Lose The Name: Kate of Gaia & Cult Followers

[noblepa]

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.

For our UK friends, a reminder that car ownership laws (titles, registrations, etc.) are handled at the state level, not the federal, so things can vary a bit from state to state.

In Ohio, when you buy a car, you go to the Title Bureau, present the bill of sale and request that a Certificate of Title be issued. This is often done for the buyer by the dealership, if it is a new car or purchased from a dealer. If purchased from an individual, the buyer usually has to do this for him/herself. The Cert. of Title is proof of ownership.

If the car is financed, the lender will usually keep the original title, so the owner can not sell the car without repaying the loan. But, the lender is in no way a part owner in the car. The lender has what I believe is legally referred to as "a security interest" in the car. In the case of a financed car, the buyer is given a "Memorandum Certificate of Title", which can not be used to transfer ownership. During this process, the buyer (or the dealer on the buyer's behalf) pays the appropriate sales tax.

Once the buyer has the title (or memo title), he/she visits the License Bureau and registers the car. This is the formal request that the state issue license plates for the car. This is done annually.

Note that, at least in Ohio, registration has nothing to do with ownership. A leased car remains the property of the leasing company, while the lessor (or is it the lessee-the driver?) gets to register the car and pay the annual fee.

IANAL, but as I understand it, ownership, either in full or in part, means that the owner has the right to determine what to do with the property. The lender can't tell me that I can't sell my car. They can only demand payment if I do. The same is true of a mortgage on a home. The lender can't tell the owner that the house can not be sold. They can only demand payment if it is. If I were to propose tearing down my garage or making some other change that would significantly reduce the value of the property, the lender can insist that the loan be renegotiated, based on the new value of the home, but they can not prevent me from making the change.

When I apply for and receive a title to my car and register it to get license plates, the state has no right to tell me I can't sell the car, drive to another state or do anything else I like with the car. If I own it free and clear, I can set the car on fire and have the remains crushed at the junkyard. Local fire regulations aside, the state can not prevent me from doing so. To me, that is a sure sign that there is no ownership interest with the state.

[Dr. Caligari]

When I apply for and receive a title to my car and register it to get license plates, the state has no right to tell me I can't sell the car, drive to another state or do anything else I like with the car. If I own it free and clear, I can set the car on fire and have the remains crushed at the junkyard. Local fire regulations aside, the state can not prevent me from doing so. To me, that is a sure sign that there is no ownership interest with the state.

Largely true. I learned in law school that "property" is often described as "a bundle of rights," and that there are circumstances in which an "owner" of property has some but not all of those rights, and that some of the rights can be held by someone other than the owner (as in your mortgage examples). But what is absolutely untrue is the notion that the Government has "legal title" to registered property and the registered owner has "equitable title."

[arayder]

A birth certificate simply documents the birth of a child. The child's birth is registered and in the process the government does not get ownership, copyright or trademark of the child's name as claims Kate of Gaia.

Neither does Menard's theory hold that individuals are certified as infants, children or minors until they submit magic Menard paperwork to make themselves free adults.

In the old days day births were registered in churches or the family Bible. The required registration of births with the governmental originated in UK in the 1850's. The practice followed in the U.S. and Canada later on.

I have yet to get a straight answer from a freeman as to how governments got their authority and jurisdiction before the governmental registration of births, which they say creates "joinder" between the child and government and hence gives government its jurisdiction.

That's because the governments of the western democracies claim, rightfully, that their authority comes from their constitutions and stautes. No western democracy has ever claimed that it derives its authority from birth certificates or that children remain wards of the state until they revoke or modify their birth registrations.

Kate of Gaia and Bobby Menard are just dueling gurus vying for the attention of gullible freemen.

Nor does Menard's theory that upon birth the government creates an investment account for each Canadian hold water.

A right to "security of the person" was added to the Canadian Constitution in 1982, specifically in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If Menard had bothered to do some reading in the last decade he would know that the right to security of the person is defined in international and Canadian law as the right of the individual to life, liberty and justice, not the creation of an investment securities account, as Menard absurdly claims.

Menard says the "security of the person" guarantees the individual a slice of Canadian's wealth. But the fact is no Canadian court has ever ruled so! There have been only academic discussions within the courts as to whether "security of the person" guarantees any economic rights at all.

I defy Menard to find the basis in law for his warped reading of the Canadian Constitution!

[rumpelstilzchen]

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 !!!

