Lose The Name: Kate of Gaia & Cult Followers

[grixit]

maybe they used their lawful name.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I just had a brilliant idea as to how to find out who the money man is behind these billboards ... SUE THEM !!!

More precisely, sue the billboard company "Primesight" for false advertising, on the grounds that the information is not legally accurate, false and misleading and name the "money man" as an unknown co-defendant !!!

I know that there are many lawyers on Q, perhaps you guys can get together and figure something out?

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations mean you can’t mislead or harass consumers by, for example:
-including false or deceptive messages
-leaving out important information
-using aggressive sales techniques

https://www.gov.uk/marketing-advertisin ... dvertising

[Llwellyn]

A good thought there Wide Awake, however a few issues. One, what they state on the BILLBOARD is not 'wrong'.. it COULD be considered misleading but only very loosely and in that sense there is no 'intent for harm'

Here is why - the statement 'It is Illegal to use a Legal Name' is absolutely correct..
IF you do not have the right/ownership of the legal name you tried to use..
IE.. Prince (deceased musician) changed his name from Prince to that funky symbol.. being then called 'The Artist'.. WHY.. because for publication rights his music label held the Legal Name of PRINCE for selling/distribution etc under.. so Prince could not use his own name in that sense/time frame. This enabled him to release music under another publisher/distributor without violating his contract with his former Label.

Now, lets see anyone, run around trying to use the name Andre Agassi.. (if you don't know who this is, just google search em) or.. someone trying to use the name Cher.. (just examples) .. while attempting to use the name is not 'illegal' in its self.. it CAN lead to a legal situation, if by using someone else established name for self profit/gain.. IE, I claim I am Andre Agassi, and agree to do a promotional commercial .. (this would be an act of fraud)

This is part of where going after the billboard etc with a legal suit would be an issue, because what they 'claim' or 'state' is neither directly misleading, or a falsehood.

(directly misleading would be stating that everyone can fly, they just need to jump off a tall building and flap their arms)
(N.B. this is all in 'simplified' form and terms, it can become MUCH more complicated)

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor

[Jeffrey]

Is there any way you could cut out the little jab at transexuals in your debunking video, if you kinda sanitize it it'd be easier to promote it.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Here is why - the statement 'It is Illegal to use a Legal Name' is absolutely correct..
IF you do not have the right/ownership of the legal name you tried to use..

IE.. Prince (deceased musician) changed his name from Prince to that funky symbol.. being then called 'The Artist'.. WHY.. because for publication rights his music label held the Legal Name of PRINCE for selling/distribution etc under.. so Prince could not use his own name in that sense/time frame. This enabled him to release music under another publisher/distributor without violating his contract with his former Label.

I have studied the Prince legal name issue in depth (both when it happened, and more recently). You stated that "for publication rights his music label held the Legal Name of PRINCE for selling/distribution". This is totally incorrect in the context that you are applying it to.

Prince himself said that he "changed" his legal name (PRINCE ROGERS NELSON) to Ƭ̵̬̊ (the symbol) in order to "emancipate" himself from "certain undesirable contracts". Now, it is entirely possible that Warner/Chappell held the Trademark on the word "PRINCE", but merely holding the Trademark does not grant any right of "ownership" of the full legal name PRINCE ROGERS NELSON.

I would advise you to stop drinking the "legal name fraud" Kool-Aid !!!

An interesting side note: As a result of the Prince symbol, lawmakers made it so that all future legal names in Canada must be a "pronounceable word".

[Wake Up! Productions]

Just a fair warning, one of the "legal name fraud" CULT has stated that they are working on a Wikipedia page for the search term "legal name fraud". One doesn't exist yet, and even if it does happen, I suspect it will be pulled shortly thereafter.

If there is anyone here with an already established "RationalWiki" account, I would suggest "legal name fraud" as a new entry, tied together with "freeman on the land" and "strawman".

[Wake Up! Productions]

Is there any way you could cut out the little jab at transexuals in your debunking video, if you kinda sanitize it it'd be easier to promote it.

As requested, here is the "PC" version:

Legal Name Fraud DEBUNKED / Kate of Gaia EXPOSED !!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2OGNfCWyDc

I wanted to redo it anyway, and I think this version is better. I even sped up my voice by 3% in order to make it go faster.

