Certificate of Search

[dorkenbutt]

I was going to say use DM example in post #13 of this thread, but Brick Layer beat me to it. [insert smile] BTW, it is not the county clerk you get this from, but the clerk at the federal court. That may be why you are having so much trouble.

[mnchicago]

Thursday 24 April 2008

Who needs the funny papers when there are threads
like this?

antjraf:

What do you mean by your "real name?" From the places
you are going to obtain that information, your real name
is a given if you have a driver's license, registered to
vote, etc, all 14th amend activities that make you a
citizen of the United States.

Maybe with more clarification of what you mean, more
succint answers can be had.

---

This thread is too funny! I certainly would not refer to
it as a "great discussion," since little discussion is had.

From lawdog:

>We have a federal system, the laws in one state can
>vary widely from another so long as they stay within
>what is required by the federal Constitution and laws.

Who is "we?" I don't have a federal system, but I know
it exists for most.

Name me a state that has to stay within what is
required by the federal Constitution and laws?

The laws in my state are derived from the Constitution,
and I do not use or go along with any others, like a
"federal system."

Where can I get a copy of a federal Constitution?


From dorkenbutt:

>Tell me lawpuppy, how can a birth certificate be mine >if I had no part in its creation?

Do you claim ownership of other things in your life over
which you had no part of creating? Can anyone come
into your home and take things because you did not
create them? Furniture, food, clothing, etc.

Have you refuted your birth certificate?

>How can the name (legal fiction) written upon it be
mine if I had no part in registering it?

Have you refuted your legal fiction name, or do you
have a driver's license, are you registered to vote, do
you pay taxes, et al? Or do you use that "name?"


>How can something (BC) the STATE claims ownership
>of and will not give up the original be mine/yours?

You provide the answer in the question.

>Is the Birth Certificate a registration of an event?

Are these trick questions?

>Can a Birth Certificate be used as identification?

All the time, in equity jurisdiction.


>Does government ID that has a picture on it identify
>the man/woman or government property?

All of the above.

>BTW, I don't expect honest answers to these
>questions or even answers at all from you. You are
>very good at obfuscation.

I have to disagree here. The answers provided have a
certain validity to them, if you subscribe to the
jurisdiction under which he labors.

>Heck, even the day I was born or where I was born is
>unknown to me. No first hand knowledge, too young to
>know.

Quite a compelling argument. I'll bet you have waived
it many times over.

To David Merrill:

What is a voice of reason doing on this thread?

From indio007:

>A birth certificate is a convertible voting rights >security.

Okay, I'll bite. What are you saying?


>You pay for it in fiat currency...

One pays in fiat FRNs. FRNs are NOT currency.

Hardly anybody pays attention to important details.


>Possession of it entitles you to register to vote in de
facto government elections.

No, registering to vote "gives" you that privilege, if that
is your heart's desire. I never used a birth certificate in
the dark days when I was a [shudder] registered voter.


>I'm still waiting for one of the shills to explain how
>these statutes give the instructions on how to acquire
>and control a natural person . While they all but insist
>on saying a person is a living being of flesh and blood.

The control is acquired voluntarily, and I am not a shill
by answering this, just for the record. Who is doing the
insisting to which you refer? That is something [being of
flash and blood] you have actively assert to be viewed
in that way...otherwise, it's waived.

>Now children are property?

They are to the STATE! And the federal gov't treats
them no differently.

From mertensv16, [in order of posting]:

>The only way to decide on what law should govern all
>of the states would seem to be to leave the decision
>to Congress.

So you do not believe in the Constitution, either. Yeah,
leave it up to congress, and don't complain about what
has happened over te past few hundred years.

Have you ever heard of state sovereignty?

The "only" way?! You must be referring to that
ubiquitious "we" again. [but not me!]


>But then you'd hear objections from the nutcases who >claim that Congress can legislate only with respect to
>D.C. and the territories.

Well, finally, a definition of me! Can you prove to me
that it is otherwise?

[Hint: read the Constitution]


>So maybe the solution is to have a Steel Cage Match
>between the champions of the "Equality" and the
>"Federal Area" groups, with the winner getting to
>dictate the law for the rest of us.

See! this is why I cannot be included in any "we."
I am the one who dictates the law for me. It works
pretty well.

From indio007:

>And as far as equality goes. Each state is sovereign in
>it's own right. The equality between them is within the
>frame work of US statutes and regulations.

Never let it be said that I do not reconize reason.