You are saying TPTB can only crush cars they have legal title to? And they obtain legal title when the vehicle is registered? So if a car is not registered it cannot be seized and crushed? Can you back that up with some evidence? Like citing a bit of law?

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 !!!

That is because DVLA are not interested in getting into legal squabbles about who is or is not the owner. It is easier for them to make the keeper, who is not necessarily the owner, liable for taxing, insurance and parking tickets. It makes enforcement easier.

If this isn't an admission that you are not the FULL TITLE HOLDER, then I don't know what is.

Flawed logic. It is not an admission that the registered keeper in all instances is not the full title holder. In some instances the registered keeper is the legal owner in other instances the registered keeper is not.
http://www.dvla-contact-number.co.uk/th ... a-vehicle/

[Chaos]

I defy Menard to find the basis in law for his warped reading of the Canadian Constitution!

he does not consent

[arayder]

I defy Menard to find the basis in law for his warped reading of the Canadian Constitution!

he does not consent

Here is how, years ago, Bobby tried to give the basis in law for his theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk2iQCS8_Us

At 21:30 Bobby tells the audience, which is entranced with the idea of free cash, that his ". . .lawyer sister for the government. . .'" positively affirmed his theory that freeman can cash in their shares in Canada saying, ". . .yes. . .well you are just too smart for your own good. . .".

That's just pathetic. It's Bobby's oft used ruse in which he says a lawyer told him his theory's right. It's his sister [Elaine Menard], or couple of lawyers he met at a barbecue. Bobby even when so far as to cite a forged letter claimed to be from an Irish law firm.

At 25:30 in the Youtube you can hear salesman Menard say he is selling documents which will allow freemen to collect their "securities".

Bobby's been selling documents touting this lame theory for at least 7 years, but just like everything else in his life. . . nothing happened. Bobby never used his own method and nobody else has ever made it work.

There is no basis in law, custom, history or reality for Bobby's theory.

[notorial dissent]

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.

If you want to do something really useful go back and look at your sources and see where they came up with their theories. There is some of this that I would really like to know WHERE it came from. I will admit that raging ignorance, stupidity, and just flat out making it up accounts for a lot of it, but some of it has to be based on something, that would be the interesting thing to know.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Kate of Gaia: "clausula rebus sic stantibus" FAILED in Court !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfT1YkiAemo

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/20 ... bpc46.html

[Wake Up! Productions]

Psychotic "Sovereign" wants to Decapitate Kate of Gaia !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H39zNF1fNXo

A psychotic sovereign freeman (born Justin Paul Walker) who goes by the online aliases "Naetalia Gaets" and "Justice Persephone Ashbringer" has made death threats against Keith Thompson (aka "Kate of Gaia"). The original video has Justin's voice altered / disguised, but through editing software, I have revealed his true voice.

It should also be noted that this (gay) psycho also claims on his Facebook page that Dean Clifford is his "HUSBAND" !!!

[notorial dissent]

Jeebus Wake Up when you find the funny, you find the funny.

I can't quite decide which is funnier, that this Naetalia is going to decapitate KoG, or that Deaner is a husband??? I also snorted my coffee, keyboard warnign next time please.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Legal Name Fraud Explained http://kateofgaia.net/kates-writings/ot ... explained/

http://kateofgaia.net/wp-content/upload ... f-kaia.pdf

When pair-ents (two minds) or payer-rents choose to REGISTER their children, they are LITERALLY trading off the life source of the being that is SUCKED into that body in this reality for the whore of Baby-loans LEGAL NAME dead child, in essence, ADOPTING Satan’s child in LLEU of heaven’s child. The Laws-R-us effect, raising the dead NAME DEMON and razing the living consciousness you THINK of as YOU and every other human being as well as all sentient life in this reality. In short, YOU offer up your living child as a sacrifice to Satan while your living child commits sign after sign (sin upon sin) and ADOPT the dead LEGAL DEMON literally breathing life into evil with every creation thenceforth.

If anyone can make sense of this crap, then you are a better man than me.

[Wake Up! Productions]

In an effort to have documentation to fend off and totally silence Kate of Garbage's online CULT members once and for all, I have located their kryptonite.

The entire "legal name fraud" ideology is based on KoG's theory that the "legal name is Crown Copyrighted property". This erroneous idea was lifted from a 1998 U.K Green Paper entitled, "Crown Copyright in the Information Age". http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-cop ... on-age.pdf In it, the document lists birth certificates as "Crown Copyrighted property". KoG has twisted this into a claim that the legal name listed on the birth certificate is also "Crown Copyrighted property".

