|
Memorandum of Law on
the Name [by Gordon Warren Epperly] Many people are involved in diligent research concerning the
use of all capital letters for proper names, e.g., JOHN PAUL JONES as a
substitute for John Paul Jones in all court documents, driver's licenses, bank
accounts, birth certificates, etc.. Is the use of all capital letters to
designate a name some special English grammar rule or style? Is it a
contemporary American style of English? Is the use of this form of
capitalization recognized by educational authorities? Is this an official
judicial or U.S. government rule and/or style of grammar? Why do attorneys,
court clerks, prosecutors judges, insurance companies, banks, credit card
companies, utility companies, etc. always use all capital letters when writing
a proper name? What English
grammar experts say One of the foremost authorities on American English grammar,
style, composition, and rules is The Chicago Manual of Style. The latest
(14th) Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, is
internationally known and respected as a major contribution to maintaining and
improving the standards of written or printed text. Since we can find no
reference in their manual concerning the use of all capitalized letters with a
proper name or any other usage, we wrote to the editors and asked this
question: "Is
it acceptable, or is there any rule of English grammar, to allow a proper name
to be written in all capital letters? For example, if my name was John Paul
Jones, can it be written as JOHN PAUL JONES? Is there any rule covering
this?" The
Editorial Staff of the University of Chicago answered: "Writing
names in all caps is not conventional; it is not Chicago style to put anything
in all caps. For instance, even if 'GONE WITH THE WIND' appears on the title
page all in caps, we would properly render it 'Gone with the Wind' in a
bibliography. The only reason we can think of to do so is if you are quoting
some material where it is important to the narrative to preserve the casing of
the letters. We're
not sure in what context you would like your proper name to appear in all caps,
but it is likely to be seen as a bit odd." Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization,
punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason
and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences. If, for instance, one attempts
to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State of a
State, if the exact title of the corporation down to every jot and tittle is not exactly the same each and every time the
corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State
will refuse to file the papers. This is because each time the name of the
corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express
the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation
identifies an entirely different legal person. It is therefore an eminently valid,
and possibly crucial, question as to why governments, governmental courts, and
agencies purporting to exist (in some undefined, unproved manner) within the
jurisdiction of this state insist on always capitalizing every letter
in a proper name. Mary Newton Bruder,
Ph.D., also known as The Grammar Lady, who established the Grammar
Hotline in the late 1980's for the "Coalition of Adult Literacy,"
was asked the following question: "Why
do federal and state government agencies and departments, judicial and
administrative courts, insurance companies, etc., spell a person's proper name
in all capital letters? For example, if my name is John Paul Jones, is it
proper at any time to write my name as JOHN PAUL JONES?" Dr. Bruder's
reply was short and to the point: "It must be some kind of internal
style. There is no grammar rule about it." It seemed that these particular
grammatical experts had no idea why proper names were written in all caps, so
we began to assemble an extensive collection of reference books authored by
various publishers, governments, and legal authorities to find the answer. What
English grammar reference books say Manual
on Usage & Style One of the reference books obtained
was the "Manual on Usage & Style," Eighth Edition, ISBN
I-878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. Section D, CAPITALIZATION,
paragraph D: 1:1 states: "Always
capitalize proper nouns... [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which
they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan, Austin,
Rolls Royce)." Paragraph
D: 3:2 of Section D states: "Capitalize
People, State, and any other terms used to refer to the government as a
litigant (e.g., the People's case, the State's argument), but do not capitalize
other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant
Manson)." Either no
attorney, judge, or law clerk in Texas has ever read the recognized law style
manual that purports to pertain to them, or the act is a deliberate violation
of the rules for undisclosed reasons. In either ignorance (ignorance of the
law is no excuse) or violation (one violating the law he enforces on
others is acting under title of nobility and abrogating the principle of
equality under the law) of law, they continue to write "Plaintiff,
"Defendant," "THE STATE OF TEXAS" and proper names
of parties in all capital letters on every court document. The Elements of Style Another
well-recognized reference book is "The Elements of Style,"
Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk,
Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn & Bacon in
1999. Within this renowned English grammar and style reference book, is found
only one reference to capitalization, located within the Glossary at "proper
noun," page 94, where it states: "The
name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby
Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized." There's an
obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of
a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the
name. The American Heritage Book of
English Usage The American Heritage Book of
English Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English,
published in 1996, at Chapter 9, E-Mail, Conventions and Quirks, Informality,
states: "To
give a message special emphasis, an E-mailer may write entirely in capital
letters, a device E-mailers refer to as screaming. Some of these visual
conventions have emerged as away of getting around
the constraints on data transmission that now limit many networks". Here is a reference source, within
contemporary modern English, that states it is of an informal manner
to write every word of specifically an electronic message,
a.k.a. e-mail, in capital letters. They say it's "screaming" to do
so. By standard definition, we presume that is the same as shouting or yelling.
Are all judges, as well as their court clerks and attorneys, shouting at us
when they corrupt our proper names in this manner? (If so, what happened to the
decorum of a court if everyone is yelling?) Is the insurance company screaming
at us for paying the increased premium on our Policy? This is doubtful as to
any standard generalization, even though specific individual instances may
indicate this to be true. It is safe to conclude, however, that it would also
be informal to write a proper name in the same way. Does this also imply that those in
the legal profession are writing our Christian names informally on court
documents? Are not attorneys and the courts supposed to be specific, formally
writing all legal documents to the "letter of the law?" If the law is
at once both precise and not precise, what is its significance, credibility,
and force and effect? New
Oxford Dictionary of English "The New Oxford Dictionary of English" is
published by the Oxford University Press. Besides being considered the foremost
authority on the British English language, this dictionary is also designed to
reflect the way language is used today through example sentences and phrases.
We submit the following definitions from the 1998 edition: Proper
noun (also proper name). Noun. A name used for an individual person, place, ororganization, spelled with an initial capital letter,
e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam. Name.
Noun 1 A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing
is known,addressed, or referred to: my name is
Parsons, John Parsons. Kalkwasser is the German name
for limewater. Verb 2 Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man
has been named as John Mackintosh. Phrases. 3 In the name of. Bearing or
using the name of aspecified person or organization:
a driving license in the name of William Sanders. From the "Newbury House Dictionary of American
English," published by Monroe Allen Publishers, Inc., (1999): name n. I [C] a word by which a person, place, or thing is
known: Her name is Diane Daniel. We can find absolutely no example in
any recognized reference book that specifies or allows the use of all
capitalized names, proper or common. There is no doubt that a proper name, to
be grammatically correct, must be written with only the first letter
capitalized, with the remainder of the word in a name spelled with lower case
letters. US Government Style Manual Is the spelling and usage of a
proper name defined officially by US Government? Yes. The United States
Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984
edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides
comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications,
including court and legal writing. Chapter
3, "Capitalization," at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names: "Proper
names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam,
Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon." At Chapter 17, "Courtwork, the rules of capitalization,"
as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated: "17.1.
Courtwork differs in style from other work only as
set forth in this section; otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding
sections will be followed." After reading §17 in entirety, I found no other references
that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3
pertaining to capitalization. At
§ 17.9, this same official US Government manual states: "In
the titles of cases the first letter of all principal words are capitalized,
but not such terms as defendant and appellee." This wholly agrees with Texas Law
Review's Manual on "Usage & Style" as referenced
above. Examples
shown in § 17.12 are also consistent with the aforementioned §17.9
specification: that is, all proper names are to be spelled with capital first
letters; the balance of each spelled with lower case letters. Grammar, Punctuation, and
Capitalization "The National Aeronautics
and Space Administration" (NASA) has publish one of the most concise
US Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication SP‑7084,
"Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization." A Handbook for
Technical Writers and Editors, was compiled and written by the NASA Langley
Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At Chapter 4, "Capitalization,"
they state in 4.1 "Introduction:" "First
we should define terms used when discussing capitalization: All caps means that every letter in an expression is
capital, LIKE THIS. Caps & lc means that the
principal words of an expression are capitalized, Like This. Caps and small caps refer to a particular font of type
containing small capital letters instead of lowercase letters. Elements
in a document such as headings, titles, and captions may be capitalized in
either sentence style or headline style: Sentence style calls for capitalization of the first
letter, and proper nouns of course. Headline style calls for capitalization of all principal
words (also called caps & lc). Modern
publishers tend toward a down style of capitalization, that is, toward use of
fewer capitals, rather than an up style." Here we see that in headlines,
titles, captions, and in sentences, there is no authorized usage of all caps.
At 4.4.1. "Capitalization With Acronyms," we find the first
authoritative use for all caps: "Acronyms
are always formed with capital letters. Acronyms are often coined for a
particular program or study and therefore require definition. The letters of
the acronym are not capitalized in the definition unless the acronym stands for
a proper name: Wrong - The best electronic publishing systems combine What
You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) features... Correct - The best electronic publishing systems combine
what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) features... But
Langley is involved with the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program. This cites, by example, that using
all caps is allowable in an acronym. "Acronyms" are words
formed from the initial letters of successive parts of a term. They never
contain periods and are often not standard, so that definition is required.
Could this apply to lawful proper Christian names? If that were true, then JOHN
SMITH would have to follow a definition of some sort, which it does not. For
example, only if JOHN SMITH were defined as 'John Orley
Holistic Nutrition of the Smith Medical Institute To Holistics
(JOHN SMITH)' would this apply. The
most significant section appears at 4.5., "Administrative Names": "Official designations of political divisions and of
other organized bodies are capitalized: Names of political divisions; Canada, New York State; United States Northwest Territories; Virgin Islands, Ontario Province; Names of governmental units, US Government Executive
Department, US Congress, US Army; US Navy. According to this official US Government publication, the
States are never to be spelled in all caps such as NEW YORK STATE. The proper
English grammar and legal style is New York State. This agrees,
once again, with Texas Law. Review's
Manual on Usage & Style. The Use of a Legal Fiction The Real Life Dictionary of the Law The authors of "The Real
Life Dictionary of the Law," Gerald and Kathleen Hill, are
accomplished scholars and writers. Gerald Hill is an experienced attorney,
judge, and law instructor. Here is how the term legal fiction is described: "Legal
fiction. n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience,
consistency orto achieve justice. There is an old
adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.' Oran's Dictionary of the Law From Oran's "Dictionary of
the Law," published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of
"Fiction" is found: "A
legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or
nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do
justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent John Doe off
your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the
property when legal title was uncertain." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law "Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary of Law" 1996 states: "legal
fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or
accuracy of that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no
fractions Fields V. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658
(1991)." This is the
reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The US and State
Governments are deliberately using a legal fiction to "address"
the lawful, real, flesh-and-blood man or woman. We say this is deliberate
because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be
written in all caps. They are deliberately not following their own recognized
authorities. In the same respect, by identifying
their own government entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is
also intended to be a legal fiction. As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this memorandum, the use of all
caps for writing a proper name is an "internal style" for what
is apparently a pre-determined usage and, at this point, unknown jurisdiction. The
main key to a legal fiction is assumption as noted in each definition above. Conclusion:
There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference
publications that recognize the use of all caps when writing a proper name. To
do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed jurisdiction by unknown
people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary presumption not
based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions
for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the
deceit. Assumption of a Legal Fiction An important issue concerning this
entire matter is whether or not a proper name, perverted into an all caps
assemblage of letters, can be substituted for a lawful Christian name or any
proper name, such as the State of Florida. Is the assertion of
all-capital-letter names "legal?" If so, from where does this
practice originate and what enforces it? A legal fiction may be employed when
the name of a person is not known, and therefore using the fictitious
name John Doe as a tentative, or interim artifice to surmount the
absence of true knowledge until the true name is known. Upon discovering the
identity of the fictitious name, the true name replaces it. In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption of purported
fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It is an acceptance
with no proof. Simply, to assume is to pretend. Oran's "Dictionary of
the Law" says that the word assume means: 1. To take up or take responsibility for; to receive; to
undertake. See "assumption." 2.
To pretend. 3.
To accept without proof. These same basic definitions are used by nearly all of the
modern law dictionaries. It should be noted that there is a difference between
the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the first. Pretending
and accepting without proof are of the same understanding and meaning. However,
to take responsibility for and receive, or assumption, does not have the same
meaning. Oran's defines assumption as: "Formally
transforming someone else's debt into your own debt. Compare with guaranty. The
assumption of a mortgage usually involves taking over the seller's 'mortgage
debt' when buying a property (often a house)." Now, what happens if all the meanings for the word "assume"
are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meaning of assume would
be: The pretended acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken
responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt. Therefore,
if we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is
an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction named has received and is
responsible for a debt of some sort. Use of the legal fiction JOHN
P JONES in place of the proper name John Paul Jones implies an
assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this
is that if such an unproven assumption is made, unless the assumption is proven
wrong it is considered valid. An assumed debt is valid unless
proven otherwise. (An unrebutted affidavit,
claim, or charge stands as the truth in commerce.) This is in accord with
the Uniform Commercial Code, valid in every State and made a part of the
Statutes of each State. A name written in all caps resembling a proper name
but grammatically not a proper name is being held as a debtor for an assumed
debt. Did the parties to the Complaint incur that debt? If so, how and when? Where is the contract of
indebtedness that was signed and the proof of default thereon? What happens if
the proper name, i.e. John Paul Jones, answers for or assumes the
fabricated name, i.e. JOHN P JONES? The two become one and the same.
This is the crux for the use of the all caps names by
the US Government and the States. It is the way that they can bring someone
into the "de facto" venue and jurisdiction that they have
created. By implication of definition, this also is for the purpose of some
manner of assumed debt. Why won't they use "The
State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on
Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a
reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing
proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind
"legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited
above. The Legalities of All-Capital-Letters
Names We could go on for hundreds of pages
citing the legal basis behind the creation and use of all-capital-letters
names. In a nutshell, fabricated legal persons such as STATE OF TEXAS
can be used to fabricate additional legal persons. "Fictions"
arise from the law, not the law from fictions. Bastard legal persons originate
from any judicial/governmental actor that whishes to create them, regardless of
whether he/she/it is empowered by law to do so. However, a law can never
originate from a fictional foundation that doesn't exist. The generic and original US
Constitution was validated by treaty between individual nation states (all
of which are artificial, corporate entities since they exist in abstract idea
and construct). Contained within it is the required due process of law for
all the participating nation states of that treaty. Representatives of the
people in each nation state agreed upon and signed it. The federal government
is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines
of Constitutional due process. Any purported law that does not originate
from Constitutional due process is a fictional law without validity. Thus,
the true test of any American law is its basis of due process according to the
organic US Constitution. Was it created according to the lawful process or
created outside of lawful process? Executive Orders and Directives For years many have researched the
lawful basis for creating all-caps juristic persons and have concluded that
there is no such foundation according to valid laws and due process. But what
about those purported "laws" that are not valid and have not
originated from constitutional due process? There's a very simple answer to the
creation of such purported laws that are really not laws at all: "Executive
Orders" and "Directives." They are "color of
law" without being valid laws of due process. These "Executive
Orders" and "Directives" have the appearance of law
and look as if they are laws, but according to due process, they are not laws.
Rather, they are "laws" based on fictional beginnings and are
the inherently defective basis for additional fictional "laws"
and other legal fictions. They are "regulated" and "promulgated"
by Administrative Code, rules and procedures, not due process. Currently,
Executive Orders are enforced through the charade known as the Federal
Administrative Procedures Act. Each State has also adopted the same fatally
flawed administrative "laws." Lincoln Establishes Executive Orders Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united
States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second
Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the
Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress
was adjourned sine die, or "without day." This meant that
there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which,
according to Robert's Rules of Order, dissolved Congress. This dissolution
automatically took place because there are no provisions within the
Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum of
the States. Lincoln's second Executive Order of April 1861 called
Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful
authority, or lawful due process, of the Constitution. Solely in his capacity
as Commander-in-Chief of the US Military, Lincoln called Congress into
session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, "Congress"
has not met based on lawful due process. The current "Congress"
is a legal fiction based on nothing more meritorious than Yeah, so what are
you going to do about it? Having a monopoly on the currency, law,
and what passes for government, and most of the worlds firepower, the
motto of the Powers That Be is: Weve got what it takes to take what youve
got. Legal-fiction "laws,"
such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were instituted by Lincoln soon
thereafter and became the basis for the current "laws" in the
US. Every purported "Act" in effect today is "de facto,"
based on colorable fictitious entities created arbitrarily, out of nothing,
without verification, lawful foundation, or lawful due process. All of such laws
are not law, but rules of rulership by force/conquest,
originating from and existing in military, martial law jurisdiction. Military,
martial law jurisdiction =
jurisdiction of war =
win/lose interactions consisting of eating or being eaten, living or dying =
food chain =
law of necessity =
suspension of all law other than complete freedom to act in any manner to eat, kill,
or destroy or avoid being eaten, killed, or destroyed =
no law =
lawlessness =
complete absence of all lawful basis to create any valid law. Contractually,
being a victim of those acting on the alleged authority granted by the law of
necessity, = no lawful object, valuable consideration, free consent of
all involved parties, absence offraud, duress, malice,
and undue influence = no bona fide, enforceable contract = no valid, enforceable nexus = absolute right to engage in any action of any kind in
self-defense = complete and total right to disregard any alleged
jurisdiction and demands from self-admitted outlaws committing naked criminal aggression
without any credibility and right to demand allegiance and compliance
from anyone. Every President of the United States since Lincoln has
functioned by Executive Orders issued from a military, martial law jurisdiction
with the only law being the law of necessity, i.e. the War
Powers. The War Powers are nothing new. Indeed, they have been operational from
the instant the first man thought he would hide from God, try to cheat
ethical and natural law by over reaching, invade the space and territory of
others, covet other peoples land or property, steal the fruits of their
labors, and attempt to succeed in life by win/lose games. All existing authority
in the United States today derives exclusively from the War Powers. Trumans re‑affirmation of operational authority under the War Powers
begins: NOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United States
of America, acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by section
5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. 415, as
amended (section 5(b) of Appendix to Title 50), and section 4 of the act of
March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 2. ... Sic transit rights, substance, truth,
justice, peace, and freedom in America, the land of the free and the home
of the brave. The Abolition of the English & American Common Law Here's
an interesting quote from the 1973 session of the US Supreme Court: "The
American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until
mid-l9th century was the pre-existing English common law... It was not until
after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace
the common law." Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113. In effect, Lincoln's second
Executive Order abolished the recognized English common law in America and
replaced it with "laws" based on a fictional legal foundation,
i.e., Executive Orders and Directives executed under authority of the
War Powers. Most States still have a reference to the common laws within their
present day statutes. For example, in the Florida Statutes (1999), Title I.
Chapter 2, at § 2.01 "Common law and certain statutes declared in
force," it states: "The
common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local
nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th
day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the
said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws
of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. History. --
s. l, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87." Note that the basis of the common law is an approved Act of
the people of Florida by Resolution on November 6, 1829, prior to Lincoln's
Civil War. Also note that the subsequent "laws," as a result
of Acts of the Florida Legislature and the United States, now take priority
over the common law in Florida. In April 1861, the American and English common
law was abolished and replaced with legal fiction "laws,"
a.k.a. Statutes, Rules, and Codes based on Executive Order and not the due
process specified within the organic Constitution. Existing and functioning
under the law of necessity ab initio,
they are all non-law and cannot validly assert jurisdiction, authority, or
demand for compliance from anyone. They are entirely rules of rulership, i.e. organized piracy, privilege, plunder,
and enslavement, invented and enforced by those who would rule over others by
legalized violence in the complete absence of moral authority, adequate
knowledge, and natural-law mechanics to accomplish any results other than
disruption, conflict, damage, and devastation. The established maxim of law
applies: Extra territorium just dicenti non paretur impune.
