Suijuris Forums - View Single Post

suijuris · #1 10-06-2003, 07:36 PM

Family Guardian has done some great research regarding the citizenship issues, but I take issue with a few of his procedures.<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o

></o

>

For example, in some of the example letters on the FG site, a notary is used for return mail, presumably so the sender can do a notorial protest in the event of non-response. I take issue with this because:

<LI>It is not the notary’s duty to receive mail on anyone’s behalf, unless it is their duty as an employee in their workplace; furthermore, it could get them into trouble.
<LI>It is unneeded, as you can simply create an affidavit documenting non-response.</LI>

Also, none of his example letters (that I have seen so far) seem to recognize the difference between the tradename and the flesh-and-blood human to whom it belongs. I believe that some of the letters should differentiate between the two, at least when referencing specific accounts which exist under the name of your tradename, and not your true name. In these cases, it does not need to be overdone, I incorporated this into my letters in a rather subtle manner that does not even draw attention from the untrained eye.

For example, I just sign like so:

JOHN H. DOE©& 
Authorized Signature - Signed Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207

This allows anyone who looks carefully to see that you know the difference, without drawing undue attention away from the message. I think overdoing the whole NAME issue can sometimes do more harm than good. But that is just my opinion and I welcome other’s comments.

However, in some cases, when you are establishing your citizenship status as the flesh-and-blood man/woman, it is probably best that your true name be present, as it is YOUR citizenship you are establishing and not that of your trade-name.<o

></o

>

This draws me to an important question that has been lurking in the back of my head recently: The jurisdiction under which a corporate entity is established by specific criteria, such as its domicile. In applying that to the ‘strawman’, what are the possible implications?
I am of the opinion it is of no concern, since I am an agent of the ‘strawman’, and not visa versa. Also, if one has documented His citizenship status properly, and in the event that he had to defend said status in court to show lack of jurisdiction, I rather doubt the court would say that “Your motion to dismiss these charges due to lack of jurisdiction is denied because you forgot to move your strawman out of our jurisdiction.” Of course they do not have to admit the true nature of the matter, they could give another reason alltogether.

Just my most recent ramblings on the citizenship/jurisdiction issues, I hope to hear your thoughts.