A non-profit site educating Canadians and Americans
about the differences between human-beings,
natural-persons and artificial-persons
man & woman,
created by God.
How the Government created your new identity and
how you can reclaim your unalienable rights.
created by man.

For the text of this web-site is with the absence of the legal-advice.
Home About Help Download Links Contact

National ID Card
Government  Tricks
The Name Game
The Legalized Criminal Racket
Formation of Statutes
Fundamental Rights
Natural vs. Artificial
Birth Certificate (BC)
Social Insurance Number (SIN)
Right to Contract
Statistics Act
Income Tax Act
Bank Act
Excise Tax Act
Driver's Licence
Cycles of Civilizations
Do you need a Lawyer?
English Grammar
Educational Seminars

The Name Game

Governments around the world are using The Name Game to trick the people into becoming subject to the government's Statute Law.

Without The Name Game, most Statute Laws violate man's fundamental rights and freeedoms, so, The Name Game is played to allow governments to get poeple's agreement to become subjected to Statute Law, thereby removing liability from the governmnet.

The basic concept of The Name Game is to trick people into believing, then admitting, that they are the same as the government's legal NAME. Once such legal joinder is made, then the people are trapped in the government's world of fiction.

When asked "are you John Doe", most people quickly agree by saying "yes, I am John Doe", which the government deems to mean: "I am the same as the name JOHN DOE". How could any man or woman be "the same as" a NAME on a piece of paper?

Once a man gives his consent (or agreement) that he is "the same as" the NAME, then the full weight of all Statute Law falls upon his shoulders.

The way to resolve this is for a man to simply make the pronouncement that "JOHN DOE is not my name" (because the NAME actually belongs to the government). See The Name Game document for full details.

Here is a link to Eldon: Warman's treatise on The NAME GAME, which I believe was created before the one presented here. These documents were developed independently by two different men.

Suggested Defences:

For a defence, it is best to avoid maing a claim for which you have to provide proof, and it is best to trick the public servants into having to provide their proof instead. This may be done by provoking the public servant into a response where the public servant has to make a claim to back his belief.

A possible dialog may go something like this:

Them: "Are you John Doe?" (a trick question)

You: "No, I am not John Doe" (a statement, so you have to follow up)

You: "Don't you know that the name John Doe belongs to the government?" (a good question but puts them on the defensive)

You: "Why do you think I am John Doe? Do you have proof or are you just guessing or trying to trick me?" (a loaded question)

Them: "We have reason to believe that you are John Doe." (they may believe whatever they want, including fiction)

You: "Why do you believe something which is false?" (an insult)

You: "Ary you trying to tell me what my name is?" (an trick question)

You: "Can you prove to me what my name is?" (a challenge for their proof)

You: "Do you know who created the name John Doe?" (a test)

Them: "Well then, what is your name?" (a trick question)

You: "Are you asking if I own a name, like it belongs to me?" (a trick)

Them: "Yes"

You: "If you check your dictionary, you will discover that a name is a reference to something, like a pointer, and all lawyers are taught in law school that nobody can own a name. So what are you asking again?" (we can go in circles here and have some fun)

Them: "Don't be difficult, just answer the question" (an order)

You: "Are you ordering me to do something, like answer your question?" (a clarification - all orders must provide some compensation)

Them: "Yes"

You: "Are you sure you want to give me this order?" (a contract)

Them: "Yes"

You: "I must inform you that I am not your slave, and I do not work for free. I will be happy to comply with your order, but it will cost you $1,000 cash in advance. Do you wish to continue these negotiations and create this contract with me?" (terms and conditions of the contract)

Them: "That's ridiculous. I am not giving you any money. Answer my question! What is your name?"

You: "Very well, you can pay me later. To answer your question, I do not have a name because nobody can own a name. So, your question has no answer. However, would you like to know how I am called?" (confirmation of contract, plus counter offer)

Them: "Yes"

You: "My spouse calls me honey, my siblings call me bro, my teacher calls me stupid, my dog calls me woof, and you may call me boss since you are a public servant and I am your boss" (you cannot charge for this one because you made the counter-offer)

Them: "Don't be smart"

You: "What authority do you have to ask me for such a NAME?" (a challenge to their presumed authority over you)

Them: "Just answer the question!"

You: "What grounds do you have to ask for a NAME?" (clarification for their cause of action)

Them: "I won't ask another time."

You: "Good, since you have been unable to provide any authority or grounds in these matters, then it is agreed between us that you have no authority and no grounds. Therefore, you have no jurisdiction over me, so, have a nice day. You may be on your way now, however don't forget that you owe me $1,000 as we agreed when I followed your order."

Eventually, the public servants are going to become irritated and irate because they cannot trick you into agreeing that you are the same as their NAME written on the piece of paper they may have with them.

There is no requirement for you to agree to be liable for the government's NAME, so it is best to remain anonymous.

If you say "I am called John of the Doe family", you now have opened the door for them to presume that you are responding to their NAME John Doe, and thus you assume liability for their NAME. This is a whole other chapter.

Here is a revealing article about American Citizenship and their Constitution.

The Identity Trap:

Here is an excellent video about The Identity Trap. Worth watching.


"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
(Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights)