It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's illegal to use a legal name. Odd billboards appearing in UK with cryptic message.

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kester
The same people may refuse to sign anything. No signed contract means they go free while you pay if you sign. Work out from that the power of the legal fiction 'name'.


And yet there are very few agreements that specifically require a signature to be valid. In fact, you don't even need things in writing in the majority of cases. "Refusing to sign" doesn't get someone out of paying, it just makes the service provider an idiot for not realising the customer is a numpty and refusing to deal with them.

You might be confusing the "power of the legal fiction 'name'" with "sometimes it's cheaper to write off a bad debt than to chase it".




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Wow well this has solved a mystery. I went to Southport with the kids a few weeks ago and my 8 year daughter asked me what the billboard meant and I had no clue!



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue

The legal name is your name in capitals. It was created when you were born via your birth certificate. The legal name is copyrighted by the Crown Corporation and is owned by them. if you give your legal name via your driver license, you care committing the crime of copyright in infringement. The police officer who demands that you give you name, legal name, the officer is guilty of aiding and abetting the same crime.


No. Just... no. This shows no understanding of copyright, the criminal aspect of copyright infringement, or even basic logic.

Let's assume for a second that yes, somehow, the Crown held some form of copyright in your name. Let's ignore the inconvenient fact that allowing a person's name to be subject to copyright would actually prevent any other person having the same name until 70 years after you have died. Let's ignore the inconvenient issues of who would even be the copyright holder in that instance (unless the Crown named you, rather than your parents, I suppose). Let's just go with the flow and play this through step by step.

So, the Crown holds the copyright. The policeman asks you to identify yourself. You hand over your driver's license. You've identified this as a criminal infringement, so we're essentially dealing with counterfeiting/piracy/etc. This requires that you are using or making copies of the work without permission and for gain or loss to another. Without permission. Remember that bit. I'll be charitable and assume that there is some element of loss/gain that would trigger the offence, but let's focus on permission.

Unfortunately, this is where logic comes to bite you right in the arse.

That license was issued by the DVLA. The DVLA are are agency of the government, and the government is acting for the Crown. So, the license itself can't be the infringing element because it was issued by the people who (in this bizarro world) hold the copyright. It is clearly inferred that they give themselves permission to use their own copyright.

Let's look at the action of handing over your license to the policeman. The government has provided you with an accepted way of proving your identity (including your copyrighted name). In fact, if you are driving, the law specifically requires you to provide the police with your driving license. It is clearly inferred that you have their permission to use that copyrighted name in that situation.

What about the policeman, aiding and abetting in this terrible criminal enterprise. We could just repeat the permission argument above, but we don't even need to do that. The police are, depending on who you listen to, either Crown or Civil servants. Either way it doesn't matter. The policeman is acting under the authority of, and with the permission of, the copyright holder.

All of which is a pleasant, if entirely pointless, mental exercise, because the Crown does not hold copyright in your name.
edit on Ev41FridayFridayAmerica/ChicagoFri, 01 Jul 2016 19:41:24 -05000702016b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob
Nice.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeeSmithGo to Crown Copyright in the information age, gov't website, pages 29 and 31, they tell you flat out that birth certificates are copyrighted information and that you are acting illegally to use it without express written permission to do so.


Yes, because copyright can apply in layers.

If I re-published the works of Shakespeare, I would hold copyright in that book - the design, the layout, etc. I would not hold any copyright in the actual words of the plays. I would hold copyright in any supporting notes I might add, but not the words of the plays. I could take action against someone making photocopies of pages, or who used the notes that I added, but I couldn't take action against someone who copied out the words of the play, or read them aloud, or otherwise used them.

The Crown holds the copyright in the layout, design, logos, crests, even the font if is unique, etc of the birth certificate.

There is nothing to suggest that the name itself is somehow copyright. The law of copyright itself doesn't even support the idea.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Copyright comes into effect as soon as something that can be protected is created and "fixed" in some way, e.g. on paper, on film, via sound recording, as an electronic record on the internet.

www.cps.gov.uk...

