Accepting for Value/Birth Bond

Re: Accepting for Value/Birth Bond

Postby gepisar » Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:39 pm

apsert wrote:As far as i am aware you are entitled to copyright the NAME, for the crown stole the family name and created an account
without!!! you or the family consent, not even a NOTICE.

Irene gravenhaust coprighted hers for there is no lawful evidence tat the Crown acted correctly. Its Simply theft of the family name!!
So yes i will say for now according to my research.

All i know is the house of cards are startig to fall.
:rotfl:


Ok, gonna challenge you a bit on this one. Ive noticed quite a few posting on FMOTL lately, where posters are being inaccurate with their words and im just arbitrarily going to pick on you apsert! Dont take it personally!

Im going to start and assume you're asserting THEFT as opposed STOLEN. (There is a difference, you mention both - which did you mean?)

THEFT: The felonious taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it; (blacks law, 8th edition)
So, what personal property did the Crown take and remove and deprive you of?

PROPERTY: the right of ownership (blacks 8th)

OWNERSHIP: The bundle of rights allowing one to use, manage, and enjoy property, including the right to convey it to others.Ownership implies the right to possess a thing, regardless of any
actual or constructive control. (blks 8th)

Family name: whats that then? You are using "family" as an indefinite class. i.e. you can not define specifically WHO family is. You? Your parents? Their parents.... and so on. The class of people is undetermined. As such, you are failing to define the OWNER.

OWNER: One who has the right to possess, use, and convey something. (ONE who has the right -> not MANY. If you are suggesting the rights to the 'family' name are split [amongst ALL members that you failed to define], then how? Equitably? Legally?)

NAME: A word or phrase identifying or designating a person or thing and distinguishing that person or thing from others. (blacks 8th, i.e. a reference to the thing, not a thing...so, can a name be subject to THEFT?)

is no lawful evidence tat the Crown acted correctly
Is there any evidence they acted unlawfully?

Under common law you are free to copyright a name. So is some one else. And they are free to copyright the same name. Can you see a problem here?

The real question you should be asking yourself, is how have you been damaged by such actions?

...and the answer is...

certain PERSONS (corps as well) have been doing commerce in your STRAWMAN name, without your consent. Which i believe is what you were eluding to (creating of accounts in 'your' name)
I just feel its important to be accurate about these things.

Well done! Keep going!
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend upon the permission of another.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value - Zero" - Voltaire 1729
User avatar
gepisar
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Near Surrey

Previous

Return to Accepted for value

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron