Misc RM 49    Misc reference material  Part 1

Reference Material - For Information Only!


Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.




The Use of a Legal Fiction

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." 


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 or to 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.  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 world's firepower, the motto of the Powers That Be is: "We've got what it takes to take what you've 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 of fraud,    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 people's 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.  Truman's 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. 


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. emphasis added: (Exemption from punishment, penalty, or harm)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 people's 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.  1.  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 person's 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.


Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".