Author: Anonymous by Request
Many people are involved in diligent research concerning the use
of all capital letters for proper names, e.g., JOHN PAUL JONES as a substitute for John Paul
Jones in all court documents, driver's licenses, bank accounts, birth certificates, etc.. Is
the use of all capital letters to designate a name some special English grammar rule or style?
Is it a contemporary American style of English? Is the use of this form of capitalization
recognized by educational authorities? Is this an official judicial or U.S. government rule
and/or style of grammar? Why do attorneys, court clerks, prosecutors judges, insurance
companies, banks, credit card companies, utility companies, etc. always use all capital letters
when writing a proper name?
What English grammar experts
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
The Editorial Staff of the University of
"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
"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
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 title — 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
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 point:
"It must be some kind of internal style. There is no
grammar rule about it."
It seemed that these particular grammatical
experts had no idea why proper names were written in all caps, so we began to assemble an
extensive collection of reference books authored by various publishers, governments, and legal
authorities to find the answer.
What English grammar reference books
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:
"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
"Capitalize People, State, and any other
terms used to refer to the government as a litigant (e.g., the People's case, the State's
argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the
plaintiff, defendant Manson)."
Either no attorney, judge, or law clerk in
Texas has ever read the recognized law style manual that purports to pertain to them, or the
act is a deliberate violation of the rules for undisclosed reasons. In either ignorance
("ignorance of the law is no
excuse") or violation (one violating the law he enforces on others is acting under title of nobility
and abrogating the principle of equality under the law) of law, they continue to write "Plaintiff,"
"Defendant," "THE STATE OF TEXAS" and proper names of parties in all capital
letters on every court document.
The Elements of Style
Another well-recognized reference book is
"The Elements of Style," Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk, Jr. and
E.B. White, published by Allyn & Bacon in 1999. Within this renowned English grammar and
style reference book, is found only one reference to capitalization, located within the
Glossary at "proper noun," page 94, where it states:
"The name of a particular person (Frank
Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized."
There's an obvious and legally evident
difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing
every letter used to portray the name.
The American Heritage Book of English
The American Heritage Book of English
Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, published in 1996, at Chapter 9, E-Mail, Conventions and Quirks, Informality, states:
"To give a message special emphasis, an
E-mailer may write entirely in capital letters, a device E-mailers refer to as screaming.
Some of these visual conventions have emerged as a way 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
everyword of — specifically — an
electronic message, a.k.a. e-mail, in capital letters. They say it's "screaming" to do so. By
standard definition, we presume that is the same as shouting or yelling. Are all judges, as
well as their court clerks and attorneys, shouting at us when they corrupt our proper names in
this manner? (If so, what happened to the decorum of a court if everyone is yelling?) Is the
insurance company screaming at us for paying the increased premium on our Policy? This is
doubtful as to any standard generalization, even though specific individual instances may
indicate this to be true. It is safe to conclude, however, that it would also be informal to
write a proper name in the same way.
Does this also imply that those in the legal
profession are writing our Christian names informally on court documents? Are
not attorneys and the courts supposed to be specific, formally writing all legal documents to
the "letter of the law?" If the law is at once both precise and not precise, what is its
significance, credibility, and force and effect?
New Oxford Dictionary of English
New Oxford Dictionary of English" is published by the
Oxford University Press. Besides being considered the foremost authority on the British English
language, this dictionary is also designed to reflect the way language is used today through
example sentences and phrases. We submit the following definitions from the 1998
Proper noun (also proper name). Noun. A
name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with an initial capital
letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam.
Name. Noun 1 A word or set of words by
which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to: my name is
Parsons, John Parsons. Kalkwasser is the German name for limewater. Verb 2 Identify by
name; give the correct name for: the dead man has been named as John Mackintosh.
Phrases. 3 In the
name of. Bearing or using the name of 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):
name n. I [C] a word by which a person,
place, or thing is known: Her name is Diane
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
US Government Style Manual
Is the spelling and usage of a proper name
defined officially by US Government? Yes. The United States Government
Printing Office in their "Style
Manual," March 1984 edition (the most recent edition
published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government
publications, including court and legal writing.
Chapter 3, "Capitalization," at § 3.2,
prescribes rules for proper names:
"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples
given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."
At Chapter 17, "Court work, the rules of capitalization," as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated:
"17.1. Court work 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
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
Grammar, Punctuation, and
National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (NASA)
has publish one of the most concise US Government resources on capitalization.
NASA publication SP7084, "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
• 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
Elements in a document such as headings,
titles, and captions may be capitalized in either sentence style or headline
• Sentence style calls for
capitalization of the first letter, and proper nouns
• 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
Here we see that in headlines, titles,
captions, and in sentences, there is no authorized usage of all caps. At 4.4.1.
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)
Correct - The best electronic
publishing systems combine what you see is what
you get (WYSIWYG)
But Langley is involved with the National
Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program."
This cites, by example, that using all caps is
allowable in an acronym. "Acronyms" are words formed from the
initial letters of successive parts of a term. They never contain periods and are often not
standard, so that definition is required. Could this apply to lawful proper Christian names? If
that were true, then JOHN SMITH would have to follow a definition of some sort, which it does
not. For example, only if JOHN SMITH were defined as 'John Orley Holistic Nutrition of the
Smith Medical Institute To Holistics (JOHN SMITH)' would this apply.
The most significant section appears at 4.5.,
"Official designations of political
divisions and of other organized bodies are capitalized:
• Names of political divisions;
• Canada, New York State;
• United States Northwest
• Virgin Islands, Ontario
• Names of governmental units, US
Government Executive Department, US Congress, US Army;
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
Review's Manual on Usage &
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
"Legal fiction. n. A presumption of fact
assumed by a court for convenience, consistency or to achieve justice. There is an old
adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.'
Oran's Dictionary of the Law
From Oran's "Dictionary of the Law," published by
the West Group 1999, within the definition of "Fiction" is found:
"A legal fiction is an assumption that
something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are
assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a
nonexistent ‘John Doe’ off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right
to the property when legal title was uncertain."
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
"Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law"
"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
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
the lawful, real, flesh-and-blood man or woman. We say this is deliberate because their own
official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps. They are
deliberately not following their own recognized authorities.
In the same respect, by identifying their own
government entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is also intended to be a legal
fiction. As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this memorandum, the use of
all caps for writing a proper name is an "internal
style" for what is apparently a pre-determined usage
and, at this point, unknown jurisdiction.
The main key to a legal fiction is assumption
as noted in each definition above.
Conclusion: There are no official or
unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of
all caps when writing a proper name. To do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed
jurisdiction by unknown people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary
presumption not based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions
for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the deceit.
Assumption of a Legal Fiction
An important issue concerning this entire
matter is whether or not a proper name, perverted into an all caps assemblage of letters, can
be substituted for a lawful Christian name or any proper name, such as the State of Florida. Is
the assertion of all-capital-letter names "legal?" If so, from where does this
practice originate and what enforces it?
A legal fiction may be employed when the name
of a "person"
is not known, and therefore using the fictitious name "John Doe" as a tentative, or interim
artifice to surmount the absence of true knowledge until the true name is known. Upon
discovering the identity of the fictitious name, the true name replaces it.
In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption
of purported fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It is an acceptance with
no proof. Simply, to assume is to pretend. Oran's "Dictionary of the Law" says that the
1. To take up or take responsibility for;
to receive; to undertake. See "assumption."
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.
"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
Now, what happens if all the meanings for the
are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meaning of assume would be: The pretended
acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has
received a debt.
Therefore, if we apply all this in defining a
legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction
named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.
Use of the legal fiction
"JOHN P JONES"
in place of the proper name "John Paul
Jones" implies an assumed debt guarantee without any
offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such
an unproven assumption is made, unless the assumption is proven wrong it is considered
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
The Legalities of All-Capital-Letters
We could go on for hundreds of pages citing
the legal basis behind the creation and use of all-capital-letters names. In a nutshell,
fabricated legal persons such as "STATE OF
TEXAS" can be used to fabricate
additional legal persons. "Fictions" arise from the law,
not the law from fictions. Bastard legal persons originate from any judicial/governmental
actor that whishes to create them, regardless of whether he/she/it is empowered by law to
do so. However, a law can never originate from a fictional foundation that doesn't
The generic and original US Constitution was
validated by treaty between individual nation states (all of which are artificial, corporate entities since they exist in abstract
idea and construct). Contained within it is the
required due process of law for all the participating nation states of that treaty.
Representatives of the people in each nation state agreed upon and signed it. The federal
government is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines of
Constitutional due process. Any purported law that does
not originate from Constitutional due process is a fictional law without
validity. Thus, the true test of any American law is
its basis of due process according to the organic US Constitution. Was it created according to
the lawful process or created outside of lawful process?
Executive Orders and Directives
For years many have researched the lawful
basis for creating all-caps juristic persons and have concluded that there is no such
foundation according to valid laws and due process. But what about those purported
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
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
and other legal fictions. They are "regulated" and
"promulgated" by Administrative Code, rules and procedures, not due process.
Currently, Executive Orders are enforced through the charade known as the
Federal Administrative Procedures
Act. Each State has also adopted the same
fatally flawed administrative "laws."
Lincoln Establishes Executive Orders
Eighty-five years after the Independence of
the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of
the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum
necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or
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,
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
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
= 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
= 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
= no bona fide, enforceable
= 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 the brave."
The Abolition of the English & American
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
on a fictional legal foundation, i.e., Executive Orders and Directives executed under
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
"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 4thday 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
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:
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.
Story, Confl. Laws §
Broom, Max. 100,
Applying it all to Current
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
Co. Litt. 68.
Title III, "Pleadings and Motions,"
Rule 9(a) "Capacity,"
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states, in pertinent part:
"When an issue is raised as to the legal
existence of a named party, or the party's capacity to be sued, or the authority of a party
to be sued, the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative
averment, which shall include supporting particulars."
At this juncture, it is clear that the
existence of a name written with all caps is a necessity-created legal fiction. This is surely
an issue to be raised and the supporting particulars are outlined within this memorandum. Use
of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement — correction — for all
parties of an action of purported "law." However, the current
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.
Since the entire game functions on the basis
of people’s failure to properly rebut a rebuttable presumption, the issue then becomes how to
properly rebut their presumption that you are knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily
agreeing to be treated as if you were the all-caps name. One angle of approach is found in the
requirement for proper names to be identified in any legal dispute. This includes a mandate to
correct the legal paperwork involved when proper names are provided. In regard to criminal
prosecution this is clearly set forth in the Oklahoma
Statutes, Chapter 22, § 403:
"When a defendant is indicted or
prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any stage of the proceedings his true
name is discovered, it must be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, referring to the
fact of his being charged by the name mentioned in the indictment or
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
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
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.] -- Webster's 1828
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
(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.
• "In time of war, laws are silent." Cicero.
Non-existent law, the legal condition that
universally prevails in the official systems of the world today, means that no lawful basis
exists upon which anything can be created, or be made to transpire, upon which basis allegiance
and obedience can be legitimately demanded. Acting under the law of necessity, i.e.
lawlessness, allows complete and total right of everyone to disregard any and all alleged
assertions of any lawful, verifiable, and legitimate jurisdiction over anything or anyone.
Anyone acting against anyone under such non-law is self-confessing to be a naked criminal
aggressor, and con man who has forfeited all credibility and right to demand allegiance,
obedience, or compliance with any jurisdiction he might assert. If you, as a real being, are in
real law and it is impossible for an attorney or judge to recognize or access it, you are not
(and cannot be made subject to by them) in their jurisdiction. The crucial issue is then how to
notice them of your position and standing.
A person created under de jure law, with the
person’s identifying name appearing as prescribed by law and according to the rules of English
grammar, is a legal fact. A corrupted "alter
ego" version of that name, manufactured under the
legal fiction of "right of
presumption" will have "credibility" only so long as the
presumption remains unchallenged. The rule of the world is that anything and everything skates
unless you bust it.
Legal or Lawful?
It is crucial to define the difference between
generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use
the word "legal." Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from
A Dictionary of Law (1893):
Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law;
permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing
conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal," a thing in the form or
after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under
color of law, is a "legal" process however
defective. See "legal." [Bold emphasis added]
Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the
administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal
advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual
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;
that the right is act full in substance, that moral quality is secured.
the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive.
2 Abbott's Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]
Legal matters administrate, conform to, and
follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual
(express). A legal process can be defective in law.
This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be
legal, a matter does
not have to follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This is why
the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court Petition
so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g.,
"STATE OF GEORGIA" or the "U.S. FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT" that rule the courts.
Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the
law of the land — the law of the people — and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why
whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the
present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in "authority" today to access, or even
take cognizance of, true law since "authority" is the
"law of necessity," 12 USC
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."
Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
Executive Orders rule the land
The current situation is that
legalism has usurped and engulfed the
law. The administration of legal rules, codes, and
statutes now prevail instead of actual law. This takes place on a Federal as well as State
level. Government administrates what it has created through its own purported
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
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.
06070856. The 0MB is a part of the Executive
Office of the President of the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible for
implementing the national census, which is a division of the "Economics and Statistics Administration" of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The USDOC is a department
of the Executive Branch. Obviously, Census 2000 is authorized, carried out, controlled,
enforced and implemented by the President — the Executive Branch of the Federal
Government — functioning as it has been since 1861, in the lawless realm of necessity
(which is now even more degenerate than when it commenced under Lincoln).
In fact, the Executive Office of the President
controls the entire nation through various departments and agencies effecting justice,
communications, health, energy, transportation, education, defense, treasury, labor,
agriculture, mails, and much
more, through a myriad of Executive Orders,
Proclamations, Policies, and Decisions.
Every US President since Lincoln has claimed
his 'authority' for these Executive Orders on Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The President shall be commander in chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when
called into the actual service of the United States; … He shall have power, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not
herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may
by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the
President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
In reality, the Congress is completely
by-passed. Since the Senate was convened in April, 1861 by Presidential Executive Order No. 2,
(not by lawful constitutional due process), there is no United States Congress. The current
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
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
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
"§ 1506. Administrative Committee of the
Federal Register; establishment and composition; powers and duties
The Administrative Committee of the
Federal Register shall consist of the Archivist of the United States or Acting Archivist,
who shall be chairman, an officer of the Department of Justice designated by the Attorney
General, and the Public Printer or Acting Public Printer. The Director of the Federal
Register shall act as secretary of the committee. The committee shall prescribe, with the
approval of the President, regulations for carrying out this chapter."
Notice that the entire Administrative
Committee of the Federal Register is comprised of officers of the Federal Government. Who
appoints all Federal officers? The President does. This "act" also gives the President the
authority to decree all the regulations to carry out the act. By this monopoly the Executive
establishes, controls, regulates, and enforces the Federal Government without need for any
approval from the Senate or anyone else (other than his undisclosed superiors). He operates
without any accountability to the people at all. How can this be considered lawful?
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson couldn't
persuade Congress to agree with his desire to arm United States vessels traversing hostile
German waters before the United States entered World War I, so Wilson simply invoked the
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
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
How debt is assumed by legal
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
The government use of all caps in place of
proper names is absolutely no mistake. It signifies an internal ("legal") rule and authority. Its
foundation is pure artifice and the results have compounded into more deceit in the form of
created, promulgated, instituted, administered, and enforced rules, codes, statutes, and policy
— i.e. "the laws that appear to be but are not, never
were, and never can be."
Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet
et onus. He who enjoys the benefit, ought also
to bear the burden. He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying
disadvantage — a privilege is subject to its condition or conditions. --
Bouvier's Maxims of Law (1856).
The Birth Certificate
Since the early 1960's, State governments —
themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons signified by all caps — have issued
Birth Certificates to "persons" with legal fiction
all-caps names. This is not a lawful record of your physical birth, but rather the birth
of the juristic, all-caps name. It may appear to be your true name, but since no proper
name is ever written in all caps (either lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify
who you are. The Birth Certificate is the 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
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
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
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
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
registered. Security, bond. -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996).
Security. I a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to
make certain the fulfillment of anobligation. Example: used his property as security
for a loan. lb: "surety." 2: Evidence
of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership. -- Ibid.
Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person
undertakes to perform a certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract) . . with
the condition that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the person . . to pay a
sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money put up by the person or surety.
lb: One who acts as a surety. 2: An interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt
issued by a government body or corporation that is sometimes secured by a lien on
property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need.
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
1: a formal engagement (as a
pledge) given for the fulfillment of an
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
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
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
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
The legal rules and codes enforce themselves.
There is no court hearing to determine if those rules are correct. Government rules are
self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, such "laws" automatically come into effect
provided the legal process has been followed.
The various bankruptcies
The legal person known as the
UNITED STATES is
bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or gold — gold coin or bullion —
with which to back any currency. All private held and federally held gold coins and bullion in
America was seized via Executive Order of April 5,
1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal
Reserve Corporation under the terms of the bankruptcy.
Congress — still convening strictly under
Executive Order authority — confirmed the bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend
the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5, 1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rdCongress, 1st
Session, Public Law 73-10. This 1933
public law states, in part:
"... every provision contained in or made
with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to require payment
in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United
States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy."
The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a
second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed "Receiver" for the bankrupt U.S.
in Reorganization Plan No.
26, Title 5 USC 903,
Public Law 94-564, "Legislative
History," page 5967.
Since 1933, the only
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, juristicperson 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, reorganization 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
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 allcaps 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.