However, I have to qualify his statment that US statutes
and regulations are very hard to pin on me, refusing to
cede anything to federal jurisdiction. I make any fed
prove jurisdiction over me, which is hard to do since I
do not live iwithn the 10 square miles or "reside" in a
STATE.


From Brick Layer:

>I couldn't get in the Federal Building because I do not
>have a "State" or corporate identification card or
>drivers licence so I had to use a United States citizen
>as an administrative agent to run in to talk to the clerk
>while I manned the vehical.

I had a similar experience in the State building, Chicago.
The neanderthal STATE trooper refused to let me in.
several times.

Why, if you don't have those trappings, would you admit
to "manning the vehicle?" That is an equity term.


---

Okay, I'm done. anyone who wants to poke fun at me or
call me names is free to do so, without applogies or
qualification. I had a day off and got caught up with a
few statments here to which too many give credence
without understanding the implications.

I do not know any of you, so my comments apply to
your beliefs, and not toward the individual.

Cheers!

mn

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

CoS as ID:

writing or furnishing one's name in the presence of requesting officer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Must be true unless shown otherwise, which would usually be a criminal offense. Either arrest me or its true.

--------------
Problem with court computer:

place same name in "first name" as "last name". That should break the encryption of the legal name, by voiding the order.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

CoS as ID:

writing or furnishing one's name in the presence of requesting officer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Must be true unless shown otherwise, which would usually be a criminal offense. Either arrest me or its true.

--------------
Problem with court computer:

place same name in "first name" as "last name". That should break the encryption of the legal name, by voiding the order.

Great Stuff Farmer;


And this is a good lead too:

From dorkenbutt:

>Tell me lawpuppy, how can a birth certificate be mine >if I had no part in its creation?

Do you claim ownership of other things in your life over
which you had no part of creating? Can anyone come
into your home and take things because you did not
create them? Furniture, food, clothing, etc.

I do not have a birth certificate.

As for the court reporter - that was resolved in my passport (attached). I got the attorney there at WSA to consider changing "Name" which means Surname on Page 5 to "Surname" on the Passport but that is where the abracadabra would have been dispelled.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Lawdog]

A "passport" issued by the "World Government of World Citizens" through its "World Service Authority."

LOL, that's a good one. Good luck boarding a plane, much less going to another country, using that.

I knew you were crazy, but damn, son!

And why blur your picture? Are you ugly as well as crazy?

[dorkenbutt]

See response below.

Originally Posted by mnchicago

From dorkenbutt:

>Tell me lawpuppy, how can a birth certificate be mine >if I had no part in its creation?

Do you claim ownership of other things in your life over
which you had no part of creating? NO Can anyone come
into your home and take things because you did not
create them? Furniture, food, clothing, etc. Yes, but who would want them?

Have you refuted your birth certificate? Like David, I do not have a Birth Certificate

>How can the name (legal fiction) written upon it be
mine if I had no part in registering it?

Have you refuted your legal fiction name, or do you
have a driver's license, are you registered to vote, do
you pay taxes, et al? Or do you use that "name?" No to all of your questions. BTW, do I have a legal fiction name and does it belong to me?


>How can something (BC) the STATE claims ownership
>of and will not give up the original be mine/yours?

You provide the answer in the question. Just showing lawpuppy how ridiculous his assertion of being "your" Birth Certificate is.

>Is the Birth Certificate a registration of an event?

Are these trick questions? LOL!!!

>Can a Birth Certificate be used as identification?

All the time, in equity jurisdiction. lawpuupy asserted only that which has a picture on it can be used as identification, thus the reason for my question. BTW, what does the BC identify?


>Does government ID that has a picture on it identify
>the man/woman or government property?

All of the above. Wrong!!!

>BTW, I don't expect honest answers to these
>questions or even answers at all from you. You are
>very good at obfuscation.

I have to disagree here. The answers provided have a
certain validity to them, if you subscribe to the
jurisdiction under which he labors. Do I "subscribe to the jurisdiction under which he labors?

>Heck, even the day I was born or where I was born is
>unknown to me. No first hand knowledge, too young to
>know.

Quite a compelling argument. I'll bet you have waived
it many times over. I do not recognize the day I was supposedly born. Like I have said I do not know when that was or where, do you know when you were born?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Not true. Simple abandonment of one name and the adoption of another, absent fraudulent intent, is all that is needed to legally change one's name.

Yep. In most states there is no requirement. In other states simple publication of the change in the newspaper or through the County Clerks office is sufficient.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I've probably already forgotten more law...

Obviously. As it's apparent you've forgotten the difference between the word may and the word shall.