One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory cannot be obeyed with
impunity. 10 Co. 77;
Dig. 2. 1. 20; Story, Confl. Laws § 539; Broom, Max. 100, 101. Applying
it all to Current "laws" An established maxim of law states the importance of the
name: Ad
recte docendum oportet, primum inquirere nomina, quia rerum cognitio
a nominibusrerum dependet. In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into
the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names. Co.
Litt. 68. Title III, "Pleadings and Motions," Rule
9(a) "Capacity," Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
states, in pertinent part: "When
an issue is raised as to the legal existence of a named party, or the party's
capacity to be sued, or the authority of a party to be sued, the party desiring
to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall
include supporting particulars." At this juncture, it is clear that
the existence of a name written with all caps is a necessity-created legal
fiction. This is surely an issue to be raised and the supporting particulars
are outlined within this memorandum. Use of the proper name must be insisted
upon as a matter of abatement correction for all parties of an action of
purported "law." However, the current "courts"
cannot correct this since they are all based on presumed/assumed fictional law
and must use artificial, juristic names. Instead, they expect the lawful
Christian man or woman to accept the all-caps name and agree by silence to be
treated as if he or she were a fictional entity invented and governed by mortal
enemies. They must go to unlimited lengths to deceive and coerce this
compliance or the underlying criminal farce would be exposed and a world-wide
plunder/enslavement racket that has held all of life on this planet in a vice
grip for millennia would crumble and liberate every living thing. At this point
the would-be rulers of the world would be required to succeed in life by
honest, productive labors the way those upon whom they parasitically feed are
forced to conduct their lives. Oklahoma Statutes Since the entire game functions on
the basis of peoples failure to properly rebut a rebuttable presumption, the
issue then becomes how to properly rebut their presumption that you are
knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily agreeing to be treated as if you were
the all-caps name. One angle of approach is found in the requirement for proper
names to be identified in any legal dispute. This includes a mandate to correct
the legal paperwork involved when proper names are provided. In regard to
criminal prosecution this is clearly set forth in the Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter
22, § 403: "When
a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in
any stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it must be inserted
in the subsequent proceedings, referring to the fact of his being charged by
the name mentioned in the indictment or information." American Jurisprudence In general, it is essential to
identify parties to court actions properly. If the alleged parties to an action
are not precisely identified, then who is involved with whom or what, and how?
If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined
in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d, at "Judgments:" "§
100 Parties A judgment should identify the parties for and against whom it is
rendered, with such certainty that it may be readily enforced, and a judgment
which does not do so may be regarded as void for uncertainty. Such
identification may be achieved by naming the persons for and against whom the
judgment is rendered. Technical deficiencies in the naming of the persons for
and against whom judgment is rendered can be corrected if the parties are not
prejudiced. A reference in a judgment to a party plainly liable, followed by an
omission of that party's name from the language of the decree, at least gives
rise to an ambiguity and calling for an inquiry into the court's real intention
as reflected in the entire record and surrounding circumstances."
[Footnote numbers and cites are omitted.] The present situation in America A
legal person = a legal fiction One of the terms used predominantly
by the present civil governments and courts in America is legal person.
Just what is a legal person? Some definitions are: [A]
legal person: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation)
considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural
person and especially the capacity to sue and be sued. Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary of Law (1996). Person. I. A human being (a "natural" person). 2.
A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated
as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person"
includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other
"being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an
association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons,
not people (see that word). Oran's "Dictionary of the Law,"
West Group (1999). Person. An entity with legal rights and existence including the
ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in
court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental
to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons"
in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as acourt finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain
powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes
business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships,
corporations or associations. -- Duhaime's
Law Dictionary. PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona;
said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used
by actors on the stage.] -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary. A corporation incorporated under de
jure law, i.e. by bona fide express contract between real beings capable of
contracting, is a legal fact. Using the juristic artifice of presumption,
or assumption (a device known as a legal fiction), implied
contract, constructive trusts, another entirely separate entity can be created
using the name of the bona fide corporate legal fact (the name of the
corporation) by altering the name of the corporation into some other corrupted
format, such as ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS or abbreviated words in the name. The
corporation exists in law, but has arbitrarily been assigned another NAME. No
such corporation (legal fact), nor any valid law, nor even a valid legal
fiction, can be created under the law of necessity, i.e. under no
law. Likewise, the arbitrary use of the legal-fiction artifice of right
of presumption (over unwary, uninformed, and usually blindly trusting
people) can be legitimately exercised under no law. Anything
whatsoever done under alleged authority of naked criminal aggression, i.e. law
of necessity, can be rendered legitimate. Maxims of law describing necessity
include:
Necessity has no law. Plowd. 18,
and 15 Vin. Abr. 534; 22 id. 540.
In time of war, laws are silent. Cicero. Non-existent
law, the legal condition that universally prevails in the official systems of
the world today, means that no lawful basis exists upon which anything can be
created, or be made to transpire, upon which basis allegiance and obedience can
be legitimately demanded. Acting under the law of necessity, i.e. lawlessness,
allows complete and total right of everyone to disregard any and all alleged
assertions of any lawful, verifiable, and legitimate jurisdiction over anything
or anyone. Anyone acting against anyone under such non-law is self-confessing
to be a naked criminal aggressor, and con man who has forfeited all credibility
and right to demand allegiance, obedience, or compliance with any jurisdiction
he might assert. If you, as a real being, are in real law and it is impossible
for an attorney or judge to recognize or access it, you are not (and cannot be
made subject to by them) in their jurisdiction. The crucial issue is then how
to notice them of your position and standing. A person created under de jure law, with the persons
identifying name appearing as prescribed by law and according to the rules of
English grammar, is a legal fact. A corrupted alter ego version of
that name, manufactured under the legal fiction of right of presumption
will have credibility only so long as the presumption remains
unchallenged. The rule of the world is that anything and everything skates
unless you bust it. Legal or Lawful? It is crucial to define the difference between "legal"
and "lawful." The generic Constitution references genuine law.
The present civil authorities and their courts use the word "legal."
Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A
Dictionary of Law (1893): Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the
law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful"
properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal,"
a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or
warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal"
process however defective. See "legal." [Bold emphasis added] Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the
understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice
of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper.
Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual "Legal" looks
more to the letter [form/appearance], and "Lawful" to the
spirit [substance/content], of the law. "Legal" is more
appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful"
for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that
the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in
method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that
the right is act full in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal"
is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2
Abbott's Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added] Legal matters administrate, conform
to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed)
rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous
discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter
does not have to follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the
rules or form of law. This is why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and
Criminal Procedure are cited in every court Petition so as to conform to legal
requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., STATE OF GEORGIA
or the U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that rule the courts. Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land
the law of the people and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why
whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or
authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in authority
today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since authority
is the law of necessity, 12 USC 95. Therefore, it would appear that the
meaning of the word legal is color of law, a term which Blacks
Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as: Color
of law. The appearance or semblance,
without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of
state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of
state, is action taken under color of law. Blacks
Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241. Executive Orders rule the land The current
situation is that legalism has usurped and engulfed the law. The
administration of legal rules, codes, and statutes now prevail instead of
actual law. This takes place on a Federal as well as State level. Government
administrates what it has created through its own purported "laws,"
which are not lawful, but merely legal. They are arbitrary constructs
existing only because of the actions of people acting on fictitious
(self-created) authority, i.e. no authority; they are authorized and enforced
by legal Executive Orders. Executive Orders are not lawful and never have been.
As you read the following, be aware of the words "code" and
"administration." Looking at the United States Census
2000 reveals that the legal authority for this census comes from "Office
of Management and Budget" (0MB) Approval No. 0607‑0856.
The 0MB is a part of the Executive Office of the President of the United
States. The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible for implementing the national
census, which is a division of the "Economics and Statistics
Administration" of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The USDOC
is a department of the Executive Branch. Obviously, Census 2000 is authorized,
carried out, controlled, enforced and implemented by the President the
Executive Branch of the Federal Government functioning as it has been since
1861, in the lawless realm of necessity (which is now even more degenerate than
when it commenced under Lincoln). In fact, the Executive Office of the
President controls the entire nation through various departments and agencies
effecting justice, communications, health, energy, transportation, education,
defense, treasury, labor, agriculture, mails, and much more, through a
myriad of Executive Orders, Proclamations, Policies, and Decisions. Every US President since Lincoln has
claimed his 'authority' for these Executive Orders on Article II,
Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The
President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service
of the United States;
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges
of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose
appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such
inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts
of law, or in the heads of departments." In reality, the Congress is completely
by-passed. Since the Senate was convened in April, 1861 by Presidential
Executive Order No. 2, (not by lawful constitutional due process), there is
no United States Congress. The current Senate and House are,
like everything, colorable (color of Senate) under the direct
authority of the Executive Office of the President. The President legally needs
neither the consent nor a vote from the Senate simply because the Senate's
legal authority to meet exists only by Executive Order. Ambassadors, public
ministers, consuls, Federal judges, and all officers of the UNITED STATES are
appointed by, and under authority of, the Executive Office of the President. The Federal Registry is an Executive
function The first official act of every incoming President is to
re-affirm the War Powers. He must do so, or he is devoid of power to function
in office. The War Powers are set forth in the Trading With The Enemy Act
of October 6, 1917, and the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (The
Banking Relief Act). In the Amendatory Act, every citizen of the
United States was made an enemy of the Government, i.e. the Federal
Reserve/IMF, et al, Creditors in bankruptcy who have conquered the country by
their great paper-money banking swindle. For the past 65 years, every Presidential
Executive Order has become purported "law" simply by its
publication in the Federal Register, which is operated by the Office of the
Federal Register (OFR). In 1935, the OFR was established by the Federal
Register Act. The purported authority for the OFR is found within the United
States Code, Title 44, at Chapter 15: "§
1506. Administrative Committee of the Federal Register; establishment and
composition; powers and duties The
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register shall consist of the Archivist
of the United States or Acting Archivist, who shall be chairman, an officer of
the Department of Justice designated by the Attorney General, and the Public
Printer or Acting Public Printer. The Director of the Federal Register shall
act as secretary of the committee. The committee shall prescribe, with the
approval of the President, regulations for carrying out this chapter." Notice that the entire
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register is comprised of officers of
the Federal Government. Who appoints all Federal officers? The President does.
