You are on page 1of 9

The NAME GAME Explained

Recent research here in Canada shows that the income tax, and all other statutory law, is imposed
based upon the 'property right', and that property right is the property right of the corporate
Crown in Canada, and corporate State (be it a State or the UNITED STATES) in the USA.
The same scheme can be found in any country that is a subject country of the Pontiff of Rome's
Holy Roman Empire. Thus, in actuality, the assumed 'property right' is that of the corporate Holy
Roman Empire, as the Crown or incorporated State is an agency for the Holy Roman Empire.

The ‘Crown’ is the administrative corporation of the Pontiff of Rome owned City of London,
the financial, legal and professional standards capitol of/for the Vatican, The City of London is
a square mile area within Greater London, England, and is an independent city-state.
In the USA, the administrative corporation for the Pontiff of Rome is the UNITED STATES,
and that corporation administers the Vatican capitol, for, primarily, military purposes, called
Columbia, or the District of Columbia. The UNITED STATES also administers the 50 sub-
corporate States of the United States of America, identified with the 2 cap letters – CA, OR, WA,

All adult humans are deceived into using the fiction name, as imprinted on the copy of the birth
certificate you receive when ordering it from Provincial/State Vital Statistics, or to whatever
source you apply. Although the birth certificate is of somewhat recent origin and used to
formally offer 'citizens' as chattel in bankruptcy to the Pope's Holy Roman Empire owned
Rothschilds' Banking System, the false use of the family name goes back into the Middle Ages in
England. Thus, it is with the family name made a primary, or surname, (example - Mister
Jones), and the given names of the child (example - Peter) made a reference name to the primary
name. This is the reverse or mirror image to reality. A 'family name' is NOT a man's name - it is
a name of a clan - a blood relationship. [Replace the example names with your given and family

We are then 'forced' or 'obliged' to use that name in all commercial and Government dealings and
communications. So, when we do use it, as 99.99% of the human inhabitants of North America
(and most of the world) do, we supposedly 'voluntarily' attach ourselves, the free will adult
human, to the Crown/State owned property, called the 'legal identity name' as an accessory
attached to property owned by Another party..

The State or Crown does not give us authority, grant, license, permission or leave to use the
Crown or State owned legal identity name. Thus, our use of it as an adult free will man (male or
female) is a form of 'theft' against a maritime jurisdiction entity (all incorporated bodies are
'make-believe ships at sea'. In maritime law, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. This
allows the Roman Law system we have to impose 'involuntary servitude' upon an adult man.
We see this Roman Law within the US 13th Amendment (#2) instituted in the mid 1860's:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted," The crime with which you have been convicted is
'unauthorized use' of the State's or Crown's intellectual property - the legal identity name.

The Crown/State then invokes the legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, [an accessory attached

to a principal becomes the property of the owner of the principal], where the principal is the legal
identity name as 'intellectual property', the owner is the corporation called the Crown/State or
UNITED STATES, and the accessory is the free will human who has supposedly volunteered
himself to be 'property by attachment' of the Crown/State. An adult human who is property is,
and by any other name, a 'slave', be it citizen, subject or freeman.

I would point out here that all concepts that teach that the relationship between free will man and
Government/corporate bodies is contractual are incorrect. All supposed remedies in contract law,
American UCC or Canadian PPSA are ‘red herring’ diversions – some intended, and some in
ignorance by the teachers.

As a slave, one's property in possession, including body and labor, belongs to the slave owner
100%. And, the property right is a bundle of rights - own, use, sell, gift, bequeath and
hypothecate property.

Thus, ALL 'income' resulting from the owned human slave's mental and/or physical labor
belongs to the slave owner. That which is left with or granted to the slave for his own use
and maintenance is called a 'benefit'. In Canada, the 'return of income' [the phrase itself tells the
story] is called a T1 'tax and benefits package'. The T1 or 1040 is an accounting by the slave of
his fruits of labor that belongs to the slave owner, and the prescribed 'benefits' that he may keep
or have back from withholding. Thus, all income tax cases against the people', in reality, result
from fraud, illegal concealment and theft by the accused slave of the slave owner's ‘property'.

Going back to an above paragraph, we find that the attachment of oneself to the Crown/State
owned name is 'assumed to be voluntary', as the Crown/State has no valid right to impose
slavery upon adult humans against their will. And, constitutional prohibitions of slavery only
encompasses ' involuntary servitude', not 'voluntary servitude'. Anyone working as an employee
is in a contract of voluntary servitude - direction and time control by, and obedience and loyalty
to the employer. Until we ‘assumed to be slaves' get our heads around this key to the lock that
holds our chains of slavery around our necks and ankles, we will continue to attempt to swim
with that 100 lb ball chained to our leg.

Another factor of the use of the Roman Law system is contained within the 1860's 13th
Amendment to the US Constitution, the Constitution of the corporate UNITED STATES,
and not the 13th Amendment of the US Republic inserted around 1819. In the later 13th
amendment, it says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction." Notice that this applies only to the corporate body called the

All corporate bodies are make-believe ships at sea, and are thus, internally, under maritime law.
In maritime law, an accused is guilty unless proven innocent. Thus, a free will adult man who
uses without authority the property of a corporate body is under maritime jurisdiction. This
makes a free will man who uses a corporate Crown or corporate State owned legal identity name
a 'convicted' criminal, and thus subject to the imposition of slavery, involuntary servitude. You,
as a child were Crown or State property by way of the birth registry, and thus, you could use

Crown or State property, the legal identity name. When you became an adult, as a vessel on the
seal of life as a sovereign captain/free will mind, you no longer had a right to use that Crown or
State owned legal identity name.

Reports of unsuccessful attempts at paying government imposed debts using the Canadian Bills
of Exchange Act or US UCC provisions of settling an account proved that there was no contract
issue between a Canadian or American adult human and the Government as is commonly taught
by some patriot gurus.Under contract, a 'bill' is a method of equalizing a contract - like value
exchanged for like value. However, under the 'property right' of a slave owner in regard to
property in the possession of an owned slave, a 'demand' for the property by the slave owner,
or the slave owner's agent (such as the IRS, or county tax collector, or for a court imposed fine),
is all that is necessary, without regard to due process of law. Remember, ALL that a slave
possesses belongs to the slave owner. I am NOT saying you ARE a slave. I just point out to
you that Government, and its employees, judges and officers SEE you as a SLAVE.
See sections 35 and 46 of the "Bills of Exchange Act of Canada" regarding eligibility for use
of the provisions of that Act. GOOGLE it. A bill can only be paid with money, and there is no
money in Canada or the USA since the early 1930s. All that is left is a 'promissory note'.

Further, when any 'officer' of the corporate body, be it 'peace officer or police', all the way to
King or President choose to declare someone 'homo sacer' (meaning a man who has been
stripped of his status of 'person' - that being an obedient corporate slave member of the corporate
body politic) - he is stripped of the rights of due process of law, and can be fined, punished,
tortured or killed without repercussion to the officer, or officer involved. This happens all the
time in the world of the Holy Roman Empire.

This doctrine of 'homo sacer' is clearly presented in the US Fugitive Slave Act 1850, Section 6:

"In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be
admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned,
shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove
such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation
of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other
person whomsoever. Unquote

Three major points here: 1. The accused disobedient slave cannot enter evidence in his own
defense. Sound familiar? The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and German 'Holocaust Denial'
litigation courts declare that "truth is no defense". Judges constantly ignore offered defenses by
Government accused defendants, especially in traffic and income tax issues. And, this may be
acceptable if the judge were to explain why he need do that, but almost 100% of the time, no
explanation is offered, and that is to hide the 'homo sacer' doctrine, and the fact that a slave is
being tried for disobedience to the rules within the slave owner's property right.
2. The 'certificate' presented by the officer or agent of the property owner (declaration of
property ownership) is sufficient for conviction of disobedience.

