The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Legal Advice On] Name Changes
Premier kakos
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Registered User, ClubPA regular
So, first off, I am putting a call out to all you lawyers. If you're not a lawyer, you're welcome, of course. However, so I know which advice is coming from who, please state if you're a lawyer or not. For all you lawyers who respond, I understand that you make no guarantees to the veracity of the legal advice you give me and such. Did I cover everything?
Okay, on with the question. So, I changed my name. To be specific, I changed it at will. I told my friends, my family, my co-workers to start addressing me by my new name and all that jazz. As I understand it, legal precedence says that at will name changes are a Constitutional right and that they have all the same legal weight as a court-decreed name change. Furthermore, under the 14th Amendment, a state cannot abridge that right. I did a little bit of research and I found that one of the key cases in this field is In re McUlta, 189 F. 250 (1911).
So, I want to get my driver's license changed. I write up an affidavit saying that I am changing my name, I understand that I am still responsible for any responsibilities tied to my former name, I am not changing my name out of frivolity, fraudulent intent, or any other illegal purpose, and it is not obscene. I get it signed and notarized and head over to the DMV. I ask to change the name on my license and they say they /need/ a official court document stating that I have changed my name.
So, here is my question... or questions. First off, is my understanding of the law correct? Second, if it is correct, what can I do from here? Or, if it isn't correct, why isn't it correct? Thanks.
Okay, on with the question. So, I changed my name. To be specific, I changed it at will. I told my friends, my family, my co-workers to start addressing me by my new name and all that jazz. As I understand it, legal precedence says that at will name changes are a Constitutional right and that they have all the same legal weight as a court-decreed name change. Furthermore, under the 14th Amendment, a state cannot abridge that right. I did a little bit of research and I found that one of the key cases in this field is In re McUlta, 189 F. 250 (1911).
So, I want to get my driver's license changed. I write up an affidavit saying that I am changing my name, I understand that I am still responsible for any responsibilities tied to my former name, I am not changing my name out of frivolity, fraudulent intent, or any other illegal purpose, and it is not obscene. I get it signed and notarized and head over to the DMV. I ask to change the name on my license and they say they /need/ a official court document stating that I have changed my name.
So, here is my question... or questions. First off, is my understanding of the law correct? Second, if it is correct, what can I do from here? Or, if it isn't correct, why isn't it correct? Thanks.
Premier kakos on
0
Posts
As a related example, you have the right to free assembly, but that doesn't mean the man can't shut you down if you don't satisfy requirements the government may have for getting a parade permit when you decide to celebrate Premier Katos Day.
And, as far as the case law I've read says, it is as easy as nodding your head Barbara Eden style. As long as you are not doing it for fraudulent purposes, legal precedence seems to indicate that you can nod your head and that new name is as valid and legal as any other name and that the state cannot require any official court documentation as part of its process.
Really? I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for the federal govt. to keep track of who's changed their name. Aliases and all that.
But this isn't D&D, so. I'm not a lawyer, but being required to inform the government that you're changing your name (and getting a court document to put it to paper) doesn't necessarily infringe upon your right to change your name. You can still do it.
I didn't like it and it was far too common and I get very annoyed when I hear my name spoken but the speaker isn't referring to me. Also, I seem to have had the freaky luck of always ending up in situations in which there are at least three people with the same name.
DMV, I will get you!!
The long answer: Unless you can find someone with time and money on their hands (maybe a libertarian/right-wing nonprofit group like the Pacific Legal Foundation) to run this for you as a test case, you'd be spending tens of thousands, if not hundred of dollars to avoid spending a fraction of that on a name change.
You may or may not be right from a constitutional standpoint. The modern administrative state certainly can burden our our constitutional rights with regulation, the extent of which depends on the importance of the right and the intrusiveness of the regulation. The issue is not, strictly speaking, whether you're able to change your name in the common law fashion. The question is whether the DMV can require you change your name a certain way before they issue you a driver's license. Driving isn't a constitutional right, but it is so essential to modern life that a court may view, as you surely do, that a name change that doesn't let you get identification and a license is no name change at all.
I know nothing about how the tenth circuit (which CO is in) interprets relevant federal law, though your research (wikipedia) shows that the relevant appellate theory is elsewhere. The Supreme Court case cited is not on point.
McNulta was about whether someone could change their name in good faith and enter into contracts or do business under that name, and later enforce those contracts in court, be sued under that name, etc. etc. In that sense, a name is only a referent to you, the individual. Any other result would be silly.
In the intervening century, a lot has changed, and don't expect a court to adhere to century-old case law. In modern reality, records and the concept of identity has taken on increased importance (e.g., protecting people from identify theft, illegal immigrants, crime and terrorism). Courts will likely respect the serious economic, political and social necessity for the government and other people to be able to identify a person in spite of name changes.
I think it's a technicality to protect you from claims after the fact. Somewhat historic, perhaps, but it does serve a real purpose, you can't be hauled back into court on the matter down the road unless you actually did commit fraud. Estate ads and I think bankruptcy notices (at least in some states) go in the same section. Those won't help Citibank any more than the name change ad, but once the time limit expires, Citibank is SOL and the bankrupt debtor or heirs are protected from any creditor who didn't act in time.