Look up orphan work on Wikipedia. That's the status of the birth
certificate name. It's not yours, it was created by the state and pay for
it through the social security act of 1935 so the state is the proprietor
and according to PeeWee Cole versus the US acts as the use of flux since it
gets the benefit but it also has to accept the liabilities.
So how many of you think the birth certificate is yours? How many of you
think that is your name?
On Thu, May 13, 2021, 8:11 AM Bill <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can't trademark a proper name.
On Wednesday, May 12, 2021, 05:02:23 PM CDT, Russell Lee <
russell.lee.2012@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 12, 2021, 3:31:10 PM CDT, ejartz <ejartz@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Let me try to add a little more meat to the the bone of this discussion.
You are creating a trademark of the name you use which happens to be the
name on the birth certificate created by the government. It is not your
name, you just use it. Once you claim the name you create all kinds of
problems for yourself, so don't be that guy. That's what the trademark is
trying to get around. So what you do is create a common law trademark or
you can get a registered trademark but you put it into an irrevocable trust
with at least two trustees for dispersion so you cannot be accused of alter
ego by the IRS. The trust holds the asset for the benefit of the
beneficiaries and the trustees must defend against any infringement of the
mark. It's not the name it's the mark, get it. When you get arrested for
something, that name appears which is a trademark infringement. The
trustees are bound by duty to correct the trademark infringement by filing
a cease and desist agreement to the wrongdoers which are using a name
infringing on the trademark in commerce, namely the judge, the prosecutor,
supreme Court judge of the state ,(because they have a duty to enforce the
Constitution), and any others that are directly involved in the lawsuit
against the name. They are getting paid while infringing. The cease and
desist agreement gives them an opportunity to cease and desist using that
name, which happens to be the same as the trademark, or continue to use it
and face charges of a constitutional violation of taking private property
without just compensation under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of
the United States. So they have an opt-in or opt-out clause to get rid of
any unconscionability aspects of their situation/contract. In practice,
they will not sign the cease and desist. By signing it they would be
obligated to return the property remove it from any documents and pay just
compensation for using it to the trust. But they won't sign it and it may
be because they cannot sign it and so it may look like it's a worthless
activity, but they can be bound as non-signatories through alter ego, third
party beneficiary, assumption, equitable estoppel, and one one other that
slips my mind at the moment. So 5 days before the end of the grace period
for them to respond to the cease and desist you send them a notice of the
fault with intent sue them for breach of contract to compel them to
arbitration. According to Brian Blum's contracts from the examples and
explanations series 2nd edition: "if the offeror proffers property or
services with the offer, and the offerree, having reasonable opportunity to
refuse or return them, exercises any ownership rights over the property, or
keeps the benefit of any services, the offer is accepted." Following this
logic, the cease to desist agreement was a contract offer to settle and not
Sue (which is a legal benefit to the wrongdoers) , was given 30 days to
return the asset and profits, but since they continue to avail themselves
of the use in holding of the asset and availed themself of the legal
benefit offered by the trustee not to sue, and thus the offer is accepted.
The second notice at or near the end of the grace period of the agreement
was due process, giving the offeree a second chance of redemption so that
it is less likely that a mistake might lead to the formation of an
unintended contract, thus sealing the contract. Since the trust has a
trademark used in commerce as evidenced by an internet business selling
something using the trademark in commerce, and since there is a valid
contract that will be tough to defeat in court even though they haven't
signed the contract, the judge will be boxed into having to compel the case
to arbitration.
With 15 USC 1125
"Any person
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-1068185591-1168934806&term_occur=999&term_src=title:15:chapter:22:subchapter:III:section:1125>
who,
on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods,
uses
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-85351-1913738695&term_occur=999&term_src=title:15:chapter:22:subchapter:III:section:1125>
in commerce
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-602412325-1913738695&term_occur=999&term_src=>any
word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or
false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A)
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the
affiliation, connection, or association of such person
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-991716523-1913738695&term_occur=999&term_src=>
with
another person
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-991716523-1913738695&term_occur=999&term_src=>,
or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods,
services, or commercial activities by another person
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-991716523-1913738695&term_occur=999&term_src=>
,
So they are causing false designation of origin, false or misleading
description of fact or misleading representation of fact causing confusion
(leading to tarnishment) as to the origin sponsorship or approval of his or
her services or goods or commercial activities by another person. And
unless they admit to registering and recording people as property, and
since they didn't invoke fair use they are guilty of infringing on 15 USC
1125. And with that they lose any immunity they have with 15 USC 1122 b and
are chargeable by statutory damages that are spelled out in 15 USC 1117,
which by the way are stunning for willful violations. And by the way, since
they ignore the cease and desist and the 5-day warning for notice, and
continue to use and infringe on the trademark , they are willfully
infringing on it. You need to check out 15 USC 1117. Now you can go into
arbitration with the judge compelling the case to arbitration and have the
case heard by an arbitration panel where it should be almost certain
victory. This is where you can get them to provide a permanent injunction
against their use of the name and a requirement that they purge the name
from all of their records, and the case mysteriously disappears. This can
be used for bills that you receive for property tax, income tax, traffic
tickets, felony violations, etc.
While I believe this would work in most cases involving a charge to the
person representing the man, it wouldn't work in property tax cases (in NY)
involving a charge to the person representing the property. The state has
put a charge against the property itself as a person that must be
"redeemed" or it's seized and sold to another "Tenant."