This act also gives the President the authority to decree all the
regulations to carry out the act. By this monopoly the Executive establishes,
controls, regulates, and enforces the Federal Government without need for any
approval from the Senate or anyone else (other than his undisclosed superiors).
He operates without any accountability to the people at all. How can this be
considered lawful? In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson
couldn't persuade Congress to agree with his desire to arm United States
vessels traversing hostile German waters before the United States entered World
War I, so Wilson simply invoked the "policy" through a
Presidential Executive Order. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive
Order No. 9066 in December 1941 forcing 100,000 Americans of Japanese
descent to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps while all their
property was confiscated. Is it any wonder that the Congress, which the
President legally controls, did not impeach President William
Jefferson Clinton when the evidence for impeachment was overwhelming? On that
note, why is it that Attorney-Presidents have used Executive Orders the most?
Who, but an attorney, would know and understand legal rules the best. Sadly,
they enforce what's legal and ignore what's lawful. In fact, they have
no access to what is lawful since the entirety of their authority,
which is ethically and existentially specious, derives from the War Powers. How debt is assumed by legal fictions We now refer back to the matter of
assumption, as already discussed, with its relationship to arbitrarily created
juristic persons, e.g. STATE OF CALIFORNIA or JOHN P JONES.
Since an assumption, by definition, implies debt, what debt does a legal
fiction assume? Now that we have explored the legal executive basis of the
current Federal and State governments, it's time to put all this together. The government use of all caps in
place of proper names is absolutely no mistake. It signifies an internal (legal)
rule and authority. Its foundation is pure artifice and the results have
compounded into more deceit in the form of created, promulgated, instituted,
administered, and enforced rules, codes, statutes, and policy i.e. the
laws that appear to be but are not, never were, and never can be. Qui sentit commodum,
sentire debet et onus. He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.
He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage a
privilege is subject to its condition or conditions. -- Bouvier's
Maxims of Law (1856). The Birth Certificate Since the early 1960's, State
governments themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons
signified by all caps have issued Birth Certificates to "persons"
with legal fiction all-caps names. This is not a lawful record of your physical
birth, but rather the birth of the juristic, all-caps name. It may appear to be
your true name, but since no proper name is ever written in all caps (either
lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify who you are. The Birth
Certificate is the governments self-created document of title for its new property,
i.e. the deed to the juristic-name artificial person whose all-caps name mirrors
your true name. The Birth Certificate brings the new all-caps name into
colorable admiralty/maritime law, the same way a ship (and ship of state) is
berthed. One important area to address,
before going any further, is the governmental use of older data storage from
the late 1950's until the early 1980's. As a "left over" from
various teletype-oriented systems, many government data storage methods used
all caps for proper names. The IRS was supposedly still complaining about some
of their antiquated storage systems as recent as the early 1980's. At first,
this may have been a necessity of the technology at the time, not a deliberate
act. Perhaps, when this technology was first being used and implemented into
the mainstream of communications, some legal experts saw it as a perfect tool for
their perfidious intentions. What better excuse could there be? However, since local, State, and Federal offices primarily
used typewriters during that same time period, and Birth Certificates and other
important documents, such as driver's licenses, were produced with typewriters,
it's very doubtful that this poses much of an excuse to explain all-caps usage
for proper names. The only reasonable usage of the older databank all-caps
storage systems would have been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in
bulk, including payment checks, which the governments did frequently. Automated computer systems, with daisy-wheel and pin
printers used prevalently in the early 1980's, emulated the IBM electric
typewriter Courier or Helvetica fonts in both upper and lower case letters.
Shortly thereafter, the introduction of laser and ink-jet printers with
multiple fonts became the standard. For the past fifteen years, there is no
excuse that the government computers will not accommodate the use of lower case
letters unless the older data is still stored in its original form, i.e. all
caps, and has not been translated due to the costs of re-entry. But this does
not excuse the entry of new data, only "legacy" data. In fact,
on many government forms today, proper names are in all caps while other areas
of the same computer produced document are in both upper and lower case. One
can only conclude that now, more than ever, the use of all caps in substitution
the writing a proper name is no mistake. When a child is born, the hospital
sends the original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the "State
Bureau of Vital Statistics," sometimes called the "Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services" (HRS). Each STATE is required
to supply the UNITED STATES with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE
agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues
a Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the babys true name,
i.e. JAMES WILBER SMITH. cer-tif-i-cate,
noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French,
from Medieval Latinceruficatum. from Late Latin,
neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3: a document
evidencing ownership or debt.-- Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998). The Birth Certificate issued by the
State is then registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce -- the Executive
Office -- specifically through their own sub-agency, the U.S. Census Bureau,
which is responsible to register vital statistics from all the States. The word
"registered," as it is used within commercial or legal based
equity law, does not mean that the all-caps name was merely noted in a book for
reference purposes. When a Birth Certificate is registered with the U.S.
