Hi Lovers
There is no proof, physical evidence, that delivery of the name recognized in law was made to you, that you accepted it as your name, or that it was secured for your benefit. Absent such proof there is no proof you own property in that name. If you not be the owner of property in that name, who should pay?
In addition, the name is, it exists. It appears it has a commercial or charitable purpose, therefore, it must be secure for the benefit of someone or thing.
Blacks 4th Ed. Registrant; one who registers, particularly one who registers anything (e.g. a trade mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration.
In the case of the registration of a trademark it would be registered in accordance with the trade mark act, the rights and privileges secured are as enumerated in that Act.
Anything is defined in the criminal code as anything. We may conclude then that ‘birth’ (event) falls within the meaning of anything.
In the case of the registration of a trade mark, the one causing the registration is securing a mark for the benefit of someone or entity.
In the case of a registration of a birth event (a happening, no mark), we did not play any part in it so although it can be said the government performed as registrant to secure a right or privilege, what we do not know is, for whose benefit?
To say the government registers people is to say, it secured our body as a right or privilege. Of course we know that is not accurate because the government does not register people, and also, it is the name that is recognized in law. I do not see how cognizance can be taken of that what is not registered. To Register is to take cognizance of, memorize, memorialize.
That leaves only the name that cognizance can be taken of. B,VR, event name.
See, in the case of the registration of a ‘mark’, the mark (actual thing) is the event, or subject, thing recognized in law, but, the event of your birth being an event, an occurrence, extraction of a fetus, on its own cannot be recognized unless the event is given a name.
In fact, they won’t register the event of a birth without at least a surname.
If you cause a registration you are knowingly securing a right or privilege and aware of for who or what.
Unlike the Trade-Mark Act there is no stipulation in the Vital Statistics Act that indicates what the rights and privileges are that are secured on condition of registration. It may be that the government holds the birth record as proof the name was secured for our use. Thing is we are the one that decides the path we are on, its use, e.g. service to self (business, personal id) or service to other self (love, charity, volunteer, not personal id).
If there was a trade-mark use infringement the secure party can rely on the Trade-Mark Act but in the case of the Vital Statistics Act there is nothing in it what rights are established let alone in whose favor. Maybe because life events have freewill.
If the government did secure the name for our benefit it must in my view protect our interest, right or privilege, which should in my view include our choice to volunteer our time and services for mutual benefit, or whatever words you wish to put to it – spiritual values, changing the focus. Not in or benefiting from commercial activity, profit and gain.
The BC not being personal id but also that it may be used as personal id suggests strongly that we give it its purposes, either we use it for our personal benefit or for mutual benefit. Mutual is an interesting word; directed by each toward the other or others; shared in common; public. Read Acts 4:32ish, those who know they are of one mind and one heart thought not that what he possessed was his own but had all things in common. All are one and all things are of and belong to God so mutual fits.
A house divided cannot stand
I think our maker divine shows a good example of what mutual benefit is. I figure as divine beings made in the image of what created us that it is intended the spirit of our maker guide the body it occupies.
Any way we look at it, and I am not saying this is accurate, but any way we look at it, it seems the name was secured for mutual benefit and that we have the choice to give of ourselves via the name for mutual benefit. Perhaps that is the Wisdom. Maybe the way out because we sure did not take that course to get in where we are. If would seem to me that if the name is secured for mutual benefit purposes, no one has the right to cry fowl.
We volunteer to take on ownership and related burdens or we volunteer to serve; create and serve for mutual benefit. The latter choice may be protected, hence name is protected. No longer having to buy and sell to survive.
As I see it, the name is secured for mutual benefit but may be used for personal benefit; that we either exist in commerce as quasi owners of sole proprietorships or stand one with God or be godlike. Question is, do we have the heart? Quasi, having a legal status only by operation or construction of law and without reference to intent. In other words, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, be it a duck or not, for legal purposes, it is a duck.
Still we cannot say for sure the purpose of a BC except it is not intended to be used as personal identification so once again it seems we give the BC its purpose and that we may give it a mutual benefit purpose. If there is any challenge or question regarding that choice, then the registrant should be contacted by the challenger/doubter.
I love you