David-Paul Sip
I think this is worth exploring further although this would seem to be a natural fit for the AGENCY thread the admiral created. The exchange between Ceit Butler and Captain Pete raise a number of questions that I will include here.
Isn't the PERSON, and not the man, the agent? How can a man be an agent under government acts and statutes? Doesn't the title AGENT represent a specific OFFICE or CAPACITY of the PERSON?
Ceit Butler: "You, the man, applied for that license making you an AGENT acting as SURETY for the name. This is why the birth certificate is required. You signed for the license, agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions that go along with it, and had your photo taken, binding your image to the contract."
Does a man (or woman's photo) mean that the man is a party to the contract? Or is this not part of the presumption that we the PERSON/NAME which we are supposed to BELIEVE? Who in fact has agreed to the terms and conditions when the driver's LICENCE is signed? The MAN or the PERSON?
Can acts and statutes apply to MAN? I think (may be wrong) they ONLY apply to the PERSON since the PERSON is the ONLY thing the GOVERNMENT and the COURTS have JURISDICTION over. Lawyers have CLAIMED authority of all NATURAL PERSONS (see recent DRAFT article the Admiral posted).
Does a MAN's picture next to a NAME on any licence make them that PERSON/NAME or is it part of the deception and the smoke and mirrors used to convince folks they are that PERSON/NAME? And would the NOTICE OF MISTAKE not be used to correct this PRESUMPTION?
I agree that the GOVERNMENT is the AGENCY but then that would also make it the SURETY since it owns the name. The GOVERNMENT and the COURTS conveniently PRESUME that the MAN is SURETY since that is the only way they can PROFIT from the arrangement.
I don't want to create a shit stain here but I am unsure how to avoid doing so since the dialogue between Pete and Ceit seem to offer two differing views only one of which can be TRUE. I'd like to know which.