[littleFred]

Sue them for false advertising -- but what are they advertising?
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 s2:

“commercial practice” means any act, omission, course of conduct, representation or commercial communication (including advertising and marketing) by a trader, which is directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to or from consumers, whether occurring before, during or after a commercial transaction (if any) in relation to a product;

(My added emphasis.)

There is no product, so this isn't a “commercial practice”. I can't see what (if anything) from the regulations apply to those posters.

[Wake Up! Productions]

There is no product, so this isn't a “commercial practice”. I can't see what (if anything) from the regulations apply to those posters.

That is a good point. As far as I can tell, nobody is financially profiting from it except the billboard company themselves. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

[noblepa]

Here is why - the statement 'It is Illegal to use a Legal Name' is absolutely correct..
IF you do not have the right/ownership of the legal name you tried to use..

IE.. Prince (deceased musician) changed his name from Prince to that funky symbol.. being then called 'The Artist'.. WHY.. because for publication rights his music label held the Legal Name of PRINCE for selling/distribution etc under.. so Prince could not use his own name in that sense/time frame. This enabled him to release music under another publisher/distributor without violating his contract with his former Label.

I have studied the Prince legal name issue in depth (both when it happened, and more recently). You stated that "for publication rights his music label held the Legal Name of PRINCE for selling/distribution". This is totally incorrect in the context that you are applying it to.

Prince himself said that he "changed" his legal name (PRINCE ROGERS NELSON) to Ƭ̵̬̊ (the symbol) in order to "emancipate" himself from "certain undesirable contracts". Now, it is entirely possible that Warner/Chappell held the Trademark on the word "PRINCE", but merely holding the Trademark does not grant any right of "ownership" of the full legal name PRINCE ROGERS NELSON.

I would advise you to stop drinking the "legal name fraud" Kool-Aid !!!

An interesting side note: As a result of the Prince symbol, lawmakers made it so that all future legal names in Canada must be a "pronounceable word".

Many years ago, the late Johnny Carson, of Tonight Show fame, had a line of mens clothing, that was marketed under his name. There was a guy named John Carson, in Kansas City, I think (not sure which KC) who ran a mens clothing store, and had for many years, long before Johnny Carson created his clothing line.

The name of the store was and had been "Johnny Carson's". THE Johnny Carson sued for trademark infringement. At trial the KC John Carson was able to prove that that was, in fact, his real name and that he had been known as Johnny for a long time. The court ruled that Tonight Show Johnny Carson could not prevent KC Johnny Carson from using his real name. If there were any logos or trademark symbols, those could be protected, but not the name "Johnny Carson".

I think that similar legal logic would apply in the Prince case, as well. Since Prince was not a stage name, but rather the actual name on his birth certificate, it seems to me that he could not be prevented from using it. If previous albums, under the old contract, had the name Prince printed in a distinctive font or style, perhaps that could be protected. But, it seems to me that he could have released an album as Prince Rogers Nelson.

But then, I could be wrong.

[noblepa]

A good thought there Wide Awake, however a few issues. One, what they state on the BILLBOARD is not 'wrong'.. it COULD be considered misleading but only very loosely and in that sense there is no 'intent for harm'

Here is why - the statement 'It is Illegal to use a Legal Name' is absolutely correct..
IF you do not have the right/ownership of the legal name you tried to use..
IE.. Prince (deceased musician) changed his name from Prince to that funky symbol.. being then called 'The Artist'.. WHY.. because for publication rights his music label held the Legal Name of PRINCE for selling/distribution etc under.. so Prince could not use his own name in that sense/time frame. This enabled him to release music under another publisher/distributor without violating his contract with his former Label.

Now, lets see anyone, run around trying to use the name Andre Agassi.. (if you don't know who this is, just google search em) or.. someone trying to use the name Cher.. (just examples) .. while attempting to use the name is not 'illegal' in its self.. it CAN lead to a legal situation, if by using someone else established name for self profit/gain.. IE, I claim I am Andre Agassi, and agree to do a promotional commercial .. (this would be an act of fraud)

This is part of where going after the billboard etc with a legal suit would be an issue, because what they 'claim' or 'state' is neither directly misleading, or a falsehood.

(directly misleading would be stating that everyone can fly, they just need to jump off a tall building and flap their arms)
(N.B. this is all in 'simplified' form and terms, it can become MUCH more complicated)

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor

I disagree. I submit that the absolute, unqualified statement "It is illegal to use a legal name" IS, in fact, wrong. While it is true that one can not use a name that is protected by copyright or trademark law, without permission of the owner, there are many more cases in which it IS legal to use a "legal name".