Copyright may not subsist in a name, title or phrase. But these may be eligible for registration as a trade mark. Ideas are also not protected. Title to English copyright cannot be taken away by any foreign governmental decree - Peer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd and another [2003] EWCA Civ 1156.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I shall not provide you with the information you demand as I respect the wishes of the person I referred to.

The case does not appear in the link you provided.

You do understand that those found innocent of the crime they are accused of have the legal right to have all records relating to the case purged?



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: hellobruce

I shall not provide you with the information you demand as I respect the wishes of the person I referred to.


Translation: Damn, I have been caught out making crap up.

No name, no court, no date!



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: hellobruce

I shall not provide you with the information you demand as I respect the wishes of the person I referred to.
Which means you know it's a lie.


The case does not appear in the link you provided.

You do understand that those found innocent of the crime they are accused of have the legal right to have all records relating to the case purged?
False. All court proceedings in the UK have a record. Regardless of outcome.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

People are afraid of the truth which is why I keep being accused of being a liar.

I will continue to respect my acquaintance's wishes.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
People are afraid of the truth


Is that why you post lies like your claim here?



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: TerryDon79

People are afraid of the truth which is why I keep being accused of being a liar.
What's to be afraid of? You can't back up a single claim and it has been PROVEN that this legal name stuff is rubbish.


I will continue to respect my acquaintance's wishes.
So people are supposed to just take your word for it? The Nigerian Prince scam works in the same way. Believing without proof.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: hellobruce

You do understand that those found innocent of the crime they are accused of have the legal right to have all records relating to the case purged?



Outside of the reporting restrictions available in some cases (ie juveniles, terrorism cases, etc) I have not been able to find a reference to this as a general right. You can apply to have non-conviction data deleted from the PNC but this remains at the discretion of the Chief Constable and is considered on a case-by-case basis.

Also, plenty of case law involves cases where the defendant was found not guilty. Being able to remove all records relating to such cases would have a fairly serious impact on jurisprudence.

Would you be able to direct me to somewhere that could offer more details?



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   
So, a person found guilty can have 'spent' convictions whereby records are not available to be disclosed but a person found innocent and deemed wrongfully arrested cannot?

How foolish.

Here's a link.


www.donoghue-solicitors.co.uk...

7. Deletion of Records from National Police Systems

Records taken when a Claimant is processed at a police station include DNA, fingerprints, custody photograph, personal details, and information about the arrest/ detention.

These records are added to the following computer systems:
•Police National Computer
•National Fingerprint Database
•National DNA Database
•local police databases.

How long the records are kept depends on the circumstances.

For example, records are kept indefinitely when someone is convicted of an offence or receives an out-of-court disposal such as a caution, warning, or reprimand.

This can be particularly troubling for people who have never been in trouble with the police.

For many Claimants, having their records deleted from national police systems is an effective remedy. Unfortunately, the process is time-consuming and, because it relies on the discretion of chief officers, not straightforward. For more details, see the National Police Chiefs’ Council website.

Despite the barriers, removing records from police computer systems can be made easier with a successful claim against the police and/ or police complaint.


Those wrongfully arrested and imprisoned have rights and there is nothing in English law that demands a defendant has a legal obligation to provide their identity to the courts. Or indeed, to the police. Or indeed to anonymous trolls on internet discussion boards.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: teapot

I guess you misread a bit you actually bolded.

Despite the barriers, removing records from police computer systems can be made easier with a successful claim against the police and/ or police complaint.

If the claimant wants to delete their record, they have to make a claim against the police. To make a claim against the police, you need to give your details. Those details would be name, address and so on.

You also seem not to realise that, in the UK, if you fail to give your personal details, you can stil be charged. You will be charged under a pseudonym. That means no fine, but jail time.

That's 2 fails right there for this scam.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: teapot
So, a person found guilty can have 'spent' convictions whereby records are not available to be disclosed but a person found innocent and deemed wrongfully arrested cannot?

How foolish.

Here's a link.


www.donoghue-solicitors.co.uk...

7. Deletion of Records from National Police Systems
...


Those wrongfully arrested and imprisoned have rights and there is nothing in English law that demands a defendant has a legal obligation to provide their identity to the courts. Or indeed, to the police. Or indeed to anonymous trolls on internet discussion boards.



