Author: Gordon W. Epperly, Alaska
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
1. 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
"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
"It must be some kind of internal style. There is no grammar rule
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
2. What English
grammar reference books say
2.1 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.
2.2 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,
"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?
2.4 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
"Proper noun (also proper name)."
"A name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled
with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam."
"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."
"2. Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man has
been named as John Mackintosh."
"3. In the name of. Bearing or using the name of A specified 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):
"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.
2.5 US Government Style
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
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:
"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
"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.
Punctuation, and Capitalization
"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration"
(NASA) has published 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 & 1c 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)
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.
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:
"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
2.8 Oran's Dictionary
of the Law
From Oran's "Dictionary of the Law,"
published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of "Fiction"
"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
tothe property when legal title was uncertain."
Dictionary of Law
Dictionary of Law" 1996 states:
"something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy
of that assumption.'
"... the legal fiction that a day has no fraction Fields vs. Fairbanks
North Star Borough, 818 P.2d658 (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.
3. 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
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.
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 meanings of assume would be: The pretended acceptance, without proof,
that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received
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
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?
5. Executive Orders
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."
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 ruler ship by force/conquest, originating from and
existing in military, martial law jurisdiction. Military, martial law
= jurisdiction of war
= win/lose interactions consisting of eating or being eaten, living
= 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
= no law
= 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 reaffirmation 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
7. 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,"
"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 ruler
ship," 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:
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]
8. 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/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure, states, in
"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."
[Rule 9(a), Federal/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure; Title 28 U.S.C.
Appendix (unstatutory; See statutory Title 1 U.S.C. ' 204 (Notes) )]
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.
9. 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,
Section 2885, O. S. 1931, 22 Okla. St. Ann. § 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
10. "Legal" Definition
In fact, it would appear that the Oklahoma
Statutes are saying that the use of a "fictitious name" in either an
indictment or information (prosecutorial) that such use is forgivable
upon after the fact correction. Unfortunately, that is not the case
when held to "legal" definition.
"A counterfeit, alias,
feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential
particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic
[surname]), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]
The use of, by implication, mistake,
or otherwise, of fictitious names within any lawful and even "legal"
document renders said document/instrument fatally flawed for simple
fraud. And, since no Private Citizen can be held accountable for the
same crime twice, by guarantee, then if initially one is charged in
the wrong name, and that mistaken identity at any stage of the proceeding
renders the present proceeding null, void, and dismissed. This renders
the above "statute" also null, void, and never written, for this fatal
error cannot be corrected and one must, secondly, face the same charges.
Mistaken Identity cannot be used as a correctable error merely because
one cannot be charged twice for the same cause, even if the first charged
But that is not the limit of "legal"
definition of "fictitious" use of names. It is much more serious to
use a fictitious name as a "plaintiff":
"A person appearing in the writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff
in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of
the suit and of the use of his name in it.'
"It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624.]
Obviously, any action in which both and/or
all parties are fictitious is a "fictitious action" and it is "legally"
defined as such:
"An action brought for the sole purpose of obtaining the opinion
of the court on a point of law, not for the settlement of any actual
controversy between the parties."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]
These three "legal" definitions have
now led us to one final definition that defines any and all such "fictitious
"Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended;
"Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent.'
"Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]
It does not take a Rocket Scientist to
figure out many of these "ulterior objects"; constitutional abrogation,
tyranny, despotism, false personation, embezzlement of the Public Money,
banking fraud, commercial fraud, identity theft, neglect of office,
malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of office, piracy, privateering,
kidnapping, false imprisonment, ransoming, constitutional malpractice,
maritime fraud, military fraud, trademark infringement/counterfeiting,
anti-Christian acts, securities fraud, communism, fascism, Alien Enemy
Program, etc. The list is almost endless.
It appears, thus far, that "legal" definition
of these fictitious/legal fiction/imaginary/etc. assumptive/presumptive
has far and away been the most damaging references used to the cause
and case of the tyrants and despots that are so prevalent.
11. 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
12. 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 a court 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.] 8. In law, an artificial person,
is a corporation or body politic. -Blackstone. [Webster's 1828
"...a Sovereign is not a "person" [United Mine Workers vs.
330 U.S. 258 (1947)]
"A name is word or words used to distinguish and identify a person."
[Name, 65 C.J.S. ' 1, pg. 1]
"Person. It may include [limited to] artificial beings, as corporations
...territorial corporations ... foreign corporations ... relating to
taxation and revenue laws ... XIV Amendment "persons" ... A county ...
a slave ... estate of a decedent ... a judge holding court ... an infant
[Ward of the Court] ... officers, partnerships, and women ...participants
in the forbidden acts ["defendants" & "plaintiffs"] ... agents, officers,
and members of the board of directors or trustees, or their controlling
bodies, of corporations ... the legal subject [subject-matter] or substance
[rem; res] ..." [Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, 8th ed., pg. 2574]
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 has no law." [Plowd. 18,
and 15 Vin. Abr. 534; 22 id. 540]
"In time of war, laws are silent."
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.
13. 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.
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 Dictionary 24]
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 U.S.C. 95.
Therefore, it would appear that the meaning
of the word "legal" is "color of law," a term which Black's 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,
taken under "color of law."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., Pg. 241]
14. 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 Constitution for the United States of America
(1764 to Date):
"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
Act. The purported authority for the OFR is found within the United
States Code, Title 44, at Chapter 15:
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
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
"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)]
17. 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 government's 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 baby's true name, i.e. JAMES WILBER SMITH.
cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificate, from Middle French,
from Medieval Latin ceruficatum. 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 ain't 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 an obligation. 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. 1b: 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's Law 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.
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]
18. 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
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 Driver's 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 one's 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.
19. 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
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,
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.
21. Your Strawman is a "GOVERNMENT AGENCY": See the Evidence From
the Government's Own manual!!
“U.S. Government Styles Manual” for the evidence in section on “ABBREVIATIONS
AND LETTER SYMBOLS” at:
section states (emphasis added):
as otherwise designated,
points and spaces are omitted after initials used as shortened
names of governmental agencies
and of other organized bodies. ``Other organized bodies'' shall
be interpreted to mean organized bodies that have become popularly
identified with a symbol, such as MIT (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), GM (General Motors), GMAC (General Motors Acceptance
Corp.), etc. (See ``List of Abbreviations.'') Symbols, when they
appear in copy, may be used for acts of Congress. Example: ARA (Area
you see the trick?
agency” for “John-Jay:Jones” is: “JOHN JAY JONES”.
is no conspiracy about this -- it is just “hidden” in plain sight!!!
11 deals with "Italics" and in 11.7 mentions that "Vessels" are in "other
than lowercase roman". An "Vessel" is defined in 18 USC
9 as "… any citizen thereof or
any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States or
any State or Territory or district or possession." See links below: