TheIntelCritic;
I believe you that you have copyrighted your legal or full name. You have probably followed the convention of copyrighting the all upper case version of it. Shoonra believes you too. And you have kept record of copyrighting it too - I am sure and we understand you not displaying that record in cyberspace. Don't let Shoonra make you argue the wrong argument.
The only reason somebody will use your legal name in any (upper or lower) case is because you gave it to them. I remember the first papers about the Strawman Redemption - it was about the defendant asking for the
judge's name.
Quote:
|
May I have your name please?
|
So the point that you must consider carefully - that Shoonra is making is that if you bill somebody for using the name you gave them to use, even after copyrighting it, that bill is completely voluntary on their part. If you try enforcing a lien against them, you will lose in court and be instructed to pay whatever bill they prepare for you - for the inconvenience of having to fight the bogus lien. And this misconception about artifices has grown in nuisance to the public to the point where if you try it against a judge, he will just tag years onto your sentence.
The UCC and all this looks great in theory. But the rubber met the road with the "UCC People" who meet on Wednesday afternoons at a quasi-chuch/community center. A couple suitors got curious enough to watch the above scenario go down - in reality. Somewhere the idea of
giving somebody your name got lost from the original doctrine of the Strawman Redemption. That was interesting reading but so insideous that I vividly recall throwing it away in a greasy wastebasket at KFC. My pal wanted to fish it out, "Just for the cites." and I told him to leave it in the basket.
Regards,
David Merrill.