Lose The Name: Kate of Gaia & Cult Followers

[arayder]

I think there are two possibilities. Either there isn't a stage/venue big enough to support the various egos, since it is now all about being right and important, and if you're right and important you don't share a stage with someone who isn't, or else they are just bone idle lazy and it is easier to shriek at someone over the internet than to actually get out there and do it in person.

It's both at once. Plus some incredibly poor judgment by Menard.

Even though he fighting freemen gurus are after the same thing, getting out from under the the courts and the law, all the theories about how to achieve that goal can't be right. Some of them are mutually exclusive.

But it says something about Menard that he goes out of his way to disprove Kate's theory using an argument that disproves his and several other freeman theories.

Menard says theories asserting that governments are doing things they have never been shown to do and have never claimed to do are simply wrong. The problem is that this disproves Menard's own 96 fix, ACCP and security of the person theories.

Poor ole Bobby could mess up an anvil.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Here we go again with another Menard "rebuttal" video (42 mins. long), where he again argues with a WORKER BEE, rather than going head to head with the QUEEN BEE ("Kate of Gaia"). It is subtitled "A Glassy Eyed Meltdown Production", a humorous reference to comments on Q about his appearance in his last video.

Rebuttal CUBED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWxsHzHjA1A

[Wake Up! Productions]

To add my 2 cents to the Legal Name debate, I am about disclose what my research has uncovered, and I welcome any dissenting or legal opinions.

It is all very simple, once you understand the process of REGISTRATION. When you buy your car - the FULL TITLE to that car is yours, and yours only, until you REGISTER your car. When you buy a house (property) - the FULL TITLE to that house (property) is yours, and yours only, until you REGISTER your land with the Land REGISTRY Office.

Once ANYTHING is REGISTERED with the government, that FULL TITLE becomes a SPLIT TITLE. The government gets the LEGAL TITLE, while you maintain the EQUITABLE TITLE. Among other things, Legal Title grants the government the RIGHT OF ACCESS to the property. Your Equitable Title allows you to accept the financial PROFIT or LOSS of that property.

The same is TRUE with the Legal Name. The government is the Legal Title HOLDER (not OWNER), and you are the Equitable Title HOLDER (not OWNER) of that name. The government HOLDS the Legal Title of the name, which is why you need their PERMISSION to change that name. You HOLD the Equitable Title, which means you can use that name to make a PROFIT, or be responsible for a financial LOSS !!! It is as simple as that !!!

The legal name allows you to collect on a $50 million lottery win, but (in America) it also allows the government to tax back a portion of that win. Recently, in Canada there was a news story about a family who attempted to claim a $50 million lottery win through a TRUST. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015 ... prize.html

Mayrhofer, 67, who described himself and his family as shy and private, said the delay was because they wanted to remain anonymous out of concern they wouldn’t be able to handle such an enormous prize.

They have since hired a group of advisers to help them handle the money, he said.

A lawyer for the family tried to claim the prize on behalf of a trust earlier this year, just days before the ticket was to expire.

After a review, B.C. Lottery Corp. president Jim Lightbody said they determined only a person could make the lottery claim and anyone who buys a ticket is required to consent to their name, photo and the amount of the prize being published when they buy a ticket.

The point being that the Legal Name is the "PERSON".

Again, I welcome any dissenting or legal opinions.

[Dr. Caligari]

Again, I welcome any dissenting or legal opinions.

Speaking as a lawyer (albeit not a Canadian one), not one bit of what you said is remotely true. To pick just a few items at random:

You do not have greater rights in a piece of real estate before you register your purchase; registration gives you more rights.

The government's power to tax you and your property arises from constitutions and statutes, and does not depend on registration of names or titles; in fact, people and property were taxed centuries before births or land titles were registered with the government.

There are such things as "legal title" and "equitable title," but those terms do not mean what you think they mean.

I could go on...

[Wake Up! Productions]

There are such things as "legal title" and "equitable title," but those terms do not mean what you think they mean.

I could go on...

legal title. (l7c) A title that evidences apparent ownership but does not necessarily signify full and complete title or a beneficial interest.

equitable title. (17c) A title that indicates a beneficial interest in property and that gives the holder the right to acquire formal legal title.

Seems pretty clear to me !!!

"You do not have greater rights in a piece of real estate before you register your purchase; registration gives you more rights."

This is true to a certain extent. As Dean Clifford pointed out in one of his "seminars", he would rather register his property, so that no one else can lay claim to it - but what he didn't say is that the moment you do so, it becomes a SPLIT TITLE, which then allows the municipal government to levee "property taxes".

I also notice that you neglected to tackle car REGISTRATION, and how it transfers the LEGAL TITLE to the government, allowing them to be able to CRUSH (destroy) the car - BUT NOT SELL IT !!! In fact, in the U.K., once the process of REGISTRATION is complete, you are legally acknowledge as the "REGISTERED KEEPER" of your own car !!! If this isn't an admission that you are not the FULL TITLE HOLDER, then I don't know what is.

