LOSE THE NAME – Legal Name Fraud? Kate of Gaia, (aka Keith Wilfred Thompson)



A further evolution of the freeman/sovereign movement, is a group known as Lose the Name. This group asserts that since there exists a Crown copyright on the layout of birth certificates and other official documentation, that this copyright also applies to the use of a persons name. For these reasons they are instructed to refuse to give their name to police, as it doesn’t belong to them and they would be in breach of copyright law by doing so.

One point I have previously raised in regard to this to Kate of Gaia, (aka Keith Wilfred Thompson) one of the creators of this theory, was that if in fact the Crown did own my name, how is it possible that I can migrate to Russia or any other non-commonwealth nation and not only retain the use of my name, but that the Crown no longer has any part in that name on my behalf..?? He could not answer this question and chose the only way out, to block me to avoid replying, and he had a reputation of doing this to anyone doubting his theories, to avoid his inevitable exposure for the fraudster that he is.

Your legal personality and name is your own property, and for these reasons you can transfer your property to any nation on earth, and do with it as you will. Only you are responsible for this name, and hold full liability to it’s actions. This myth is little more than another unworkable strategy to avoid accountability for ones own actions, next illogical step would be trying to hold the Crown responsible for ones own actions and wanting them to accept ones own liabilities.

In the UK National Archives website, they make it clear that the Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms, only over the layout and reproduction of it…

CROWN COPYRIGHT Guidance – Copying of Birth, Death, Marriage and Civil Partnership Certificates (UK)

1. This guidance note sets out the arrangements for the reproduction of official birth, death, marriage and civil partnership certificates (’extracts’ in Scotland). Copyright in the layout of certificates is owned by the Crown.

1)The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms2)

2 You are authorised to reproduce the layout of the form in any format including on the web, in films and in print. This authorisation is subject to the following conditions:

That you must not use reproductions of certificates to provide evidence of birth, death, marriage or civil partnership. Where a copy is required to provide evidence that an event was registered you must order an official certificate (’extract’ in Scotland) from a local registration office or General Register Office.

That the material is not used to advertise or promote a particular product or service, or in a way which could imply endorsement by HM Government;

That you comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. This guidance does not authorise you to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals;

That you reproduce the Royal Arms and any departmental logo only as an integral part of a certificate.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/…/browse-guidance-stan…/…

In the U.S. copyright protection does not extend to titles, names, slogans or short phrases, the Copyright Office has made that much very clear. You can not copyright your name, the title of your post or any short phrase that you use to identify a work.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

There have been a number of Australian cases in which courts have held that particular names, titles and slogans are not protected. As a result of these decisions, a name, title or slogan will not be protected by copyright. In these cases, the courts have generally arrived at their decisions because the name, title or slogan concerned is not an “original literary work” for copyright purposes. Factors that have influenced courts in reaching these decisions include:

3) the word or phrase was not substantial enough to constitute a “work” for copyright purposes; or

4) the phrase or sentence was commonplace, and therefore not original enough to be protected by copyrighttooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] });

http://www.copyright.org.au/…/AsiCommon/Controls/BSA/Downlo…

I have previously discussed and given legal reference to police powers in regard to disclosing details and identification in certain situations, such as driving a vehicle. Rather than repeating this, I am posting a video of the Lose the Name premise in action, with Kate of Gaia coaching a naive woman on the phone into her own arrest…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMtNJ_t9E8M

Some history on the fraudster Keith Wilfred Thompson…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5SLPBHwMdw



References   [ + ]

1. The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms
2.

2

3. the word or phrase was not substantial enough to constitute a “work” for copyright purposes; or

* the phrase or sentence was commonplace, and therefore not original enough to be protected by copyright

4. the phrase or sentence was commonplace, and therefore not original enough to be protected by copyright

Leave a Reply

Or