It is difficult to understand what he means by the Certificate of Live Birth, and how it enables him to claim he is a benefactor whom is a creditor of the debt, owed by the trust that the Birth Certificate assigns us as beneficiaries of the Trust, whom own the debt the beneficiaries owe. I have no idea how to get such a document, or what court action he plead guilty to and attached his bill for the money owed the benefactors of that trust. I think you have linked this before, and I have seen it before, but neither understood then.

My best guess is the earlier discussion when he speaks about symbolizing the surname with all caps, italics, or underline, the cross symbol, and etc, are an attempt to explain, but I fail to understand how differentiating between the surname and the Christian name are achieved by his Certificate of Live Birth, or where to get such document.

I agree wholly that any such scheme has not been known to me, not been agreed to by me, and I have not signed knowingly any contract to that effect. It is a tenet of common law that consent requires compos mentus, that we must be competent to sign a contract that obligates us, or such contract is null and void, and being deceived that there is no such trust or assets, or our assignation as beneficiaries annuls our status as benefactors, renders any such signature on any such document or contract void, as if it had never been done. Fraud is not enforceable by any lawful court, and this is the precedent I am familiar with. However I am not aware of any lawful court, while perhaps Justice Courts at the county level may be such courts, I am not certain they are particularly lawful either, as in Oregon my recollection is they are under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon, which I suppose by these testimonies to be part of the admiralty piracy, the trust system Romley treats. As a child non compos mentus, my parents made such decisions for me, presumably similarly deceived, but now I am not a child, and no decisions by my parents to encumber me obligate me to suffer such encumbrance, and I am compos mentus today to be properly availed such opportunity to contract or to decline if such party as the trust concerned has interest in my assent and obligation thereby. None such has done so, nor informed me of the existence of assets I am owed by that trust, which I do not assent to exercise my authority to administer on my behalf. I reckon I can do that just fine myself.

As to a blog, I have the valued-customer account here. I have considered other venues from time to time, but there is a learning curve to each and all of them, and while I am sure I could work it out, they all seem to have problems, such as substack is causing presently by demanding it's creators in Oz meet the requirements of the new ID law - even though it's not required to meet the standards of that law - or be locked out of their accounts. I don't think Hive can do that, there being no corporate office that can be held responsible to do that, sent notice, or sued, charged, accused or any such thing, of failure to comply. Perhaps the several witnesses can be held accountable to their jurisdictions to approve code that achieves the purposes of those several states, but it would be a more unwieldy process in which all the jurisdictions of all the consensus witnesses would have to adopt identical requirements and severally apply such responsibility concurrently, which is possible for them to do, but not currently their practice.

[Edit: such code would also have to be produced, which I doubt with a degree approaching certainty would prove competent to function. Further, that unwieldy process of coordinating jurisdictions, writing code, and so forth would take plenty of time to enable a hard fork to render the whole matter moot, because we could all join Gleep and leave Hive subject to that order without effect on Gleep. Changing witnesses would be simple enough and different jurisdictions would then be required to repeat the process, which could just be dodged again.]

In many ways Hive approaches lawful operation according to the common law, and while I'm not certain of it, I suspect the code that enables stakeholders to tax earnings and return them to the rewards pool may comply with common law. Rewards, rewards pools, and downvotes that tax creators, haven't before been considered under common law, and the claim of injured parties afflicted by such taxation hasn't been adjudicated by a jury sat for the purpose. I hope such downvotes taxing creators absent justifiable cause aren't lawful, because it is an injury suffered by creators, and the sophistry that the rewards haven't been paid out yet so they aren't actually the creator's yet is a false claim. Your wages aren't paid minute by minute either, and there is a withholding period during which taxes are withheld from them while they haven't been paid to you, but that doesn't mean they aren't your wages and owed you. The authority of states to tax is wholly different from the authority of stakeholders availed the ability by written code to tax with downvotes, and because taxation is theft and was not applicable by Congress authorized by the Constitution, a common law document, I think that such taxation isn't lawful on Hive either according to the common law, particularly not absent any justification for punitive purpose, and this is why so many flaggots have claimed so many reasons they flew the flags, such as spam, scam, plagiarism, and that most obnoxious, disagreement with rewards - which I think is just the same thing as saying 'I want to take your money'.

That's just blatant theft, as all taxation is in truth, but because the state must have money to effect it's claimed lawful purposes, such as the common defense, it must have a way to get that money, and tariffs are an example of a mechanism that only steals from foreign producers of goods for sale the lawfulness of such mechanism of taxation is far less onerous than the direct taxation of income, or of wages (which aren't the same thing at all). Anyway, I'm not aware anyone has attempted to empanel a grand jury under common law and consider prosecuting the matter, nor is there a common law jurisdiction or court I am aware of to do so, but certainly can be established under common law by sovereign people. Whether stakeholders on Hive would pay any attention to it, or whether any adjudication by such court could lawfully be enforced against Hive stakeholders are additional questions I cannot answer, but I expect they can be if majority stakeholders, particularly, will agree to observe common law.

Decentralization and anarchy is not lawlessness, after all, and I reckon the majority of Hive stakeholders might agree they are obligated to observe the application of common law to them and others. In the almost ubiquitous agreement that suppression of spam, scams, and plagiarism is desirable we glimpse that interest in applying the common law, as well as operations intended to prevent hacking and outright theft of accounts, and fraudulent dealings like circle jerks, botnets, and AI content. These are all elements of common law and seemingly natively agreed upon by Hive stakeholders across multiple nations, countries, polities, and jurisdictions, speaking a variety of languages and from every culture with access to the internet. This suggests the common law is ubiquitous and inherent to humanity, as Blackstone implies, written by God and applied to all men.

I wonder what @commonlaw thinks of this.

Thanks!