As much as I appreciate the Quatloos community, I also see their FAULTS. The biggest fault is saying that something isn't true without BACKING IT UP (as you did) !!!

I am here for the TRUTH, backed up by documented FACTS. I am willing to forgo my previous "freeman" beliefs, but only if you present me real PROVABLE FACTS. Your comment presents no FACTS.

[arayder]

Here we go again with another Menard "rebuttal" video (42 mins. long), where he again argues with a WORKER BEE, rather than going head to head with the QUEEN BEE ("Kate of Gaia"). It is subtitled "A Glassy Eyed Meltdown Production", a humorous reference to comments on Q about his appearance in his last video.

Rebuttal CUBED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWxsHzHjA1A

At about 20:00 Menard argues against his own oft made claim that law is an intellectual construct which is imagined by the government and which be denied by freemen.

What a hypocrite.

Starting at 32:00 he repeats his "security of the person" argument saying the government somehow is allowed to treat adults as children based a birth certificate law. . .the same law he says is imaginary.

[arayder]

The government's power to tax you and your property arises from constitutions and statutes, and does not depend on registration of names or titles; in fact, people and property were taxed centuries before births or land titles were registered with the government.

Exactly.

[Wake Up! Productions]

The government's power to tax you and your property arises from constitutions and statutes, and does not depend on registration of names or titles; in fact, people and property were taxed centuries before births or land titles were registered with the government.

Exactly.

Assuming this is true, if that everyone had "Allodial title" to their property, how would PROPERTY taxes be enforced? The simple FACT is, Allodial title is only applicable in the State of Texas, due to family owned OIL ranches. Hence the 1980's TV series "Dallas".

It all comes down to TITLE., and since "Allodial title" does not LEGALLY exist in Canada, we exist in a form of feudalism.

[pigpot]

The government's power to tax you and your property arises from constitutions and statutes, and does not depend on registration of names or titles; in fact, people and property were taxed centuries before births or land titles were registered with the government.

Exactly.

Assuming this is true, if that everyone had "Allodial title" to their property, how would PROPERTY taxes be enforced? The simple FACT is, Allodial title is only applicable in the State of Texas, due to family owned OIL ranches. Hence the 1980's TV series "Dallas".

It all comes down to TITLE., and since "Allodial title" does not LEGALLY exist in Canada, we exist in a form of feudalism.

Assuming this is true, if that everyone had "Allodial title" to their property, how would PROPERTY taxes be enforced?

Exactly. It's not going to be introduced. That's the point isn't it. Are you not born free upon the Earth. What's this thing about taxing your mere existence? I don't get it. I was going to type, please explain but I chose not to type it as a question as I get accused of fishing for answers or accused of not accepting the status quo and trying to derail threads. Good god what are you people afraid of. Seems you lot are afraid of losing your silly "Real" ales and CAMRA membership.

[notorial dissent]

Wake up, I was going to ask in all seriousness if you were serious, sadly you seem to be. You are quite simply WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

You obviously DO NOT understand what the “registration system” is.

When you buy something, a house, a car, a comic book, you own full right and title to them, subject to any liens etc against them, that and that the seller had title to begin with. The rest is nonsense. Whether you register them or not, whatever title was available at purchase is yours absolutely subject to the conditions I previously mentioned.

When you “register” a title with the gov’t you are making a public record of your ownership of that property. Obviously it isn’t necessary with a comic book, but with something big like property or a car, by registering the item you make certain that someone cannot come along later with a fabricated title and claim it, or in the case of vehicles that you are the actual owner. Otherwise, your ownership rights and obligations are EXACTLY the same.

There is No split title or shared title with the gov’t by doing this. The rights and prerogatives you get with ownership come from statute law primarily, so the rest is just nonsense.

The “Legal Name” BS is of the same caliber, i.e. worth NOTHING. The rest of that is just too silly to bother refuting since it is the veriest of sovcit BS. It is no one’s property, it is how you are known and called and identify yourself, nothing more or less.

As an example, if you own a house and it is titled to John Smith, and you claim your name is Henry Simple, then you cannot prove you own the property or that someone else doesn’t, unless you can prove your identity. And if Henry Simple comes along, you could be SOL on the title.

As to collecting the $50M, it is not the name that determines the winner of the funds, it is the rules of the drawing, and if they say only individuals can play, then an individual not a trust or corporation can claim the money. Most of the lottery rules I am familiar with require this as a part of their publicity, which isn’t to say there aren’t ways around it.

So sorry, so much nonsense and irreality.