This is a mechanism for removing a record from the Police National Computer, which I referred to earlier. This means that, for example, should someone search against your name when you apply for certain jobs etc, the employer will not be told about that particular record.

The records of the court case itself are still held by the court system. Depending on the case, some are even published in the official reports and may even be discussed in detail in other cases. Those records will still exist and will still be available to the public, unless there is some other reporting restriction in place.

You mentioned that it was possible to have the case report removed. The link you provided does not allow for that; it only refers to records held in the PNC. If you are relying on that to have a court case scrubbed from existence, then I am afraid you are mistaken as to what that process can do.

You are also mistaken as to the existence of laws requiring you to identify yourself.

The Police do not have a general power to require you to identify yourself. The Road Traffic Act 1988, however, sets out several situations where you may be committing an offence if you do not provide your details.

RTA 1988 s 164 requires a driver, or someone reasonably believed to be the driver, to produce a driving license for a police officer to inspect and must also provide their date of birth (presumably useful if the license is not immediately available).

RTA 1988 s 170 requires a driver who has been involved in an accident to provide their name and address to any person reasonably requiring it.

You can work through the RTA and pull out a few other situations, but these are the most common ones.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 deals with conditions for arrest.

SOCP 2005 s 100 allows Police to arrest without warrant on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is in the progress of being, or is about to be, committed, AND "s 100(5)(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name)".

The Police Reform Act 2002 also gives certain powers.
PRA 2002 s 50 makes it an offence for someone to refuse to provide their name and address to a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that person has been, or is, acting in an anti-social manner.

A refusal to identify yourself to the court can also considered contempt, but I'm running out of time and can't be arsed to pull out the specific rules in place. But, from recollection, it is correct.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: teapot
So, a person found guilty can have 'spent' convictions whereby records are not available to be disclosed but a person found innocent and deemed wrongfully arrested cannot?

How foolish.

Here's a link.


www.donoghue-solicitors.co.uk...

7. Deletion of Records from National Police Systems
...


Those wrongfully arrested and imprisoned have rights and there is nothing in English law that demands a defendant has a legal obligation to provide their identity to the courts. Or indeed, to the police. Or indeed to anonymous trolls on internet discussion boards.



This is a mechanism for removing a record from the Police National Computer, which I referred to earlier. This means that, for example, should someone search against your name when you apply for certain jobs etc, the employer will not be told about that particular record.

The records of the court case itself are still held by the court system. Depending on the case, some are even published in the official reports and may even be discussed in detail in other cases. Those records will still exist and will still be available to the public, unless there is some other reporting restriction in place.

You mentioned that it was possible to have the case report removed. The link you provided does not allow for that; it only refers to records held in the PNC. If you are relying on that to have a court case scrubbed from existence, then I am afraid you are mistaken as to what that process can do.

You are also mistaken as to the existence of laws requiring you to identify yourself.

The Police do not have a general power to require you to identify yourself. The Road Traffic Act 1988, however, sets out several situations where you may be committing an offence if you do not provide your details.

RTA 1988 s 164 requires a driver, or someone reasonably believed to be the driver, to produce a driving license for a police officer to inspect and must also provide their date of birth (presumably useful if the license is not immediately available).

RTA 1988 s 170 requires a driver who has been involved in an accident to provide their name and address to any person reasonably requiring it.

You can work through the RTA and pull out a few other situations, but these are the most common ones.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 deals with conditions for arrest.

SOCP 2005 s 100 allows Police to arrest without warrant on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is in the progress of being, or is about to be, committed, AND "s 100(5)(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name)".

The Police Reform Act 2002 also gives certain powers.
PRA 2002 s 50 makes it an offence for someone to refuse to provide their name and address to a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that person has been, or is, acting in an anti-social manner.

A refusal to identify yourself to the court can also considered contempt, but I'm running out of time and can't be arsed to pull out the specific rules in place. But, from recollection, it is correct.




You fail to have basic comprehension of what LAW (you talk about law, then quote nothing but acts) or fraud is... now... I will say that man cannot write law. It is impossible... but let's entertain a world in which man has written law validly...

This world you may think is the legal (law society) world.... legal is not law without consent, even in this fairyland.