Since the billboard is stating its case as an absolute, unqualified statement, my mathematical training tells me that a single counter-example proves the statement to be wrong.

Besides, Kate is not referring to Intellectual Property rights. He/she is making a blanket statement that no one, including the person referred to by the name, may legally use it, which is patently (no pun intended) absurd. He/she claims that by "losing" your name, one can not be procesuted for any crimes. This is a little like the old joke that, when one is dying, you should change your name, so the angel of death can not find you.

[JamesVincent]

My only thought on this is: how can something legal, be illegal? Common sense alone would tell you that that's a bad starting place.

[Wake Up! Productions]

My only thought on this is: how can something legal, be illegal? Common sense alone would tell you that that's a bad starting place.

We need a "THUMBS UP" button (lol) !!!

[JamesVincent]

We asked for a like button before. The Dark Mistress hasn't had time to take pity upon us lower levels yet

[ArthurWankspittle]

BBC finally caught up with the story for the weekend magazine. Although a quick skim says the author hasn't watch any YouTube videos of Kate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36499750

[Chaos]

"Simply thus, all legal names are owned by the Crown, and therefore using a legal name without their written permission is fraud."

only glitch here is how would they know if they got permission or not. All anyone has to say is yes. since Crown allegedly holds the copyright, the Crown are the only people that need to be concerned about it. another of their own scams fail yet gain

[Wake Up! Productions]

BBC finally caught up with the story for the weekend magazine. Although a quick skim says the author hasn't watch any YouTube videos of Kate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36499750

Regardless of who funded it, the campaign has won attention for a hitherto fringe theory. David Allen Green, the legal commentator and solicitor at Preiskel & Co LLP who blogs as Jack of Kent, says it is "complete tosh" and warns people against relying on it in court.

He adds: "It is nothing about law, and it is not harmless. Taking this daftness seriously can be legally dangerous. If people try to use such things to avoid their legal obligations they can end up with county court judgments or even criminal convictions. You may as well walk into court with a t-shirt saying 'I am an idiot'."

Dean Clifford and Karl Lentz have already done that (minus the t-shirt) !!!

[Bill Lumbergh]

"Simply thus, all legal names are owned by the Crown, and therefore using a legal name without their written permission is fraud."

only glitch here is how would they know if they got permission or not. All anyone has to say is yes. since Crown allegedly holds the copyright, the Crown are the only people that need to be concerned about it. another of their own scams fail yet gain

The theory is that only way to get permission is to become a lawyer and get a bar card. The bar card apparently states that you can use a legal name. Now I'll wager 10 million Re that not a single one of these no namer idiots has ever seen a real bar card in their life because they obviously say no such thing.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The theory is that only way to get permission is to become a lawyer and get a bar card.

These idiots never think things through. It would mean that those law makers who were not lawyers deliberately created law that made their own behaviour illegal.

[arayder]

"Simply thus, all legal names are owned by the Crown, and therefore using a legal name without their written permission is fraud."

only glitch here is how would they know if they got permission or not. All anyone has to say is yes. since Crown allegedly holds the copyright, the Crown are the only people that need to be concerned about it. another of their own scams fail yet gain

The theory is that only way to get permission is to become a lawyer and get a bar card. The bar card apparently states that you can use a legal name. Now I'll wager 10 million Re that not a single one of these no namer idiots has ever seen a real bar card in their life because they obviously say no such thing.

Thanks for the clarification, Bill. My perception was that the lose-the-name boys claim that nobody, including judges, can use their names and hence can't call them to court or try them when they get there.

My guess is that like every freeman guru before, Kate of Gaia, has had to come up with a story to explain how is it that practitioners of their theories got pole axed in court.

This isn't new territory for Kate. After she, by her own foolishness, lost just about everything in life a person would treasure she decided to change her name and gender in the belief that doing so would establish that she was no longer Keith Thompson or anybody, any person, subject to the rule of law.

I content there is no problem in Kate's mind with coming up with a whacky theory (lawyers and judges can use legal names) to explain the failure of her pervious whacky theory (tell 'em all they can't use your name).

She's already thrown everything overboard, so what's to be lost by tossing over a little reason and logic?