3. No molestation (such as criminal or civil complaints) can be made by, or on behalf of the
accused or convicted disobedient slave. Anyone know of successful litigation against a police
officer or judge who severely abused the unalienable rights of a man? Yes, there may be a few
in well publicized cases, where the system has to hide their despotic Roman scheme, but that is
I am not suggesting that the Fugitive Slave Act is still being used. It was likely rescinded at some
time; however, what I do say is that the provisions written within that act were directly out of the
Roman Law system in dealing with disobedient slaves, and it is Roman Law that is being
imposed upon the free will adult people in America and Canada who have had Roman slavery
imposed upon them.

However, since we are 'forced to', or 'obliged to' use the Crown/State owned legal identity name
in all commercial and government dealings, services and communications, we can make a 'claim
of right' under the Rule of Private Necessity – with the necessity being the means to sustain and
maintain our life, as all food, shelter, clothing, means of travel and that which answers our need
for happiness all has to be obtained or used in the realms of commerce. Briefly, commerce is all
communications, contracts, and other interrelations and interactions with other parties, which
includes government.

This should counter the claim that we 'voluntarily' attach ourselves to Crown/State property.
Repeating - The Private Necessity is that we cannot do anything in relation to life, liberty,
property or due process of law without using the Crown/State owned name, and thus we cannot
sustain or maintain our lives without that fiction name.

The name separation is only a court tactic, as the legal identity name is always the one charged.
The Government intent, of course, is to get to the adult man (m or f) attached to that name - the
attached accessory - you. Otherwise you, and your children need to 'use' that legal identity name
in all commerce (communication), and you do so under private necessity. So, only in court do
you need to prove:
1. That you are a separate party from the named defendant.
2. That you only use the legal identity name, named as defendant, under private necessity to
sustain and maintain your life, and that you are not voluntarily attached to it permanently as an
accessory to Crown property.
3. That you have Her Majesty's permission to use that Crown owned legal name according to
Vital Statistics Acts of the Canadian Provinces.
4. That the copy of the birth certificate held by myself has been surrendered to the Court, and I
deny any fiduciary responsibility for that Crown property or the name thereon. [Should have
been previously surrendered, along with the Canada affidavit, to a judge in chambers hearing.]
5. It all comes right down to this: 'Informed consent'. You do not have to consent to identified as
being the name found on the birth certificate. "I do not authorize you to recognize me as being
one and the same as the legal identity name you find on your documents. I do not consent to

Also, a Freedom Of Information Demand should be sent to the Minister, or Representative
requesting the authority, date, means and methods by which you, a free will man (m or f)
became a slave owned by the corporate Crown or State.

A process that has worked recently in Texas is the 'surrender' of the copy of the birth certificate
one has in possession to a judge, or the judge assigned to a case where you, in the legal identity
name, are the defendant, in an 'in chambers' hearing. Some call this 'surrender' of the defendant
(the legal identity name) as being on the 'private side' using the Biblical method of settling
disputes privately if possible.

This is preferred to 'surrendering it in court' as that is on the 'public side', and as a human
presence in the court room, the assumption that you are an attachment to the legal identity
name has already been made. And being attached as an accessory to it, you become surety,
guarantor and do 'represent' the legal identity name defendant.


Addendum 1 Name Game

I don't promote or use the Commercial Redemption system. I just suggest showing the
'authorities" that I, and the 'legal identity name' are not one and the same party. The Statement of
Live Birth and the Birth Certificate can be used as proof of that, since, as a child, you had
nothing to do with the registration of your birth, nor with the choice of names you were to be
called as a child.
1. The Birth Certificate shows that it belongs to the State/Province where you were born, and
thus, is the property of the State or Crown in right of the Province.
2. The name on that shows your family name to be the primary name of the 'legal identity name'
- a 'surname', and the first and second names being referential to it. That is fiction. The family
name is a clan name. It is not the name of an individual man (m or f).
3. The Statement of Birth shows that the first and second name is a gift (given names), and as
such is a contract. An infant (under age 21) cannot be party to a contract. An acceptor of a gift
must 'accept', and accept voluntarily. Thus, you have never 'accepted' the given names. There is
no mechanism to do that in the Roman Law we are under. The Roman law only sees the legal
identity name, a name that belongs to the corporate Roman Empire of the Pope.
4. An adult man is actually a mind inhabiting a physical human body. Only things can be named.
A mind is a process, not a thing.