[Lawdog]

Sorry, my ignorant young friend, but if you think you have an absolute right to change your name, you're wrong.

218 Ga. App. 376; 461 SE2d 558


IN RE REDDING.

A95A1825

MCMURRAY, Presiding Judge

Kenneth Charles Redding, proceeding pro se, filed a verified "PETITION TO CHANGE NAME" in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, alleging that he was born in Georgia on April 9, 1955; that, for "Religious Reasons," he desires to change his name from Kenneth Charles Redding to Faheem Shabazz Batuta; and that the petition is not submitted with the intention of defrauding another. In support of his pauper's affidavit, Mr. Redding submitted the certification of an authorized officer of the DeKalb County Jail, the "institution where [Mr. Redding] is confined," showing the average monthly balance in Mr. Redding's account there to be $10. Mr. Redding subsequently filed a change of address, informing the Clerk of the DeKalb Superior Court that he "was transferred to Ware C. I. in Waycross, from DeKalb Jail on, 1-18-95." On April 14, 1995, the DeKalb Superior Court entered an order denying Mr. Redding's petition for name change, finding that Mr. Redding "has been convicted of numerous offenses including most recently burglary, aggravated assault, aggravated sodomy, rape, robbery and armed robbery in DeKalb Superior Court." The superior court concluded that a legal change in Mr. Redding's name at this time "might result in confusion, allow him to conceal his true identity and disassociate with his past criminal record." This direct appeal followed. Held:

In related enumerations of error, Mr. Redding contends the superior court erred in denying his petition to change name, arguing that a name change for religious reasons is "guaranteed by the 'Free Exercise' clause of the First Amendment, Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963)."

"The action of the superior court in granting or refusing a proper application to change the name of a person is based solely on a sound legal discretion[.]" Binford v. Reid, 83 Ga. App. 280 (63 SE2d 345). Title 19, Chapter 12 of the Code does not "authorize any person to change his name with a view to deprive another fraudulently of any right under the law." OCGA §§ 19-12-4. We take judicial notice of the fact that Kenneth Charles Redding's previous convictions include giving a false name to a law enforcement officer, in addition to crimes of violence. Redding v. State, 196 Ga. App. 751 (397 SE2d 34). In the case sub judice, the superior court did not abuse its discretion, for the evidence authorizes the conclusion that a change in Mr. Redding's name at this time might result in confusion, allowing him to conceal his true identity and to disassociate himself with his criminal past. In re Parrott, 194 Ga. App. 856 (392 SE2d 48). Compare In re Mullinix, 152 Ga. App. 215 (262 SE2d 540). The fullest expression of Mr. Redding's protected liberty interests in religious worship and freedom of expression, as those interests are implicated by this holding, will have to wait until his rehabilitation is more completely demonstrated. Until then, the denial of his petition for name change does not amount to an impermissible restriction of substantial rights. See, e.g., Elam v. Henderson, 472 F2d 582 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 868 (94 SC 177, 38 LE2d 117).

Judgment affirmed. Andrews and Blackburn, JJ., concur

Decided August 17, 1995

Petition to change name. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Mallis.

Kenneth C. Redding, pro se.

J. Tom Morgan, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

As was previously mentioned, the fact that California apparently recognizes an old common law right to change one's name merely by actively using the new name does not mean other states have to follow that same rule.

And as far as "may" vs. "shall" goes, while may is generally a permissive term whereas shall is one of command, that is not always so. A famous (or infamous) example is the Florida Supreme Court's decision in the 2000 election mess, wherein they interpreted the term "shall" in a Florida statute to mean "may," under the circumstances. The United States Supreme Court's reversal was on other grounds.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Sorry, my ignorant young friend, but if you think you have an absolute right to change your name, you're wrong.



As was previously mentioned, the fact that California apparently recognizes an old common law right to change one's name merely by actively using the new name does not mean other states have to follow that same rule.

And as far as "may" vs. "shall" goes, while may is generally a permissive term whereas shall is one of command, that is not always so. A famous (or infamous) example is the Florida Supreme Court's decision in the 2000 election mess, wherein they interpreted the term "shall" in a Florida statute to mean "may," under the circumstances. The United States Supreme Court's reversal was on other grounds.

Hey Bozo. Can I call you Bozo, because you sure act like a clown. Again, your lack of comprehension skills shine.

As I posted:

Yep. In most states there is no requirement. In other states simple publication of the change in the newspaper or through the County Clerks office is sufficient.

Your post means zero in the context of what was said.

Run along now doggie...shouldn't you be processing some real estate closing papers? Oh yea, market kind of sucks right now.