Now, on to the kryptonite. I have found a U.K. National Archives document entitled "Reproduction of birth, death and marriage certificates". https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc ... icates.pdf

On page 3 it states:

It is an offence to make a copy of a certificate and pass it off as the original certificate. The layout of these certificates is protected by Crown copyright, but the Crown does not assert any rights of ownership of the contents of the forms.

I love it when I find kryptonite !!!

[Philistine]

It is an offence to make a copy of a certificate and pass it off as the original certificate. The layout of these certificates is protected by Crown copyright, but the Crown does not assert any rights of ownership of the contents of the forms.

Nice find.

[Wake Up! Productions]

If anyone wishes to post this on Facebook or Twitter, please feel free !!!



https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc ... icates.pdf

[Philistine]

Careful, you're misrepresenting the information the same way they do.
You can't present a British document to Canadians and Americans.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Careful, you're misrepresenting the information the same way they do.
You can't present a British document to Canadians and Americans.

Yes, you are correct ... to a certain point.

Seeing as the ONLY document they offer up as their so-called "proof" is from the U.K., I decided to fight fire with fire. That way they can't say, "that document is from Canada, it doesn't count".

That being said, today I will search for the Canadian and American equivalent.

[Burnaby49]

Careful, you're misrepresenting the information the same way they do.
You can't present a British document to Canadians and Americans.

Yes, you are correct ... to a certain point.

Seeing as the ONLY document they offer up as their so-called "proof" is from the U.K., I decided to fight fire with fire. That way they can't say, "that document is from Canada, it doesn't count".

That being said, today I will search for the Canadian and American equivalent.

Additionally their big billboard campaign is in the UK so the document nicely matches up to their current main campaign area.

I doubt facts and logic have any effect on these people in any case. I'm off to court in an hour to watch a case where two individuals have argued, for years, that their criminal cases should be tossed out because the Supreme court of British Columbia, where they are being tried, doesn't exist. Why? Because the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia says;

2 (1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".

Yet the documents filed by the Crown refer to the court as the SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. That's it. One of the individuals has already lost this argument at four separate hearings in the current case yet he still seems to be convinced that he is correct and will eventually win. No doubt he will argue this yet again at his impending jury trial rather than work on some other defense with a chance of succeeding. Losses seem irrelevant to their beliefs. I've found this to be almost a general rule in OPCA cases. Their beliefs, no matter how idiotic, are impervious to sense, logic, or facts.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Careful, you're misrepresenting the information the same way they do.
You can't present a British document to Canadians and Americans.

Yes, you are correct ... to a certain point.

Seeing as the ONLY document they offer up as their so-called "proof" is from the U.K., I decided to fight fire with fire. That way they can't say, "that document is from Canada, it doesn't count".

That being said, today I will search for the Canadian and American equivalent.

KoG's theory is that the "legal realm" is controlled by an alliance between the "city of London state", Washington d.c. and the Vatican. KoG claims that the city of London owns all legal names and urges people to send all their bills and mail to the Lord mayor of London. You have to do it without touching the envelope though or else your DNA gets on it and creates joinder with the name.

[Wake Up! Productions]

So, unlike Robert Menard, I didn't waste time arguing with a WORKER BEE - I went right after the QUEEN BEE regarding this find:



Of course KoG attempted to play wordsmith games ...



He claimed that "the scam wouldn't work if they ASSERTED the claim". Here is the legal definition of the word "assert":

To invoke or enforce a legal right.

There was no mention of a "claim" in that definition, just a "legal right" - of which the Crown is not invoking or enforcing "any rights of ownership" over the legal name !!!

[Wake Up! Productions]

I tuned in to KoG's show yesterday in the hopes of hearing him rant about me. Unfortunately he didn't, however he did rant about someone else.

It seems that the billboards in the U.K. are getting noticed - by the press. Yesterday KoG was ranting about Matt Quinton, a reporter from the Sun Newspaper in London. Apparently Kate had "no comment", so this morning I took it upon myself to contact Matt Quinton via Twitter and filled him in on the "Legal Name Fraud" CULT !!! I expect there to be a Sun news article written some time soon.

In the mean time, there are already 2 news article that were recently published:

Everyone’s a little bit baffled by Legal Name Fraud billboards http://www.swindon24.co.uk/quirky/baffl ... illboards/

These billboards appearing across Poole and Bournemouth are as strange as they look http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/1 ... they_look/