Thus, when a human becomes an adult, that is akin to the launching of a new ship. The adult
mind is equivalent to the captain of a ship at sea. The captain is sovereign or supreme on his
ship. The only way a captain of a ship can lose that sovereignty is by putting his ship 'in tow'
voluntarily behind another ship. It is then that the tow ship captain gains sovereignty over the
captain of the ship in tow.

The legal identity name is the rope that ties our vessel to the corporate Crown of the City of
London (owned by the corporate Holy Roman Empire).

The Name Game Blog explains the rest.

Addendum 2 Name Game

The name "they" use on all their documents, including indictments, is the legal name. I believe
there is no argument with that. In fact, the courts are usually ready to agree with that
classification without hesitation.
By presenting the Statement of Birth (SOB) to them and asking them to do an investigation with
a view to answering just two simple questions, will repel all attacks from the "system". The two
questions are:
1. Who has secured the rights (legal and equitable) in the legal name??? (insert name exactly as it
appears on the Birth Certificate even though the all caps aspect is a red herring); and,
2. What rights do I have in the legal name ???
The answers to these two questions will prove (in Ontario SOB's are admissible in any Ontario
court as Proof, not just evidence, of the facts so certified) that
1. the government secured the rights (a.k.a. the secured party) in the legal name and, therefore, I
have no rights in the legal name. 2. If I have no rights in the legal name, then how can I have any
obligations related to the legal name?
The party that the law holds legally responsible for the financial and other obligations of the
property (legal name) is the secured party, which is the government in the case of the legal name.
This is all proven by the SOB!
It would seem to me that there is no place for the system to go once this truth is on the table.
Certainly CRA can be easily defeated with this approach.
However, the judge may make the assumption that by your ‘permanent’ use of the legal identity
name, you have become an accessory attached to that Crown owned name, and thus you are the
property of the Crown by the legal maxim, which arises out of the property right, accessio cedit
principali. Thus, to complete the above procedure, you must, by affidavit or notice, make a claim
of right of free will status and claim that the Crown owned name is used under private necessity
in commerce to sustain and maintain your life. As such, your use of the Crown owned name is
not a voluntary act by yourself.
Some claim that Her Majesty, or the corporate Crown, has given one permission to use the
Crown owned legal identity name. That assumption is arrived at by way of the Ontario 'Change
of Names Act' which says: "Ch. C7; Person's name: 2.(1) For all purposes of Ontario law, (a)
a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name
appearing on the person's birth certificate or change of name certificate". As it states, it only
applies to 'persons' - which is the combination of the strawman name and the adult man, making
that combined entity the 'property and subject of' the corporate Crown. That certainly is not the
status we, as free will minded creatures, would wish to be.

Addendum 3 The Name Game

Regarding the use of the legal identity name, this thing comes down to consent. No means no
and silence means yes.

We are all of the one individualized making you source energy flowing through a BC that is
never not connected to the national treasury. In essence a BC is issued of the treasury so that all
we do through the name on it flows to the/our treasury. However, that changes if you are
recognized through a legal name.

The Birth Certificate is never un-connected from the treasury, 'For Treasury use only', just as you
are never un-connected with the divine. You are the source, source energy, and in legal land, the
treasury is source. The Statement Of Birth, as proof, is recognized by the government that it is
so. Humans in this world are source energy. Source of commercial energy, to use that term, for
without human, nothing happens. Just as in the bigger picture, without God nothing happens. So
if you are searching for access to the treasury account look in mirror.

An old 'Law and Order' show. A woman was after the police to get a man who was stalking her.
Again and again she went to the police to get this man to stop stalking her. Finally a detective
says, "Mam, that man is not stalking you." "Oh yes he is" she says. "No Mam, he is not. There
is nothing in our law books about stalking. So, that man there is not stalking you." This is how
law and legal authority work. If it is not on the books, then it does not exist. In the case of that
show there was no such thing as a stalker or stalking.

Show me the law or authority upon which anyone may rely that authorizes any agent to
recognize you through a legal name? There is no such authority WITHOUT YOUR
CONSENT. How is consent obtained against you by the agents? By your silence. Anytime
you are getting 'done by', and remain silent, you are capitulating (in agreement). We are entitled
to be recognized THROUGH (by means through) the legal name on the BC, but we are also
entitled to say "No. I do not consent to be recognized by the name". If as has been the case
you make it clear that you do not consent to be recognized through the legal name and the other
party ignores you, and you do not take an appropriate course of action to stop it, you are agreeing
to get 'done by'.

So what we have going on here is a whole bunch of agents are recognizing us THROUGH a
legal name, and we are not doing anything about it = silence. And, by = through.

WHEREAS [I like that word], if you know that there is no authority, legal, lawful or otherwise,
for an agent to recognize you through a legal name, and you make it clear that you do not
consent to be recognized through the name, that party is in the commission of a crime if he
proceeds as if he has the authority because, in fact, there is no law that authorizes any agent to
recognize you as anything or any capacity without your consent. No means no. Yes we must

use a legal name, and yes, everything we do in that name is connected to the treasury, and the
provinces /Canada, by holding the SOB's is in the loop as beneficiary/treasurer. But not if you
are recognized through the legal name. By being recognized through the legal name, I say
through because you are not the legal name, you are claiming ownership of property and the
value of it; in essence, my stuff.

But if you do not consent to be recognized through the legal name, then the issuer of the BC is,
and at that point is the owner of property and responsible for the debts, obligations, securities and
undertakings of things you do through the legal name. The BC is always connected to the
treasury (matrix), the question is, who the beneficiary is.
If you allow yourself to be recognized through the legal name then you are the beneficiary but if
you do not consent then the treasury (Canada) is the beneficiary.

Where we have failed ourselves is when we do not address the I do not consent to be recognized
through the name on the BC properly. It is your license to do as you please. The license of
licenses. There is no law or legislation anywhere that authorizes any agent to recognize you
through a legal name. There is nothing that prevents them from doing so or trying either. It is up
to you how you react if one does. What I am saying is, no agent has the legal backing to
recognize you through the legal name that will indemnify them from harm (prosecution) if they
do after you made it clear that you do not consent. In other words, they have ruled over us purely
LEGAL IDENTITY NAME, OR BY ANY NAME; and there is no law that authorizes you to
recognize me through a name without my consent.

Addendum 4 The Name Game Blog

Consent #2 March 09

When you present government ID and you do not want to be recognized through the name on it

There is no other source of such authority is what you need to get here. Your it.

Now everything we have learned over the years and in particular lately backs this I do not
consent thing. A BC is not and was never intended to be personal identification it evolved as the
deputy registrar said and it evolved through our giving consent to be recognized.

The Government holds title to the legal name and entitles you to be recognized through a legal
name which it cannot do unless it has rights in the name. Significance of the government
holding the SOB is proof. There is no proof that your parents gave you the name that appears on
a SOB, impossible for that to be proven. Look up 'informed consent' at Wikipedia and you know
now whats been going on.
"Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based
upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications and future consequences of
an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate
reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.

Impairment to reasoning and judgment which would make it impossible for someone to give
informed consent include such factors as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness,
intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma.
Some acts cannot legally take place because of a lack of informed consent. In cases where an
individual is considered unable to give informed consent, another person is generally authorized
to give consent on their behalf e.g. parents or legal guardians of a child and care-givers for the
mentally ill.
However, if a severely injured person is brought to hospital in an unconscious state and no-one is
available to give informed consent, doctors will give whatever treatment is necessary to save
their life (according to the Hippocratic oath) which might involve major surgery e.g. amputation.
In cases where an individual is provided insufficient information to form a reasoned decision,
serious ethical issues arise. Such cases in a clinical trial in medical research are anticipated and
prevented by an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board." legal definition:

An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge
of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.

For example, a patient may give informed consent to medical treatment only after the healthcare
professional has disclosed all possible risks involved in accepting or rejecting the treatment. A
healthcare provider or facility may be held responsible for an injury caused by an undisclosed
risk. In another context, a person accused of committing a crime cannot give up his constitutional
rights--for example, to remain silent or to talk with an attorney--unless and until he has been
informed of those rights, usually via the well-known Miranda warnings . end quote

End of blog