[Burnaby49]

Exactly. It's not going to be introduced. That's the point isn't it. Are you not born free upon the Earth. What's this thing about taxing your mere existence? I don't get it. I was going to type, please explain but I chose not to type it as a question as I get accused of fishing for answers or accused of not accepting the status quo and trying to derail threads. Good god what are you people afraid of. Seems you lot are afraid of losing your silly "Real" ales and CAMRA membership.

Chastized by Pigpot for my simple pleasures. Well at least my CAMRA membership is secure if I keep paying my $25 a year membership fee. And real ale is doing fine too, so I'm good.

Regarding Pigpot's issue with questions; he keeps posing questions that he really, really would like answered, in the hope of tempting posters to respond and start another trolling event. While I agree that it is as much the fault of posters who can't seem to stop responding to him as it is his for asking questions I've had enough so when he posts asking stupid stuff like "where does authority come from", "what is the law", just vague bait to get things going, I disapprove his posts. There is a second one he posted with this that you won't see for that reason.

Now, everybody, be the adult in the room and don't respond to;

Are you not born free upon the Earth. What's this thing about taxing your mere existence? I don't get it

because I have no tolerance left for moderating Pigpot generated squabbles.

[Llwellyn]

This is true to a certain extent. As Dean Clifford pointed out in one of his "seminars", he would rather register his property, so that no one else can lay claim to it - but what he didn't say is that the moment you do so, it becomes a SPLIT TITLE, which then allows the municipal government to levee "property taxes".

Ok this is a bit of a flawed ? ? read.. when you 'register' your property, that is just a simplified way of letting the governing bodies/councils know who owns it and who to send the tax bill to.. it does NOT BECOME A SPLIT TITLE.. (a split title can mean a few things, ie, 2 people are share owning a piece of land, giving each a title.. is a Split Title.. also Split title can mean, you own a piece of land, which is actually MORE than one piece (as segmented by the governing bodies).. and thus it is more than one actual title.. becoming a Split Title.
In no way, does registering your land, give the governing body the title or split the title between the owner and the government. (Note, ALLODIAL TITLES exist in Canada.. as the Government of Canada has the Allodial Title to ALL land in Canada .. and ONLY the government does, this includes native Reservations etc etc).
Registration does verify/quantify the land as yours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_registration - Wiki Land Registration

I also notice that you neglected to tackle car REGISTRATION, and how it transfers the LEGAL TITLE to the government, allowing them to be able to CRUSH (destroy) the car - BUT NOT SELL IT !!! In fact, in the U.K., once the process of REGISTRATION is complete, you are legally acknowledge as the "REGISTERED KEEPER" of your own car !!! If this isn't an admission that you are not the FULL TITLE HOLDER, then I don't know what is.

Vehicles are in essence the same.. you OWN everything, and it is a sole title to you. Registering a vehicle is often required for proof of ownership, and 'responsibility'... The Governing body CAN crush the car, but ONLY if it falls outside the regulations/guidelines/rules. - However, in doing so (crushing a vehicle) they ARE responsible for possible compensation. - Same as.. say the police take your vehicle and sell it.. they can only TAKE it if it has been in use/broken/associated to some crime/action. The police then sell it to in part recover costs/operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration - Wiki Vehicle Registration

A lot of registration information in general, but registration NEVER splits or hands title to someone else.

Unregistered land, happens all the time.. however, that doesn't stop someone else from attempting to claim it as their own. Unregistered vehicles are REALLY common.. as a vehicle (in general) on PRIVATE property does not need to be registered. Only when it goes to PUBLIC lands does it.

Hope this clarifies a little bit.

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor

(N.B. I did spend a few hours trying to look up split titles, and see if registration does have a 'hand-off' effect, and nowhere could I find a example of such.)

[wserra]

Seems pretty clear to me !!!

That is not only not right, it is not even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

As Dean Clifford pointed out in one of his "seminars", he would rather register his property, so that no one else can lay claim to it - but what he didn't say is that the moment you do so, it becomes a SPLIT TITLE, which then allows the municipal government to levee "property taxes".

Do you have any authority for that, other than your own interpretation of a couple of definitions (wrong, by the way) the source of which you don't even specify?

I also notice that you neglected to tackle car REGISTRATION, and how it transfers the LEGAL TITLE to the government, allowing them to be able to CRUSH (destroy) the car - BUT NOT SELL IT !!! In fact, in the U.K., once the process of REGISTRATION is complete, you are legally acknowledge as the "REGISTERED KEEPER" of your own car !!! If this isn't an admission that you are not the FULL TITLE HOLDER, then I don't know what is.

Do you have any authority for that, other than your own interpretation of a couple of definitions (wrong, by the way) the source of which you don't even specify?

As much as I appreciate the Quatloos community, I also see their FAULTS. The biggest fault is saying that something isn't true without BACKING IT UP (as you did) !!!

So much for that irony meter.

