I don't have time to read the whole thread, although I've read parts of it in the past, and it has the typical questions regarding the topic of
Capitus Diminutio Maxima, the USA version of the ens legis commercial entity. This thread also gets the top hits from google.
Since I have time, here are my responses, which are usually not covered by others:
A) I have *nothing* to sell, publicly or privately. There are hucksters out there, 'trvth'; and a certain man who has the initials D.C. peddling
'office of executor' nonsense, who publicly give away bad or defective advice, then make offers to sell advice (engage in commerce, regarded as sinful
by some) when contacted privately, when all they have been reported to do is take funds of desperate and internally misguided people, thousands and
thousands of bucks, doing nothing in return. I will *not* advise on your particular situation, only advise now to lead from your heart, where the
immutable words of the maker are written.
CDMaxima is not the only kind of juristic person, the topic of this thread. For americans, yes, it is the common method. What americans, and by
extension 99.99% of the english speaking world does not know, is there are nine forms of nouns. This is no longer taught. When 'joe smith' is changed,
even one letter, to 'joe Smith', it is a different label. CDMinima refers to 'Joe Smith', and the whole CDMx entry, defines by absence, 'joe smith'.
In Black's it says 'when a man's name is changed'. Actually, what is being created with CDMx is a label for a whole different piece of property.
_Your_ name isn't changed at all, unless you declare it to be the case. For instance, when the acting at-law Judge reads 'JOE SMITH', and you stand
up, he assumes that you are standing in, and trespassing on, their property named JOE SMITH.
Creation of the fiction, the juristic person:
When the birth certificate was created, you _granted_ them the authority to do so. It was construed this way and so a constructive trust was
A 'signature', is not limited to an autograph. A signature can also be a thumbprint, a seal, a stamp, or some other kind of mark which is _your mark_.
The footprint of the baby is the baby's approval to do everything the corporate flesh robots, including M.D.'s, do with the birth certificate. Or your
mom is the signer, either way, she is just doing it for you; you are ultimately the grantor of it, which means you can take control of it.
If you want to destroy the BC relationship, you can't simply by tearing it up or sending it in marked 'cancelled', to some minds, because the BC, the
Driver's License (DL), the SSN (or social insurance number), create or extend a _trust_ relationship. In private equity, not all parties need to know
a trust is being created. And equity will not allow a trust to die for lack of a trustee. Considering equitable maxims and reading some books, has led
some to believe of a method for controlling or dissolving the trust.
For starters on trusts:
Alfred Adask has an article on Beneficiaries vs. Trustees, where he describes the construed trust relationship going on in the background of a court
case. However he is wrong in his conclusion that somehow the trust can be disclaimed by the party to keep it at-law. It seems the issue is to control
the construed trust with a superior express private trust in equity, and not disclaim it.
The juristic person, or CDM, is a trust. And it is not ours to use at the outset. Note when you sign up for a credit card, you are trained to write
your name 'Joe Smith' by the public fool system. Yet when the bill comes, they've done a slight-of-hand conversion and send it to 'JOE SMITH'. They
are actually in the trustee/owner position of the signature; you granted them your signature for their use to raise funds, but never declared your
intent, so the 'nail in the coffin' is when they send the NAME the bill, which repudiates their position as trustee, and you accept the bill in the
NAME. It makes the beneficiary (you) the trustee (now you become the 'owner' in a trust within a trust, because you still have beneficial use but have
to pay with your labor with funds created from pure debt, instead of them paying with the funds created out of thin air though raised off the back of
the substance, the autograph).
CDM is easier to understand if you are told Indenture Certificates, defining a Master/Slave relationship, where the Master has to provide the food,
shelter and other needs for the Slave (indentured servant), IC's went away when BC's were brought out. BC's are just an updated form of IC's. The
owner of the NAME has the responsibility to pay all bills sent to the NAME; they own it, it's a ledger entry they bundle up and sell as agricultural
commodities, since they are the one making the money from the NAME, they have the responsibility to pay. Regardless of what they do in the back-room,
they own the NAME and the owner has the liability.
Hopefully, what I've given you is some short-term and longer-term solutions to CDMx.
Other countries' subjects aren't off the hook: The FRENCH subjects have 'Joe SMITH', other corporate farms have their own version. The name 'joe
smith' is changed in _some_ way to denote the ledger-entry property instead of the live man.
edit on 24-10-2010 by nocomment because:
edit on 24-10-2010 by nocomment because: clarification.