Legislation, statutes, acts are not law. They are LEGAL.

The LEGAL name, is a LEGAL system fiction, only given any force of anything (illusionary power/authority) via consent.

YOU could not consent to being a legal anything. You were a baby. Your parents could not consent for you either, as they were babies when the fraud/ crime of personage was imposed upon them.

www.knowledgeispower-uk.tk...

Copyright can be used at discretion by the creator... the content of the registrar book/records can be copy written. The MARK and NUMBER of the beast is this. All will be forced to have it for commerce (basically the situation we're almost at now)...

IF you can comprehend what fraud is... none of this needs to be explained... the truth is. It IS fraud. It is PERSONAGE. It is GLOSSA/corruption of language/text. It IS deception.

How could it not be. The truth isn't out to get you; it's simply truth, "the truth shall set you free".


Do no harm is the answer. Do no harm and good intent is universal law. I think we would manage and people are capable of true anarchism (cypto-anarchism via a decentralized, distributed, trustless, consensual, voluntary blockchain). But for this to work, the mind control has to go. Sorry



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: anicca111
You fail to have basic comprehension of what LAW (you talk about law, then quote nothing but acts) or fraud is... now... I will say that man cannot write law. It is impossible... but let's entertain a world in which man has written law validly...

This world you may think is the legal (law society) world.... legal is not law without consent, even in this fairyland.

Legislation, statutes, acts are not law. They are LEGAL.

The LEGAL name, is a LEGAL system fiction, only given any force of anything (illusionary power/authority) via consent.

YOU could not consent to being a legal anything. You were a baby. Your parents could not consent for you either, as they were babies when the fraud/ crime of personage was imposed upon them.

www.knowledgeispower-uk.tk...

Copyright can be used at discretion by the creator... the content of the registrar book/records can be copy written. The MARK and NUMBER of the beast is this. All will be forced to have it for commerce (basically the situation we're almost at now)...

IF you can comprehend what fraud is... none of this needs to be explained... the truth is. It IS fraud. It is PERSONAGE. It is GLOSSA/corruption of language/text. It IS deception.

How could it not be. The truth isn't out to get you; it's simply truth, "the truth shall set you free".


Do no harm is the answer. Do no harm and good intent is universal law. I think we would manage and people are capable of true anarchism (cypto-anarchism via a decentralized, distributed, trustless, consensual, voluntary blockchain). But for this to work, the mind control has to go. Sorry


Making vague allusions to some ill-defined greater concept does not demonstrate any greater comprehension of "law". You are trying to create a dichotomy between the words "law" and "legal" - sorry, "LEGAL" - in order to ascribe some magic juju that gets you out of parking tickets.

A law is something that creates a right/obligation that can be enforced. That enforcement doesn't need to be through courts, it can be through the weight of community expectation, social pressure, whatever. Without that enforcement, what you have is not a law, it's just a "nice idea". Whether it's the law of the land, the law of God, or the law of jungle, they are all defined by the concept of an enforceable right/obligation.

Also, if you really want to know what the universal rule is, it's this: the person with the biggest stick, makes the rules. Why? Because the person with the biggest stick can enforce the rules they set. For as long as the government has the biggest stick, it will continue to make the rules.

It matters not what mystical laws you wish to pluck from the ether, the only laws that are truly relevant are those that can be enforced. Currently, Acts of Parliament can be enforced, while magic juju cannot.

Don't like it? Well, here's another magical mystical juju law for you: life's not fair. Until you rise up and overthrow the government, the laws of Parliament apply to you in full.
edit on Ev13TuesdayTuesdayAmerica/ChicagoTue, 05 Jul 2016 04:13:09 -05004252016b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Really not on topic, but...

Magic juju hehehe
edit on 572016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: EvillerBob

Really not in topic, but...

Magic juju hehehe


Did you look at the website that was linked in their post? I can think of no saner description for it than "magic juju".

The best bit is where they say in one breath that contract law doesn't exist, then claim in the next that contract law allows you to do something. Except, it takes them three paragraphs to say what I've just summarised in a sentence, and they have an obsession with putting words in CAPITALS.







 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join