Department of Commerce, it means that the all-caps legal person named thereon
has become a surety or guarantor, a condition and obligation that is
automatically and unwittingly assumed unless you rebut the presumption by
effectively noticing them: It aint me. registered. Security, bond. -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law
(1996). Security. I a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided
to make certain the fulfillment of anobligation.
Example: used his property as security for a loan. lb: "surety."
2: Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership. -- Ibid. Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person
undertakes to perform a certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract)
. . with the condition that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the
person . . to pay a sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money put
up by the person or surety. lb: One who acts as a surety. 2: An
interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt issued by a government body
or corporation that is sometimes secured by a lien on property and is often
designed to take care of a particular financial need. ‑‑ Ibid. Surety. The
person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a certain
action if the principal to a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the
original contract. -- Duhaime'sLaw
Dictionary. 1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the
fulfillment of an undertaking. 2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of
another. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety
includes a guarantor, and the two terms are generally interchangeable. Merriam Webster's "Dictionary of Law"
(1996). Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of
another, but separately, as part of an independently contract with the obligee of the original contract. Duhaime's
Law Dictionary. It is not difficult to see that a state-created Birth
Certificate, with an all-caps, name is a document evidencing debt the moment it
is issued. Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S.
Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department, which
takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan to
purchase a bond (the Fed holds a purchase money security interest in
the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in
the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury
securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as
surety for the new securities. This cycle is based on the future tax revenues
of the legal person whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This also
means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of
their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every citizen of
the United States/American with a Birth Certificate as collateral for
payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of
the child into a legal, juristic name of a person. Dubuque
rei potissinia pars prineipium est The principal part of everything is in the beginning. (Well
begun is half done.) Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured
servant to the various Federal, State and local governments via your
STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the name of your all-caps
person. Birth Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim exclusive
title to the legal person created thereby. This is further compounded when one
voluntarily obtains a Drivers License or a Social Security Account Number. The
state even owns your personal and private life through your STATE-issued
marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps names. You have no rights
in birth, marriage, or even death. The state holds title to all legal persons
the state creates via Birth Certificates until the rightful owner, i.e. you,
reclaims/redeems it by becoming the holder in due course of the instrument. The main problem is that the mother
and father, and then the eighteen-year-old man or woman, voluntarily agreed to
this contrived system of plunder and slavery by remaining silent a legal
default, latches, and failing to claim ones own Rights. The maxim of law
becomes crucially operative: He who fails to assert his rights has none.
The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no
court hearing to determine if those rules are correct. Government rules are
self-regulating and self‑supporting. Once set into motion, such "laws"
automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed. The various bankruptcies The legal person known as the UNITED
STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or
gold gold coin or bullion with which to back any currency. All private held
and federally held gold coins and bullion in America was seized via Executive
Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal
Reserve Corporation under the terms of the bankruptcy. Congress still convening strictly
under Executive Order authority confirmed the bankruptcy through the Joint
Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5,
1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rd
Congress, 1st Session, Public Law 73-10. This 1933 public law
states, in part: "...
every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which
purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular
kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States
measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy." The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time,
whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed Receiver for the
bankrupt U.S. in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public
Law 94-564, "Legislative History," page 5967. Since 1933, the only assets
used by the UNITED STATES to pay its debt to the Fed have been the
blood, sweat, and tears of every American unfortunate to be saddled with a
Birth Certificate and a Social Security Account Number (the U.S. Government
must conceal this fact from the American people at all cost). Their future
labor and tax revenues have been legally pledged via the new all-caps,
juristic‑person names appearing on the Birth
Certificates, i.e. the securities used as collateral for loans of credit
(thin-air belief) to pay daily operational costs, re‑organization
expenses in bankruptcy, insurance policy premiums required to float the
bankrupt government, and interest on the ever‑increasing, wholly
fraudulent, debt. All Caps Legal Person vs. The Lawful
Being Just who or what is the all-caps
person, i.e. JOHN PAUL JONES, JOHN P JONES, or some other all
capital letter corruption thereof? It is the entity the government created to
take the place of the real being, i.e. John Paul Jones. The lawful Christian
name of birthright has been replaced with a legal corporate name of deceit and
fraud. If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person, the two are
recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being distinguishes
himself/herself as a party other than the legal fiction, the two are separated. A result of the federal bankruptcy
was the creation of the UNITED STATES, which was made a part of the
legal reorganization. The name of each STATE was also converted to its
respective, all-caps legal person, e.g. STATE OF DELAWARE. These new legal
persons were then used to create more legal persons, such as corporations, with
all-capital letters names, as well. Once this was accomplished, the con began
to pick up speed. All areas of government and all alleged courts of law,
are de facto, color of law and right institutions. The CIRCUIT
COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY and the U.S. DISTRICT COURT can recognize
and deal only with other legal persons. This is why a lawful name is never
entered in their records. The all‑caps legal
person is used instead. Jurisdiction in such sham courts covers only other
artificial persons. The proper jurisdiction for a lawful being is a
Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue court. Unfortunately, such
jurisdiction was shelved in 1938 and is no longer available. The only
courts today are statutory commercial tribunals collecting tribute (plunder)
from the alleged Creditors who think they have conquered the country on their
way to ruling the world. |