I am here for the TRUTH, backed up by documented FACTS. I am willing to forgo my previous "freeman" beliefs, but only if you present me real PROVABLE FACTS. Your comment presents no FACTS.

And you do? The difference is that Doc C is right, and you aren't even wrong. And imagine my relief that you are "willing to forgo [your] previous 'freeman' beliefs". Why, I don't know what I would do if you weren't.

You appear to be one of those dumbass Stevens types who wants FACTS to prove propositions of law. Even so, here's a fact: I have practiced in New York State (and elsewhere, but specifically New York) for 40 years. Up until the mid-1960s, Art. I, sec. 12 of the NYS Constitution read as follows:

§ 12. All lands within this State are declared to be allodial, so that, subject only to the liability to escheat, the entire and absolute property is vested in the owners, according to the nature of their respective estates.

That provision was amended out of the Constitution because it no longer meant anything. Originally, NY (like many states) wanted to make it clear that there were to be no more common-law-type feudal tenures in the state, but long before the mid-20th Century that ceased to be an issue. Do you think that, by virtue of that Constitutional provision, lands in NY were not subject to being taxed? Not subject to land-use regulation? Eminent domain?

Hint: they were.

[Pottapaug1938]

"The same is TRUE with the Legal Name. The government is the Legal Title HOLDER (not OWNER), and you are the Equitable Title HOLDER (not OWNER) of that name. The government HOLDS the Legal Title of the name, which is why you need their PERMISSION to change that name. You HOLD the Equitable Title, which means you can use that name to make a PROFIT, or be responsible for a financial LOSS !!! It is as simple as that !!!"

Bullfeathers.

When I was practicing law, I looked into not only changing the name of a friend of mine but changing my own. I knew, and I told my friend, that both of us had the common law right to change our name, without court action, as long as we had no intent to defraud anyone, but that it was best to go through the courts because sometimes creditors, both potential and actual, have trouble with people using a name other than a name not given at birth or changed through court action.

In my case, the task was easy, because I was only adding a middle name (partly because I was sick of explaining to people that my parents never gave me one, and hated those "NMN" and "NMI" designations in my name as typed on various forms (they stood, respectively, for No Middle Name and No Middle Initial). My friend was changing her surname; so she had to publish a legal notice in the newspaper; but since no one objected to the change, approval was received swiftly after the deadline for objections passed.

[arayder]

When one realizies that the government's power to tax and spent (among others) comes from the country's constitution and statutes it comes clear that freeman clamoring about birth certificates, titles and secret security accounts is a tempest in a tea pot.

We can anxiously await Mr. Menard's next youtube in which he will attempt to tell us that the government has a power not granted in its constitution, which it has never claimed and has denied in its courts.

We wait with baited breath to see if his proof will again be that his "government lawyer sister" told him that his childish misreading of the Canadian Constitution is correct.

I am popping the corn.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I thank everyone for their input on this subject. I will read it all and take everything in to account. I am sorry that I created a sh*t storm, but I felt that the "Legal Name" issue had been glossed over, without much debate. I am no longer one to subscribe to conspiracy theories per say, but sometimes I catch myself making up my own, based on lack of available provable information. This is why I turn to Quatloos - to give me a good slap in the face.

Thank you again.

[wserra]

OK, now you did make me feel bad.

It sounded as though you believed that you had received your information inscribed on clay tablets retrieved from Mount Sinai. A little less of that and you won't have a problem.

[arayder]

Yeah, WUP, it's all cool and you are cool, too.

[littleFred]

In fact, in the U.K., once the process of REGISTRATION is complete, you are legally acknowledge as the "REGISTERED KEEPER" of your own car !!! If this isn't an admission that you are not the FULL TITLE HOLDER, then I don't know what is.

In the UK, keeping a car is distinct to owning it. In the UK, we do not register ownership of cars. DVLA maintain a register of keepers, not owners.

Commonly the registered keeper is also the owner, but it ain't necessarily so.

[NYGman]

In fact, in the U.K., once the process of REGISTRATION is complete, you are legally acknowledge as the "REGISTERED KEEPER" of your own car !!! If this isn't an admission that you are not the FULL TITLE HOLDER, then I don't know what is.

In the UK, keeping a car is distinct to owning it. In the UK, we do not register ownership of cars. DVLA maintain a register of keepers, not owners.

Commonly the registered keeper is also the owner, but it ain't necessarily so.

It has been a while, but I believe in the US, at least when you lease a car and maybe if financed, you don't actually own it. You may register it, but I believe Title is in the name of the Lease/finance agency. They will sign it over, if you buy out the lease or complete payment, but it isn't yours. I believe this worked to your favor if you got pulled over for an offense that would confiscate your car, however, if a car was leased, they couldn't take it. At least I think that is how it was in NY. I really don't know anymore, as I haven't bought a car in over 6 years, but then I rarely drive, clocking 2-3k a year.