as it is a civil proceeding - so it is pointless to say that he "got away with it" without being charged. It looks like the Trustee in Bankruptcy will continue to pursue Jimmyw regardless whether he admits his name or not. It is possible the case was adjourned so Jimmy could get some legal advice and return to court to answer the questions on a later date, but the sound quality of the audio is so poor it is hard to hear how the hearing ended.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8461
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby Hardy » Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:37 pm

This video shows happens to people who claim they have a legal or corporate name which is different to their flesh and blood identity, and then rely on that theory to decide not to pay $132k in tollway fines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sul_mDCDxWk
It is sad to see how some people are completely brainwashed by this nonsense to the point that they are prepared to spend time in jail.
I had a client who spent weeks in jail after refusing to pay registration or the fines that followed - all because he was conned by Malcolm McClure and UPMART into believing he did not need to register his car at VicRoads.

freddie
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:09 pm

Re: Defending yourself - Its illegal to use your legal name.

Postby freddie » Sat Mar 12, 2016 12:46 am

Just knock their hat off and they cant fucking touch you


Return to “Courts and Lawyers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest