in propia persona =
“in (one’s own) proper person.”
In earlier times in maritime
law, “vessels in admiralty” were identified by all-capital
letters-written names. source
idem sonans = same
sound. Fictitious courts presume different names to be the same
when they sound alike, when the words cannot be distinguished easily
or when common usage by corruption or abbreviation has made their
pronunciation identical. The lawyers benefit from this and Bar associations
encourage this presumption to be liberally applied. Presumption
does not qualify for the Law in the Truth. Does "to" plus
"too" equal "for"? Only in fiction at law. Whether
one name is idem sonans with another is a question, not of spelling,
but of pronunciation. Galliano v Kilfoy, 94 C 86, 29 P 416. For
example, JOHN Q. PUBLIC is not idem sonans with the John-Quincy
of the Public-family.
FIRST-NAME MIDDLE-NAME LAST-NAME
versus:
Given-name Honorary-name of the Surname-family, or:
Given-Honorary-name: Surname
Memorandum of Law
on the Name:
English grammar
No reference is found in the
Chicago Manual of Style, (14th) Edition, publisher: University
of Chicago Press, for "any rule of English grammar...[for]
a proper name to be written in all capital letters".
The Editorial Staff of the University of Chicago answers that it
is
"not Chicago style to put anything in all caps. ... if
'GONE WITH THE WIND' appears we render it 'Gone with the Wind' in
a bibliography. The only reason ...[is when it is] important
to the narrative to preserve the casing of the letters."
Law is precise. Every letter, capitalization, and punctuation
mark in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has
legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences. To file
articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State
of a State, the title of the corporation must be exactly the same
every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be
filed or the Secretary of State will refuse to file the papers.
Each time the name of a 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.
Why do agencies spell a person's proper name in all capital letters?
Mary Newton Bruder, Ph.D, of Grammar Hotline, in the late
1980's, Coalition of Adult Literacy claims: " It must be some
kind of internal style. There is no grammar rule about
it." It is an occult (hidden) practice of deadly spells
against the living.
Question: What is the
legal authority for the corruption of a true Christian-name by the
agents of a legal-fiction?
What English grammar
reference books say
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...independent of the context
in which they are used, [they] refer to specific persons, places,
or things (e.g., Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce)."
Section D, CAPITALIZATION, paragraph D: 3:2 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)."
Note: 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 Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written
by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn &
Bacon in 1999 has 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 evident difference between capitalizing the first letter
of a proper name versus capitalizing every letter.
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:
"...entirely in capital letters, a device E-mailers refer to
as screaming [SHOUT]. ...getting around the constraints on
data transmission that now limit many networks". It is of an
informal manner to write every e-mail, in capital letters.
Q: Iam not that person,
but why are you shouting?
Writing in all capital letters 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? (Where
is 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 a complete generalization, though specific instances
may be true. It is safe to conclude that it would
also be informal to write a proper name in all caps.
Note: Does this also imply that those in the legal profession are
writing our Christian names informally on court documents?
Are not attorneys and 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, published by the Oxford University
Press, as the foremost authority on the British English language,
is designed to reflect the way language is used today through sample
sentences and phrases. Definitions from the 1998 edition:
1. 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.
2. 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 a specified person
or organization: a driving license in the name of William Sanders.
"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 .
Note: We find no example in any recognized reference book that specifies
or allows the use of all capitalized names, proper or common. A
proper name, to be grammatically correct, must be written with only
the first letter capitalized and the remainder spelled with lower
case letters.
US Government Style
Manual, March 1984 edition
(most recent edition as of March 2000)
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,"
provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government
publications, including court and legal writing.
1. 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."
2. 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."
"§ 17.9 In the titles of cases the first letter
of all principal words are capitalized, but not such terms as defendant
and appellee."
Note: 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.
Note: In §17 no other references change the grammatical rules
and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization.
Texas Law Review's Manual on " Usage & Style " as referenced
above wholly agrees with the above rules on capitalization.
Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization
"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration " NASA publication SP-7084,
"Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization ." A Handbook
for Technical Writers and Editors, compiled and written by
the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia.
1. 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.
2. 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).
3. Modern publishers tend toward a down style of capitalization,
that is, toward use of fewer capitals, rather than an up style."
4. "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:
Incorrect - What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG)
Correct - what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG)
Correct - National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program.”
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.
5. Chapter 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 with Texas Law.
Review's Manual on Usage &
Style.
The Use of a Legal Fiction
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," 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, 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)."
Note: 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
Can a proper name, perverted into an all caps assemblage of letters,
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":
1. "assume” means:
1. To take up or take responsibility for; to receive;
to undertake. See "assumption."
2. To pretend.
3. To accept without proof.
Note: These same definitions are used by nearly all modern law dictionaries.
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.
2. “assumption” means:
"Formally transforming someone else's debt into your own debt.
[Could the one who assumes the name really also be assuming
the liability of the charge in the Truth?] Compare
with guaranty. The assumption of a mortgage usually involves
taking over the seller's 'mortgage debt' when buying a property
(often a house)."
Note: 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, 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 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
The legal basis behind the creation
and use of all-capital-letters names is: 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 wishes to create
them, regardless of whether he/she/it is empowered by law to do
so. [Your Honor, I am here to help you prosecute that bastard, and
I mean no disrespect, but the bastard is a fictitious entity and
I hold a priority lean against him.] 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). [It was
never ratified by We The People.] 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? [The Constitution
was a bakruptcy document.]
Executive Orders and
Directives
There
is no lawful basis according to valid laws and due process
for creating all-caps juristic persons. But what about
those purported " laws " that are not valid and have not
originated from constitutional due process? "Executive
Orders" and "Directives." They are "color
of law" without being valid laws of due process. They
have the appearance of law, but are not laws according to due process.
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
and 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 means 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. 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.”
[The Bastard was created 3 days
after I was born, and he's been following me around ever since,
like a tormenting demon. I wish you could issue a restraining order,
since he's in your jurisdiction of the fiction.]
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 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
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 to replace the common law." –
Roe vs. Wade , 410 US 113.
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."
[In the truth, the common law
as the higher law, takes precidence in case of conflict with mere
statutes. This is enforced by the supreme power of the jury.]
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. 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 the fiction].
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."
The existence of a name written with all caps is a necessity-created
legal fiction. This is 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." The current "courts" cannot
correct this since they are all based on presumed/assumed fictional
law and must use artificial, juristic names. 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 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. 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). [Government derives its power from the consent of We The
People, not the persons/demons who control it today.]
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. [It is good in God's
eyes to have a mental incapacity to equate fiction with the Truth.]
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.
: Legal versus: 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."
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.
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 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, is action taken under “color
of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page
241.
Executive Orders rule
the land
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" (O.M.B.) Approval No. 0607-0856 . The
O.M.B. 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. 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).
The Executive Office of the President controls the 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 Power, 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."
The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register is comprised
of officers of the Federal Government. Who appoints all Federal
officers? The President. 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. They enforce what's “legal” and ignore what's
lawful. 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 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 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.
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 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 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. 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 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.
The various bankruptcies
The legal person known as the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds
no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or 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 ,73 rd Congress,
1st Session ,Public Law 73-10 . This 1933 public law states:
"... 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.
Source:
Memorandum of Law on the Name
The 9 rules for Capitalization
are from INSTANT English Handbook - An Authoritative Guide to Grammar,
Correct Usage, Punctuation (Complete Rules With Examples), copyright
1968 by Career Institute, Inc.; Library of Congress Catalog Card
No. 68-57782.
ALL CAPS writing of names in a caption is a 'justiciable issue'
depending exclusively on the Jurisdiction.
According to "A New Abridgement of the Law", by Matthew
Bacon, of the Middle Temple, Esq., with Large Additions and Corrections,
by Sir Henry Gwyllim and Charles Edward Dodd, Esq. And with the
Notes and References made to the Edition Published in 1809, by Bird
Wilson, Esq. to which were added NOTES AND REFERENCES TO AMERICAN
AND ENGLISH LAW AND DECISIONS, by John Bouvier, Vol. VII, Philadelphia,
Published by Thomas Davis, No. 171 Marnet Street (1846), at page
7:
"[I]f the Christian Name be wholly mistaken, this is regularly
fatal to all legal instruments, as well as declarations and pleading
as grants and obligations; and the reason is, because it is repugnant
to the rules of the Christian religion, that there should be a Christian
without a name of baptism, or that such Person should have two Christian
Names,… brought in an alias… for that supposes the possibility
of two Christian Names; and you cannot declare against the party
by his [her] right name; for that is to set up an averment contrary
to the deed; and there is this sanction allowed in every solemn
contract, that it cannot be opposed but by a thing of equal validity…"
Under the Common Law (lex non scripta) of Oregon (see: Oregon Compiled
Laws Annotated, Vol. 1, §2-709), which is controlling Law in
Oregon, UNLESS you are adjudicating the controversy in an Admiralty/Summary
(also a gold fringe flag) or Maritime/ Commerce/ Commercial (see
Law of the Flag) Jurisdiction, it is well settled:
“that an initial cannot be regarded as a Christian Name.”
Reg. vs. Bradley, 3E. & E. 634.
“An abbreviation is no part of the description." Reg.
vs. Tugwell, 3 Q.B., 704
“We are of the opinion that the word “misnomer”,
which means a naming amiss, is wide enough to cover the faulty indication
of a Christian Name by means of the initial. That it was not a mere
case of misnomer, because the initials were no name at all.”
The Queen vs. Plenty, Court of Queen’s Bench, 4.Q.B. 46
“A person’s name consists in law, of a given or Christian
Name, and a family surname. It has been said that a description
or abbreviation [initial] is not the equivalent of a name…
It has been held that the [Common] Law knows but one Christian Name
of a single individual.” 57 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sections
1 and 4
Capital Letter: "Used to begin a sentence or Proper Name."
Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988,
Page 208
“The parties to a suit must be specifically mentioned (Com.
Dig. Pleader, C. 18), and actions to be properly brought must be
commenced and prosecuted in the proper Christian and surnames of
the parties. Seely vs. Schenck and Denise, Crandall vs. Fr. Denny
& Co., 1 Penn. Rep. 75. Tomlinson vs. Berke, et al., 5 Halst.
Rep. 295.”
Oregon Territory Supreme Court Record, Book No. 1, 1844-1845, pg.
58 (This case has not been overturned or eroded and is fundamental
decisional law in both Oregon and Washington, because Washington
was part of the Oregon Territory, until Oregon entered the Union
in 1859 A.D.)
Additional Cases citing requirement for Christian Name:
“Defendant was impleaded by the name of “A. W. Becker”.
Initials are no part of a name, the authorities holding the full
Christian name to be essential. [cites omitted] This loose method
of pleading is not one to be commended, but as no advantage was
taken of it in the court below, it will not be considered here.”
Monroe Cattle Company vs. Becker, 147 U. S. 47 (1893)
Wilson vs. Shannon, 6 Arkansas 196
Norris vs. Graves, 4 Strobhart's Reports (Law) 32
Seely vs. Schenck; and Denise Crandall vs. Fr. Denny & Co.,
1 Pennington's Reports 75.
Seely vs. Boon, Coxe N. J. (1 N. J. Law) 138
Tomlinson vs. Berke, et al., 5 Halstead's Reports 295
Chappell vs. Proctor, Harper's Law Reports (S. C. Law) 49
Kinnersley vs. Knott, 7 Common Bench 980
Turner vs. Fitt, 3 Common Bench 701
Oakley vs. Pegler, [Nebraska] 46 N. W. Rep. 920
Knox vs. Starks, 4 Minnesota 20
Kenyon vs. Semon, 45 N. W. 10
Beggs vs. Wellman, 82 Alabama 391
Nash vs. Collier, 5 Dowling's Practical Cases 341
Fewlass vs. Abbott, 28 Michigan 270
Name in the Latin:
1.
ap-pello ; app- + pu�li,
pulsum, v. a. and n., to drive, move
or bring a person or thing to or toward. visum in somnis
pastorem ad me appellere, to drive toward me, i. e. the herd,
the flock to bring into any condition: argenti viginti minae
me ad mortem adpulerunt, drove me to destruction :Source
For the name: appello
as a verb is for the driving of the sheep for the shearing or death
by the enemy or for the love and feeding of the sheep by the Good-Shepherd:
Jesus: Christ. For the sample: pro apello = for name.
For the name: dico is for the
teaching, consecration, deification with a personal-object,
give up, set apart, appropriate a thing to any one,
to become a free denizen. nition:
\Den "i*zen \ ( d[e^] n"[ i^]* z'n), n. [ OF
.denzein ,deinzein ,prop ., one living (acity or country ); opposed
to forain foreign ,and fr .denz within ,F.dans ,fr .L.de intus ,prop
., from within ,intus being from in in .See {In }, and cf . { Foreign
}.]
1. Adweller ;an inhabitant . `` Denizens of air .'' -- Pope .Denizens
of their own free ,independent state . -- Sir W.Scott .
2. One who is admitted by favor to all or apart of the rights of
citizenship ,where he did not possess them by birth ;an adopted
or naturalized citizen .
3. One admitted to residence in aforeign country .Ye gods ,Natives
,or denizens ,of blest abodes .
-- Dryden .
\Den "i*zen \, v.t.
1. To constitute (one )adenizen ;to admit to residence ,with certain
rights and privileges .As soon as denizened ,they domineer . --
Dryden .
2. To provide with denizens ;to populate with adopted or naturalized
occupants .There [islets ]were at once denizened by various weeds
. -- J.D.Hooker .
For my Standing with the STATE
OF HAWAII is with the phrase: pro hoc dico; pro hoc
dicatissimus: for this name of my God.
1. di�co
, a¯vi, a¯tum, (dixe for dixisse;
DICASSIT dixerit; rather = dicaverit, v. a. [orig. the same word
with di¯co; cf. the meaning of abdi�co and abdi¯co, of
indi�co and indi¯co, dedi�co
I. To proclaim, make known.
II. Relig. t. t., to dedicate, consecrate,
devote any thing to a deity or to a deified person (for
syn. cf.: dedico, consecro, inauguro).
2. With a personal object, to consecrate, to deify
(cf. dedico
B. Transf. , beyond the relig. sphere.
1. To give up, set apart, appropriate a thing to any one:
se alii civitati, to become a free denizen of it
2. To consecrate a thing by using it for the first time:
nova signa novamque aquilam, Hence, di�ca¯tus, devoted,
consecrated, dedicated: loca Christo dedicatissima, EIVS
DICATISSIMVS
2. di¯co,
xi, ctum, v. a. [root DIC = DEIK in deiknumi; lit., to show;
cf. dikê , and Lat. dicis, ju-dex, dicio] , to say,
tell, mention, relate, affirm, declare, state; to mean, intend
d. Dictum ac factum or dictum factum (Gr. hama epos hama ergon ),
in colloq. lang., no sooner said than done, without delay :dictum
ac factum reddidi, it was "said and done" with me
a. To assert, affirm a thing as certain (opp.
nego):
2. dico is often inserted parenthetically, to give emphasis to an
apposition:
3. In rhetor. and jurid. lang., to pronounce,
deliver, rehearse, speak any thing.
(a). With acc. :oratio dicta de scripto ,causam , of the defendant
or his attorney, to make a defensive speech, to plead in
defence, to pronounce judgment,
(b). With ad and acc. pers., to plead before a person or
tribunal: ad unum judicem
(g). With ad and acc. of thing, to speak in reference to,
in reply to :non audeo ad ista dicere ,Cic. Tusc . 3, 32,
78 ; id. Rep. 1, 18, 30.--
(d). Absol. :nec idem loqui ,quod dicere ,Cic. Or. 32 : est oratoris
proprium ,apte ,distincte ,ornate dicere ,id. Off. 1, 1, 2 ; so,
de aliqua re pro aliquo ,contra aliquem , etc., innumerable times
in Cic. and Quint.: dixi ,the t. t. at the end of aspeech, I have
done ,Cic. Verr. 1 fin. Ascon. and Zumpt , a. h. 1.; thus, dixerunt
,the t. t. by which the praeco pronounced the speeches of the parties
to be finished, Quint. 1, 5, 43 ; cf. Spald. ad Quint. 6, 4, 7.--
Transf. beyond the judicial sphere: causam nullam or causam haud
dico , I have no objection , Plaut.
Mil. 5, 34 ;id. Capt. 3, 4, 92 ; Ter. Ph. 2, 1, 42.--
4. To describe, relate, sing, celebrate in writing
(mostly poet. )
b. Of prophecies, to predict, foretell
5. To pronounce, articulate a letter, syllable,
word
6. To call, to name
7. To name, appoint one to an office, set
apart. fix upon, settle
9. To utter, express, esp. in phrases
10. (Mostly in colloq. lang.) Alicui, like our vulg. to tell one
so and so, for to admonish, warn, threaten him
11. Dicere sacramentum or sacramento, to take an oath, to
swear; v. sacramentum .
