Aug 11, 2013 12:16 AM

It means that if someone makes an error writing the person's name, it's not a big deal.....

To me that means Pierre Daoust may not BE PIERRE DAOUST.

But if Pierre Daoust accepts SURETY to be PIERRE DAOUST, then, Pierre Daoust is now PIERRE DAOUST

I was thinking more about an ortograph error....like PIERRE DAOUT instead of PIERRE DAOUST...

My TAKEN name has NOTHING to do with public stuff....

They can make an ERROR while writing the person's name....but if they make a MISTAKE about surety, that is a complete different thing ;-)

Remember how Scott was picky about using MISTAKE and not ERROR in Notice of MISTAKE ? Check definition of ERROR....

An 'error' is a deviation from accuracy or correctness. A 'mistake' is an error caused by a fault: the fault being misjudgment, carelessness, or forgetfulness. Now, say that I run a stop sign because I was in a hurry, and wasn't concentrating, and the police stop me, that is a mistake. If, however, I try to park in an area with conflicting signs, and I get a ticket because I was incorrect on my interpretation of what the signs meant, that would be an error. The first time it would be an error. The second time it would be a mistake since I should have known better. [1]

So if you're in a situation where you suspect you're being asked to accept surety by answering to the GIVEN NAME (which sounds exactly like the TAKEN NAME) would you then be wise to 1. ask which NAME is being used? ...or 2. just assume the intention is to make you surety and view this an offer to contract? (my fear of course was that the maxim could used against me by someone because the NAME they used on me was 'close enough' and the 'body was certain')

by whose authority do YOU address ME as YOU.

Often they'll just say the name with the last syllable raised in pitch (implying a question) as they stare at their quarry.

Point of order there are questions before the court that must be answered. do not questions negate understanding?

https://m.facebook.com/groups/462493170453287?message_id=530449856990951&comment_id=540148636021073&ref=m_notif&notif_t=like&actorid=100003123781499&__user=1706357217#!/notes/scott-duncan/notice-of-mistake-get-these-to-me-if-im-arrested/513483128718164/?ref=m_notif&notif_t=like

.Before you cross the threshold of the bar you must say. ALL RIGHTS RRSERVED.

Excellent :) think I'm starting to 'get it'. Nitpicking note: I think the word 'is' is missing i paragraph 4.of the NoM.(Oops, I did Clinton, didn't I?) :)

I don't think Scott makes mistakes like that

Okay, I sure can see what mess 'is' can make

yes I know it is the dumb downed version what I call a perfected because it has no fat on it

mik what country are you from?

I was born on an island claimed by Kingdom of Denmark

you will have to look up the name change act of your country and just mention it there because you want to waive the benefit of the Joinder from the legal name to the human name.

you also have to ask Scott whether or not you change crown to prosecutor or what your term is for the the state's attorney?

I have waived 'any and all' benefits of the State

...and I'll definately check the wording o the name 'law'

Thanks for this :)

also look up every word in the notice of mistake because don't assume that you know what you're reading it is legalese

It means "I CAN'T HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING OVER YOUR ACTIONS".

A little light just went (more like a faint glow really)...from TFL Best Of p116: "EQUITABLE TITLE: a title that indicates a beneficial interest in property and that gives the holder the RIGHT to acquire formal legal title..." ...hence the notion of claiming the NAME = aquiring legal title?

The notion of CLAIMING the NAME = aquiring DEBTS...

To avoid debt, we argue that we can only claim/acquire Beneficiary of the NAME. Who ever creates the NAME is the owner of that NAME, therefore they are the TRUSTEE with liability for the SURETY.

So the creator of the NAME creates it for the benefit of the Living man (beneficiary) and as TRUSTEE and SURETY, is responsible for administrating the TRUST according to the demands of the Living man beneficiary?

So the creator of the NAME creates it for the benefit of the Living man: If you chose so, yes.....but I have good reasons to believe that the real reason is to create debts.....and transfer surety on "ME", by keeping "ME" as much ignorant as possible :D

But "ME" have to administrate the NAME, same as I have to administrate the $20 bill in my pocket......

If I let them do the administration, it will be a mess, :D

I just wish we could figure this all out and, if nothing else, use it to discharge the debts that we are forced to create for lack of real money in circulation.

mmhh...I think the fact that we create debts is more due to lack of knowledge :D

And you will have to take care of all debts that was created by YOURSELF... :D

My corporation will assume liability once it places the lien on the all caps name. It then place this Asset into a trust. Which I just happened to be a The major shareholder in. because their accounting skills suck . I am now a holder in due cours.e. of the person.

In a court of law, the PERSON NAME used is a homonym of the man name.

No KnownAs Colin, it just happened to have some similitudes.... :D, there is no homonyms in law... :D

And what do they care about how I call "ME" in court, they just don't give a shit....

ONLY PERSONS in court.....no humans there :)

I've tried being a human in court.....they kicked me out :D

I then assume all the benefit of the person and none of its liability

I will state my name in court under one condition that I get paid 10 million dollars and you only get to use it for 10 minutes because I got the Conditions of Contract everything is accounting and contract

Fred Smith and FRED SMITH sound the same, but are not the same entity and this is where people get caught out. From recent experience in court, we identified ourselves as only the Man known as Colin, the only defence we had. The Magistrate said the court can not deal with a man, so told us that we were 'free' to leave, which we did. The case continued ex parte, but against the PERSON. Talk about kiddies make believe games ...

let the record show that John Doe judge 1234 has entered a plea of not guilty for the defendant assuming the liability of the Debtor

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/names.html

hahahahahaahaaa!!!

Rick I would like to invite you to a private study group if you would like to share knowledge? Or anyone else that would like to join?

LAW LAW LAW ALL LAW LAW LAW LAW.........if you go in there or do not respond accordingly "they will come for you! not YOU....

Best is to stay home :-D

Re NAME vs name in court. The Magistrate asked if 'we were' NAME1 NAME2 NAME3. We replied by saying 'no, we are not that PERSON.' We are the man known as Name. Never did we infer any similarilities or joinder.

Drawing upon Blacks 9th Ed description of Capitis deminutio: Capitis deminutio, so to speak, wipes out the former individual (the man) and puts a new one in his place (the PERSON), and between the old and the new individual there is, legally speaking, nothing in common.

Birth Certificate = 'mix-up with the MAIL'. . . . .you got a NUKE, while the U.S. Military got the GIFT-certificate your grammy sent you for your birthday/Christmas-present

lol :D