|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Article: from: http://www.thepowerhour.com
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School
By Geraldine Hawkins
March 7, 2003
The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.
She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.
"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.
"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature . . . dictated by God himself . . . is binding . . . in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority . . . from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.
She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance.
"This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots.
"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed."
According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself.
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.
"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.
"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. . . . While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"
The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him.
However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"
Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'
Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her.
"We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. . . . The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court."
Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this kind of abuse.
"Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed . . . creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions.
"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'"
Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates."
The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths . . . in courts of justice?"
Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it?
"Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable."
The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.
"Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."
Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem.
The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy.
"Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."
Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."
No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms
The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.
"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought . . . has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of . . . our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."
Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. . . . The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away . . . and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."
Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.
"Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments."
Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.
"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as constitutional monarchy.
"Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything."
Potential Nominee to Supreme Court
Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea.
"Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'
"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge?"
Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston.
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies.
From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.
The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be.
|
|
Social Security Administration SSA Publication No. 05-10002
From Social Security Administration
Giving your number is voluntary even when you are asked for the number directly.
If requested, you should ask:
.why your number is needed;
.how your number will be used;
.what happens if you refuse; and
.what law requires you to give your number.
Original pdf file located at:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.pdf
[TEXAS DRIVERS LICENSE ACT] [Posted August 30, 2003]
TEXAS DRIVERS LICENSE ACT
1941 Texas Legislature 47th Regular Session; Chapter 173;
Vernons Ann. Civ. St, Art. 6887b: H.B. No. 20
An Act providing for licensing of operators, commercial operators, and chauffeurs; defining certain Terms: providing for certain exemptions: prohibiting issuance of license to certain persons; making it unlawful for certain persons to operate a school bus or any motor vehicle while in use as a public or common carrier of persons: providing for application for operators', commercial operators', and chauffeurs' license: repealing Subsection (c) of Section 4 of Article 911A and Subsection (b) of Section 4 of Article 911B, Revised Civil Statutes; providing for signing of application of minors and cancellation of minor's license upon application and/or death of signatory: providing for examinations of applicants for operators', commercial operators', and chauffeurs' licenses, and providing the Director shall have the authority to re-examine licensee when said licensee is found incapable of operating a motor vehicle: providing for the issuance of operators', commercial operators', and chauffeurs' license, and duplicates thereof: providing for the issuance of restricted operators', commercial operators', and chauffeurs' license: providing a penalty for a violation of the restrictions imposed and for the revocation or suspension of restricted licenses: relating to the carrying of a license by the licensee and exhibiting same, prescribing the amount of fees and providing for the collection of same by the Department of Public Safety and the disposition of same: providing for the time of expiration of licenses and for renewal of same: providing for notice to the Department of changes of address or name of licensee: providing for certain records to be kept by the Department of Public Safety, relating to the authority of the Department of Public Safety to suspend, revoke, or cancel licenses: providing for time, place, and manner of holding hearings before the Department of Public Safety: providing for the period of suspension by the Department: proving for the; automatic suspension of licenses upon conviction of certain offenses: providing for the surrender and return of license to the Department upon suspension; providing for court to forward license to Department and report convictions and defining "conviction" and providing that a suspended sentence shall not mitigate against automatic suspension of license on conviction of certain offenses: prohibiting the operation of motor vehicle under foreign license during suspension or revocation in the State, providing authority of the Department of Public Safety to suspend or revoke license and to suspend privileges of nonresidents and report convictions, and to suspend resident license upon conviction in another State: providing for the cancellation of licenses under certain conditions: providing for the right of appeal when license denied or cancelled, suspended or revoked by Department, except where such suspension or revocation is automatic: providing the filing of the petition of appeal shall abate said suspension until the trial herein provided for shall have been consummated and final judgment thereon shall have the right of trial by jury and his license shall not be suspended pending the appeal: prohibiting the driving of motor vehicle while license or privilege is cancelled, suspended or revoked: making it unlawful to commit certain other acts: providing authority of the Department of Public Safety to require accident reports and providing a penalty for failure to report: providing for forms of accident statistics and reports and making such reports confidential: providing for a penalty for violation of the Act and providing for a maximum fine in certain instances: repealing all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith, and particularly Senate Bill No. 15, Chapter 466, Page 1785, General Laws Second Called Session. Forty-forth Legislature, as amended by House Bill No. 16, Chapter 369, page 752, Regular Session. Forty-fifth Legislature: providing a saving clause: and declaring an emergency.
Form Application for Exemption From Social Security
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-fill/f4029.pdf.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxforms/01-3392.pdf
Reasons listed on Sales Tax Exempt form:
USAC Art 1, Section 10; USAC Art 1, Sectiom 8; Tex Code of Crim Proc Art. 43.02; 12 USC 152; Perry v. State 61 S.W. 400; 48 Stat. 2, (March 9, 1933) and 48 Stat. 113 (June 5, 1933) HJR 192; Pub Law 8931 & Pub Law 9029; 50 USC 9898H; 60 Stat. 596; 31 USC 3124a; 18 USC 8
Above not part the document
Texas State )
) ss
Dallas County )
AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY TAXES, COSTS OR REMUNERANCES
I, John Quincy, Doe, hereby create this "AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY TAXES, COSTS OR REMUNERANCES" to notify business owners and sales personnel of the superior laws governing the illegality of sales tax here in the State of Texas, and in this public record declare the following:
1. I, John Quincy, Doe, (hereinafter also known as 'I', 'me', 'my' and 'affiant', have personal first hand knowledge of the matters stated herein. I am over the age of 21 and I have no legal disability. I asseverate these below facts under the penalty of perjury, to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to the absolute best of my knowledge, understanding and belief of the law, and of the facts in relation to the law.
2. I asseverate that; due to the document untitled but commonly referred to as Constitution of the United States of America as ratified in 1789 A.D. and amended in 1791 A.D. (hereinafter USA Constitution)[SL1] , at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, which mandates that "No State shall. . . make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", said Clause remaining UN-REPEALED to date; and,
3. I asseverate that; due to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure at Article 43.02, which explains that all taxes, fines, costs, penalties, and remunerances paid to the State of Texas "Shall be collected in the lawful money of the united States only", said Article remaining UN-REPEALED to date; and,
4. I asseverate that; due to the Federal Law, Title 12 USC, Section 152, which defines "Lawful Money of the United States" to be Gold and Silver Coin "ONLY", said Section remaining UN-REPEALED to date; and,
5. I asseverate that; due to 48 Stat. 2, (March 09, 1933) and 48 Stat. 113 (June 05, 1933) all gold coin was removed from common circulation AT PAR, from all banks in America, said Statutes remaining UN-REPEALED to date; and,
6. I asseverate that; due to Public Law 8931 (July 23, 1965) Senate #2080, and Public Law 9029 (June 24, 1967) Title 50, Section 9898H and 60 Stat. 596, all silver coin was removed from common circulation AT PAR, from all banks in America, said Public Laws, Sections and Statutes remaining UN-REPEALED to date;
7. I asseverate that I, the purchaser, am therefore CONSTRAINED BY THESE LAWS from paying this tax, cost, or remunerance to the State of Texas. Said sales tax cannot therefore be lawfully forced from my hands, by any other individual or entity, without violating these laws, in order for me to make a lawful purchase within the State of Texas.
8. I asseverate that I have no Tax Exempt number, as this is not a privileged tax exempt status created by application. This tax immunity is based solely in un-repealed law.
9. I asseverate that since Federal Reserve Notes or checks or money orders payable only in Federal Reserve Notes, are NOT within the definition of those things allowed by law to be received by the State of Texas, any threat by any public servant, to civilly prosecute me for "failure to pay" those items, will be deemed by me to be an attempt to "Solicit an Honorarium" in violation of Texas Penal Code, Title 8, Section 36.07 or 36.08.
10. I asseverate that any initiation of criminal prosecution for "failure to pay State Tax" will be a clear violation of the superior law found in the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 18, which clearly states, "No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt."
11. I asseverate in this public declaration that, until Congress returns America to a Constitutional monetary system, or until all of these laws get fully repealed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to lawfully pay sales taxes, costs or remunerances to the State of Texas, and therefore the ancient Maxim of Law, "IMPOSSIBILIUM NULLA OBLIGATIO EST" (that is: There is no obligation to do impossible things) is the overriding maxim of law in this case.
12. Furthermore, I asseverate that the Federal Law, Codified at 31 USC 3124 a, states, "obligations of the U.S. government are exempt from taxation by a State" and, "The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation... to be considered in computing the tax".
13. I asseverate that Federal Law, Codified at Title 18 USC 8, "Obligation of the United States Defined", the term "obligation" includes "Federal Reserve Notes". Therefore, 31 USC 3124 a and 18 USC 8 together, forbid the collection of tax in the State of Texas when "Federal Reserve Notes" are tendered as the medium of exchange.
14. I asseverate that I rely upon the un-overturned, Shepardized Texas Court of Civil Appeals case of MORRIS v NATIONAL CASH REGISTER, 44 S.W. 2d 433, No. 10898, which states at point #4, "Affidavits. Uncontested allegations of fact in affidavit must be accented as true." Anyone able to contest this affidavit must do so, now.
15. I asseverate that I reserve my rights to amend this document, if at any time, any party properly serves me with true and exact copies of the repealing acts to all of the above stated laws, and with evidence that the court rulings that I asseverate that I rely upon have been overturned, in a sworn affidavit, signed under the penalties of perjury as I have done. Failure to do so is tacit admission that my position in law is the correct one. Any funds that are therefore forced from my hands and paid over to the State of Texas, to purchase registration stickers, or to pay for a certificate of title or license fees, will be done so under the conditions of theft by agent, duress, under coercion, under the threat of loss of life, liberty and property.
Further, I, the affiant, sayeth naught.
Dated this nineteenth day of the eighth month in the year of our Lord and Savior, Two Thousand Three A.D.
With full reservation of all my natural God given rights,
____________________________________
John Quincy, Doe, c/o nondomestic
123 Main Street; near
Dallas, [75200-9999]
Texas
united States of America
Dallas county )
) ss:
Texas state )
John Quincy, Doe, known by Me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, and duly sworn and subscribed in My presence this nineteenth day of the eighth month in the year of our Lord and Savior, Two Thousand Three A.D.
_______________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas Seal
My Commission Expires: _______________________
[SL1]Reasons listed on Sales Tax Exempt form:
USAC Art 1, Section 10; USAC Art 1, Section 8; Tex Code of Crim Proc Art. 43.02; 12 USC 152; Perry v. State 61 S.W. 400; 48 Stat. 2, (March 9, 1933) and 48 Stat. 113 (June 5, 1933) HJR 192; Pub Law 8931 & Pub Law 9029; 50 USC 9898H; 60 Stat. 596; 31 USC 3124a; 18 USC 8
[Memorandum of Law on the Name Posted March 24, 2004]
Memorandum of Law on the Name
[by Gordon Warren Epperly]
Many people are involved in diligent research concerning the use of all capital letters for proper names, e.g., JOHN PAUL JONES as a substitute for John Paul Jones in all court documents, driver's licenses, bank accounts, birth certificates, etc.. Is the use of all capital letters to designate a name some special English grammar rule or style? Is it a contemporary American style of English? Is the use of this form of capitalization recognized by educational authorities? Is this an official judicial or U.S. government rule and/or style of grammar? Why do attorneys, court clerks, prosecutors judges, insurance companies, banks, credit card companies, utility companies, etc. always use all capital letters when writing a proper name?
What English grammar experts say
One of the foremost authorities on American English grammar, style, composition, and rules is The Chicago Manual of Style. The latest (14th) Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, is internationally known and respected as a major contribution to maintaining and improving the standards of written or printed text. Since we can find no reference in their manual concerning the use of all capitalized letters with a proper name or any other usage, we wrote to the editors and asked this question:
"Is it acceptable, or is there any rule of English grammar, to allow a proper name to be written in all capital letters? For example, if my name was John Paul Jones, can it be written as JOHN PAUL JONES? Is there any rule covering this?"
The Editorial Staff of the University of Chicago answered:
"Writing names in all caps is not conventional; it is not Chicago style to put anything in all caps. For instance, even if 'GONE WITH THE WIND' appears on the title page all in caps, we would properly render it 'Gone with the Wind' in a bibliography. The only reason we can think of to do so is if you are quoting some material where it is important to the narrative to preserve the casing of the letters.
We're not sure in what context you would like your proper name to appear in all caps, but it is likely to be seen as a bit odd."
Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences. If, for instance, one attempts to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State of a State, if the exact title of the corporation down to every jot and tittle is not exactly the same each and every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State will refuse to file the papers. This is because each time the name of the corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation identifies an entirely different legal person.
It is therefore an eminently valid, and possibly crucial, question as to why governments, governmental courts, and agencies purporting to exist (in some undefined, unproved manner) within the jurisdiction of this state insist on always capitalizing every letter in a proper name.
Mary Newton Bruder, Ph.D., also known as The Grammar Lady, who established the Grammar Hotline in the late 1980's for the "Coalition of Adult Literacy," was asked the following question:
"Why do federal and state government agencies and departments, judicial and administrative courts, insurance companies, etc., spell a person's proper name in all capital letters? For example, if my name is John Paul Jones, is it proper at any time to write my name as JOHN PAUL JONES?"
Dr. Bruder's reply was short and to the point: "It must be some kind of internal style. There is no grammar rule about it."
It seemed that these particular grammatical experts had no idea why proper names were written in all caps, so we began to assemble an extensive collection of reference books authored by various publishers, governments, and legal authorities to find the answer.
What English grammar reference books say
Manual on Usage & Style
One of the reference books obtained was the "Manual on Usage & Style," Eighth Edition, ISBN I-878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. Section D, CAPITALIZATION, paragraph D: 1:1 states:
"Always capitalize proper nouns... [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce)."
Paragraph D: 3:2 of Section D states:
"Capitalize People, State, and any other terms used to refer to the government as a litigant (e.g., the People's case, the State's argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant Manson)."
Either no attorney, judge, or law clerk in Texas has ever read the recognized law style manual that purports to pertain to them, or the act is a deliberate violation of the rules for undisclosed reasons. In either ignorance ( ignorance of the law is no excuse ) or violation (one violating the law he enforces on others is acting under title of nobility and abrogating the principle of equality under the law) of law, they continue to write "Plaintiff, "Defendant," "THE STATE OF TEXAS" and proper names of parties in all capital letters on every court document.
The Elements of Style
Another well-recognized reference book is "The Elements of Style," Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn & Bacon in 1999. Within this renowned English grammar and style reference book, is found only one reference to capitalization, located within the Glossary at "proper noun," page 94, where it states:
"The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized."
There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.
The American Heritage Book of English Usage
The American Heritage Book of English Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, published in 1996, at Chapter 9, E-Mail, Conventions and Quirks, Informality, states:
"To give a message special emphasis, an E-mailer may write entirely in capital letters, a device E-mailers refer to as screaming. Some of these visual conventions have emerged as away of getting around the constraints on data transmission that now limit many networks".
Here is a reference source, within contemporary modern English, that states it is of an informal manner to write every word of specifically an electronic message, a.k.a. e-mail, in capital letters. They say it's "screaming" to do so. By standard definition, we presume that is the same as shouting or yelling. Are all judges, as well as their court clerks and attorneys, shouting at us when they corrupt our proper names in this manner? (If so, what happened to the decorum of a court if everyone is yelling?) Is the insurance company screaming at us for paying the increased premium on our Policy? This is doubtful as to any standard generalization, even though specific individual instances may indicate this to be true. It is safe to conclude, however, that it would also be informal to write a proper name in the same way.
Does this also imply that those in the legal profession are writing our Christian names informally on court documents? Are not attorneys and the courts supposed to be specific, formally writing all legal documents to the "letter of the law?" If the law is at once both precise and not precise, what is its significance, credibility, and force and effect?
New Oxford Dictionary of English
"The New Oxford Dictionary of English" is published by the Oxford University Press. Besides being considered the foremost authority on the British English language, this dictionary is also designed to reflect the way language is used today through example sentences and phrases. We submit the following definitions from the 1998 edition:
Proper noun (also proper name). Noun. A name used for an individual person, place, 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 Daniel.
We can find absolutely no example in any recognized reference book that specifies or allows the use of all capitalized names, proper or common. There is no doubt that a proper name, to be grammatically correct, must be written with only the first letter capitalized, with the remainder of the word in a name spelled with lower case letters.
US Government Style Manual
Is the spelling and usage of a proper name defined officially by US Government? Yes. The United States Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.
Chapter 3, "Capitalization," at Section 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names:
"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."
At Chapter 17, "Courtwork, the rules of capitalization," as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated:
"17.1. Courtwork differs in style from other work only as set forth in this section; otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding sections will be followed."
After reading Section 17 in entirety, I found no other references that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization.
At Section 17.9, this same official US Government manual states:
"In the titles of cases the first letter of all principal words are capitalized, but not such terms as defendant and appellee."
This wholly agrees with Texas Law Review's Manual on "Usage & Style" as referenced above.
Examples shown in Section 17.12 are also consistent with the aforementioned Section 17.9 specification: that is, all proper names are to be spelled with capital first letters; the balance of each spelled with lower case letters.
Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization
"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (NASA) has publish one of the most concise US Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication 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 discussing capitalization:
All caps means that every letter in an expression is capital, LIKE THIS.
Caps & lc means that the principal words of an expression are capitalized, Like This.
Caps and small caps refer to a particular font of type containing small capital letters instead of lowercase letters.
Elements in a document such as headings, titles, and captions may be capitalized in either sentence style or headline style:
Sentence style calls for capitalization of the first letter, and proper nouns of course.
Headline style calls for capitalization of all principal words (also called caps & lc).
Modern publishers tend toward a down style of capitalization, that is, toward use of fewer capitals, rather than an up style."
Here we see that in headlines, titles, captions, and in sentences, there is no authorized usage of all caps. At 4.4.1. "Capitalization With Acronyms," we find the first authoritative use for all caps:
"Acronyms are always formed with capital letters. Acronyms are often coined for a particular program or study and therefore require definition. The letters of the acronym are not capitalized in the definition unless the acronym stands for a proper name:
Wrong - The best electronic publishing systems combine What You See Is What
You Get (WYSIWYG) features...
Correct - The best electronic publishing systems combine what you see is what
you get (WYSIWYG) features...
But Langley is involved with the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program.
This cites, by example, that using all caps is allowable in an acronym. "Acronyms" are words formed from the initial letters of successive parts of a term. They never contain periods and are often not standard, so that definition is required. Could this apply to lawful proper Christian names? If that were true, then JOHN SMITH would have to follow a definition of some sort, which it does not. For example, only if JOHN SMITH were defined as 'John Orley Holistic Nutrition of the Smith Medical Institute To Holistics (JOHN SMITH)' would this apply.
The most significant section appears at 4.5., "Administrative Names":
"Official designations of political divisions and of other organized bodies are capitalized:
Names of political divisions;
Canada, New York State;
United States Northwest Territories;
Virgin Islands, Ontario Province;
Names of governmental units, US Government Executive Department, US Congress, US Army;
US Navy.
According to this official US Government publication, the States are never to be spelled in all caps such as NEW YORK STATE. The proper English grammar and legal style is New York State. This agrees, once again, with Texas Law.
Review's Manual on Usage & Style.
The Use of a Legal Fiction
The Real Life Dictionary of the Law
The authors of "The Real Life Dictionary of the Law," Gerald and Kathleen Hill, are accomplished scholars and writers. Gerald Hill is an experienced attorney, judge, and law instructor. Here is how the term legal fiction is described:
"Legal fiction. n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency orto achieve justice. There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.'
Oran's Dictionary of the Law
From Oran's "Dictionary of the Law," published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of "Fiction" is found:
"A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent John Doe off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain."
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
"Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law" 1996 states:
"legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no fractions Fields V. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658 (1991)."
This is the reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The US and State Governments are deliberately using a legal fiction to "address" the lawful, real, flesh-and-blood man or woman. We say this is deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps. They are deliberately not following their own recognized authorities.
In the same respect, by identifying their own government entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is also intended to be a legal fiction. As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this memorandum, the use of all caps for writing a proper name is an "internal style" for what is apparently a pre-determined usage and, at this point, unknown jurisdiction.
The main key to a legal fiction is assumption as noted in each definition above.
Conclusion: There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of all caps when writing a proper name. To do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed jurisdiction by unknown people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary presumption not based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the deceit.
Assumption of a Legal Fiction
An important issue concerning this entire matter is whether or not a proper name, perverted into an all caps assemblage of letters, can be substituted for a lawful Christian name or any proper name, such as the State of Florida. Is the assertion of all-capital-letter names "legal?" If so, from where does this practice originate and what enforces it?
A legal fiction may be employed when the name of a person is not known, and therefore using the fictitious name John Doe as a tentative or interim artifice to surmount the absence of true knowledge until the true name is known. Upon discovering the identity of the fictitious name, the true name replaces it.
In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption of purported fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It is an acceptance with no proof. Simply, to assume is to pretend. Oran's "Dictionary of the Law" says that the word assume means:
1. To take up or take responsibility for; to receive; to undertake. See "assumption."
2. To pretend.
3. To accept without proof.
These same basic definitions are used by nearly all of the modern law dictionaries. It should be noted that there is a difference between the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the first. Pretending and accepting without proof are of the same understanding and meaning. However, to take responsibility for and receive, or assumption, does not have the same meaning. Oran's defines assumption as:
"Formally transforming someone else's debt into your own debt. Compare with guaranty. The assumption of a mortgage usually involves taking over the seller's 'mortgage debt' when buying a property (often a house)."
Now, what happens if all the meanings for the word "assume" are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meaning of assume would be: The pretended acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt.
Therefore, if we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.
Use of the legal fiction JOHN P JONES in place of the proper name John Paul Jones implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, unless the assumption is proven wrong it is considered valid.
An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. ( An unrebutted affidavit, claim, or charge stands as the truth in commerce. ) This is in accord with the Uniform Commercial Code, valid in every State and made a part of the Statutes of each State. A name written in all caps resembling a proper name but grammatically not a proper name is being held as a debtor for an assumed debt. Did the parties to the Complaint incur that debt? If so, how and when?
Where is the contract of indebtedness that was signed and the proof of default thereon? What happens if the proper name, i.e. John Paul Jones, answers for or assumes the fabricated name, i.e. JOHN P JONES? The two become one and the same. This is the crux for the use of the all caps names by the US Government and the States. It is the way that they can bring someone into the "de facto" venue and jurisdiction that they have created. By implication of definition, this also is for the purpose of some manner of assumed debt.
Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.
The Legalities of All-Capital-Letters Names
We could go on for hundreds of pages citing the legal basis behind the creation and use of all-capital-letters names. In a nutshell, fabricated legal persons such as STATE OF TEXAS can be used to fabricate additional legal persons. "Fictions" arise from the law, not the law from fictions. Bastard legal persons originate from any judicial/governmental actor that whishes to create them, regardless of whether he/she/it is empowered by law to do so. However, a law can never originate from a fictional foundation that doesn't exist.
The generic and original US Constitution was validated by treaty between individual nation states (all of which are artificial, corporate entities since they exist in abstract idea and construct). Contained within it is the required due process of law for all the participating nation states of that treaty. Representatives of the people in each nation state agreed upon and signed it. The federal government is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines of Constitutional due process. Any purported law that does not originate from Constitutional due process is a fictional law without validity. Thus, the true test of any American law is its basis of due process according to the organic US Constitution. Was it created according to the lawful process or created outside of lawful process?
Executive Orders and Directives
For years many have researched the lawful basis for creating all-caps juristic persons and have concluded that there is no such foundation according to valid laws and due process. But what about those purported "laws" that are not valid and have not originated from constitutional due process? There's a very simple answer to the creation of such purported laws that are really not laws at all: "Executive Orders" and "Directives." They are "color of law" without being valid laws of due process. These "Executive Orders" and "Directives" have the appearance of law and look as if they are laws, but according to due process, they are not laws. Rather, they are "laws" based on fictional beginnings and are the inherently defective basis for additional fictional "laws" and other legal fictions. They are "regulated" and "promulgated" by Administrative Code, rules and procedures, not due process. Currently, Executive Orders are enforced through the charade known as the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. Each State has also adopted the same fatally flawed administrative "laws."
Lincoln Establishes Executive Orders
Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or "without day." This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which, according to Robert's Rules of Order, dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there are no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum of the States.
Lincoln's second Executive Order of April 1861 called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority, or lawful due process, of the Constitution. Solely in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the US Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, "Congress" has not met based on lawful due process. The current "Congress" is a legal fiction based on nothing more meritorious than Yeah, so what are you going to do about it? Having a monopoly on the currency, law, and what passes for government, and most of the worlds firepower, the motto of the Powers That Be is: Weve got what it takes to take what youve got.
Legal-fiction "laws," such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were instituted by Lincoln soon thereafter and became the basis for the current "laws" in the US. Every purported "Act" in effect today is "de facto," based on colorable fictitious entities created arbitrarily, out of nothing, without verification, lawful foundation, or lawful due process. All of such laws are not law, but rules of rulership by force/conquest, originating from and existing in military, martial law jurisdiction. Military, martial law jurisdiction
= jurisdiction of war
= win/lose interactions consisting of eating or being eaten, living or dying
= food chain
= law of necessity
= suspension of all law other than complete freedom to act in any manner to eat, kill, or destroy or avoid being eaten, killed, or destroyed
= no law
= lawlessness
= complete absence of all lawful basis to create any valid law.
Contractually, being a victim of those acting on the alleged authority granted by the law of necessity,
= no lawful object, valuable consideration, free consent of all involved parties, absence of fraud, duress, malice, and undue influence
= no bona fide, enforceable contract
= no valid, enforceable nexus
= absolute right to engage in any action of any kind in self-defense
= complete and total right to disregard any alleged jurisdiction and demands from self-admitted outlaws committing naked criminal aggression without any credibility and right to demand allegiance and compliance from anyone.
Every President of the United States since Lincoln has functioned by Executive Orders issued from a military, martial law jurisdiction with the only law being the law of necessity, i.e. the War Powers. The War Powers are nothing new. Indeed, they have been operational from the instant the first man thought he would hide from God, try to cheat ethical and natural law by over reaching, invade the space and territory of others, covet other peoples land or property, steal the fruits of their labors, and attempt to succeed in life by win/lose games. All existing authority in the United States today derives exclusively from the War Powers. Trumans 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 Common Law
Here's an interesting quote from the 1973 session of the US Supreme Court:
"The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-l9th century was the pre-existing English common law... It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law." Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113.
In effect, Lincoln's second Executive Order abolished the recognized English common law in America and replaced it with "laws" based on a fictional legal foundation, i.e., Executive Orders and Directives executed under authority of the War Powers. Most States still have a reference to the common laws within their present day statutes. For example, in the Florida Statutes (1999), Title I. Chapter 2, at § 2.01 "Common law and certain statutes declared in force," it states:
"The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. History. -- s. l, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87."
Note that the basis of the common law is an approved Act of the people of Florida by Resolution on November 6, 1829, prior to Lincoln's Civil War. Also note that the subsequent "laws," as a result of Acts of the Florida Legislature and the United States, now take priority over the common law in Florida. In April 1861, the American and English common law was abolished and replaced with legal fiction "laws," a.k.a. Statutes, Rules, and Codes based on Executive Order and not the due process specified within the organic Constitution. Existing and functioning under the law of necessity ab initio, they are all non