II. Transf. , i. q. intellego, Gr. phêmi ,to mean so and so;
it may sometimes be rendered in English by namely, to wit :nec quemquam
vidi ,qui magis ea ,quae timenda esse negaret ,timeret ,mortem dico
et deos ,Cic. N. D. 1, 31, 86 ; id. de Or. 3, 44, 174 :M. Sequar
ut institui divinum illum virum, quem saepius fortasse laudo quam
necesse est. At. Platonem videlicet dicis, id. Leg. 3, 1: uxoris
dico ,non tuam ,Plaut. As. 1, 1, 30 et saep.--Hence, dictum , i,
n., something said , i. e. a saying, a word .
A. In gen.: haut doctis dictis certantes sed male dictis, Enn. ap.
Gell. 20, 10 (Ann. v. 274 Vahl.; acc. to Hertz.: nec maledictis);
so, istaec dicta dicere ,Plaut. Trin. 1, 2, 40 :docta ,id. ib. 2,
2, 99 ; id. Men. 2, 1, 24 ;Lucr. 5, 113 ; cf. condocta ,Plaut. Poen.
3, 2, 3 :meum ,id. As. 2, 4, 1 :ridiculum ,id. Capt. 3, 1, 22 :minimum
,Cic. Fam. 1, 9 :ferocibus dictis rem nobilitare ,Liv. 23, 47, 4
al. :ob admissum foede dictumve superbe ,Lucr. 5, 1224 ; cf. facete
,Plaut. Capt. 1, 2, 73 ;id. Poen. 3, 3, 24 ;Ter. Eun. 2, 2, 57 ;
Cic. Off. 1, 29, 104 al.: lepide ,Plaut. Most. 1, 3, 103 :absurde
,id. Capt. 1, 1, 3 :vere ,Nep. Alc. 8, 4 : ambigue ,Hor. A. P. 449
et saep.--Pleon.: feci ego istaec dicta quae vos dicitis (sc. me
fecisse ), Plaut. Casin. 5, 4, 17 .--
B. In partic.
1. A saying, maxim, proverb :aurea dicta ,Lucr. 3, 12 ; cf. veridica
,id. 6, 24 : Catonis est dictum. Pedibus compensari pecuniam , Cic.
Fl. 29 fin. Hence, the title of a work by Caesar : Dicta collectanea
(his Apophthegmata , mentioned in Cic. Fam. 9, 16 ), Suet. Caes.
56.--Esp. freq.,
2. For facete dictum, a witty saying, bon-mot , Enn. ap. Cic. de
Or. 2, 54 fin. (cf. Cic. ap. Macr. S. 2, 1 fin. ); Cic. Phil. 2,
17 ; Quint. 6, 3, 2; 16; 36; Liv. 7, 33, 3 ;Hor. A. P. 273 et saep.;
cf. also, dicterium.--
3. Poetry, verse (abstr. and concr.): dicti studiosus, Enn. ap.
Cic. Brut . 18, 71: rerum naturam expandere dictis ,Lucr. 1, 126
;5, 56 :Ennius hirsuta cingat sua dicta corona ,Prop. 4 (5), 1,
61.--
4. A prediction, prophecy ,Lucr. 1, 103 ;Verg. A. 2, 115 ; Val.
Fl. 2, 326 al.; cf. dictio.--
5. An order, command :dicto paruit consul ,Liv. 9, 41 ; cf. Verg.
A. 3, 189 ;Ov. M. 8, 815 :haec dicta dedit ,Liv. 3, 61 ; cf. id.
7, 33 ;8, 34 ;22, 25 al. : dicto audientem esse and dicto audire
alicui, v. audio.--
6. A promise, assurance :illi dixerant sese dedituros ... Cares
,tamen ,non dicto capti , etc., Nep. Milt . 2, 5 ; Fur. ap. Macr.
S. 6, 1, 34.
2. di�ca,
ae, f., = dikê , law t. t., a lawsuit,
judicial process, action. Usually in the phrase dicam
scribere (alicui) = dikên graphein tini, to bring an
action against any one, to bring a heavy action against one, to
select the jury by lot
Shem: Name
in Hebrew. Eldest son of Noah.
pro hoc dico et
pro hoc dica = for this :::holy-name::: and for this
action.
