My Strawman....

[charlie*]

Hello, Iwonder if anyone can answer this problem.....

 

My son has a Sainsbury credit card which may or may not be enforceable per the CCAct... that is not an issue right now.

 

What is an issue is that the name typed on the agreement is his real live human being name, that is in lower case... Peter John Jones (correctly, :Peter-John: Jones) whereas a corporate can only communicate with a corporate, that is in upper case or CAPITALS so, as we are all corporates, every last man jack of us, he can only be addressed as PETER JOHN JONES..

 

This is my question... How can he address the bank because he, that is :Peter-John: of the family Jones (commonly Peter John Jones - or :Peter-John: Jones (agent) did not borrow anything from them and does not owe them anything - and they cannot communicate with him because they do not have an account under the name of PETER JOHN JONES.

 

This is all to do with Commercial/Admiralty law which is THE LAW globally.

 

I would appreciate any knowledgeable comment, but hopefully a bit of fun too?

 

Anyone who's puzzled, start by googling 'strawman' - you are not who you think you are.

 

charlie*

Edited March 4, 2009 by charlie*

[flyingdoc]

You have some strange concepts here which I struggle to understand.

 

I dont see how you can say that a corporate can only communicate with a corporate (actually I dont understand what it means)

 

You as an individual do not have a corporate identity you are a natural person (according to commercial and EU law) and a company is a LEGAL person (by the same standard)

 

Also the CCA ie CONSUMER credit act implies that the agreements are between a company and a CONSUMER which would suggest that it is designed to be used with individuals as there are not many definitions of a company that can allow it to be a consumer.

[charlie*]

Hi doc,

 

You might care to take a look.... this is only

one of a pretty wide collection of info

sites/books etc.

 

Natural-Person Home Page

 

Okay, so it's a US site, there are others I just

picked on this one 'cos it was convenient. Most

law came out of London, so these things apply

here too.

 

Did a bit of checking, I know now I got it wrong

about the CC agreement

 

charlie

[flyingdoc]

Hi Charlie

 

I have seen this kind of sophistry before and not to put too fine a point on it it is complete b****cks

 

 

There was a post on here not so long ago basically saying that in order to make you subservient to a country's laws you have to "accept" them by doing stuff like registering at birth or registering to vote.

 

the bottom line is that whatever happens YOU are YOU, whether your name is spelt in lower case, upper case, or a combination of the above, or even if it is misspelt.

 

There is no wriggling out of contracts using this kind of trickery. There was a movement (and still is in the US) that said the 16th amendment was not passed according to the correct procedure and therefore all federal taxes are illegal and therefore you dont have (watch zeitgeist) .

 

If this ever got into court it would be swiftly dealt with.

 

Not only that the definition of what a natural person or a legal person has been determined in european Law

[LawdyLawd]

Sorry but bad advice flyingdoc! It is actually known as your juristic person or body corporate, has same legal rights as you but not human rights. Courts cannot encroach upon your human rights so it is directed to thi intangible trust entity so said rights are maintained. If it is rubbish then I guess the lawlords were wrong producing the Contracts (Rights of third party's) Act of 1999 which stops unjust enrichment via such things under English Law (section 6). It is known in law as "an assignment of contract for value recieved without recourse or notice" and they felt it was a little too unjust.

It's why you've not actually won in court, the liability is just transferred to your jursitic person and those in law settle them whilst your convention rights (too which all primary and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect thereto) are maintained. Don't mean to be offensive, just dont give bad advice you dont know about when people clearly need help. Just read your mortgage for advice, it tells you how to deal with debts! Send the neotiable instrument, now, time I stopped my banks lawyers from getting Inchoate Instruments from me pursuant to section 20 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882! Far too generous, I should start charging for settling liabilities!

Edited May 7, 2011 by LawdyLawd

[alternative-answer]

charlie* is correct, you are a natural living flesh and blood human being with a family name. However when you were given a name and registered at birth it created a PERSON, a legal entity. Your lawful, christian name of birthright was replaced with a legal, corporate name. Only corporations can do business, enter into agreements, contract, exchange money. The best part is how can a fiction do anything when it doesn't even exist, it can't. When banks want to do business with you they need you signature, when they phone they need you to confirm you name, LEGAL FICTION - PERSON, look on your credit/debit card, NAME IN ALL CAPITALS, that's you the corporation.

Why create a strawman? The answer is 'in order to charge the strawman imaginary costs and penalties and fool the human into paying those amounts'. These imaginary charges include 'Income Tax', 'Council Tax', 'Inheritance Tax', 'Capital-Gains Tax', 'Road Tax', 'Import Tax', 'Value-Added Tax', 'Fuel Levy', 'Loan Interest', 'Bank Charges' and anything else that full-time professionals can think up and are confident that you will not notice that you never agreed to pay and don't need to pay.