It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
One of the persistent myths among political dissidents is that such usages as initial or complete capitalization of names indicates different legal entities or a different legal status for the entity. They see a person's name sometimes written in all caps, and sometimes written only in initial caps, and attribute a sinister intent to this difference. They also attach special meanings to the ways words may be capitalized or abbreviated in founding documents, such as constitutions or the early writings of the Founders.
Such people seem to resist all efforts to explain that such conventions have no legal significance whatsoever, that they are just ways to emphasize certain kinds of type, to make it easier for the reader to scan the documents quickly and organize the contents in his mind. Source
Welcome to The Real Matrix: Time for The Red Pill?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
:snip:
As stated earlier, property is an existential fact. Whatever the society in which we live, someone will make determinations as to who will live where, what resources can be consumed by whom (and when), and how such property will be controlled. Such decisions can either be made by individual property owners – over what is theirs to control – or by the state presuming the authority to control the lives of each of us. When such decisions are made by the state, it is claiming ownership over our lives.
It is at this point that I let the you in on the secret the political establishment would prefer not to have revealed: the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not end slavery (hereby abolished, "except in cases of Crime," we owe debt in our CORPORATE identities in excess of $5, 000, making us felons, by proxy, each and all, if we Incorporate by signing any document that lets them ajoinder us to our Corporate ficticious creation counterparts, which is why, your, legal, medical, utility, and even your phone bill, etc. are in all capital letters (Capitas or Capitus Diminutio Minima - Media - Maxima) which are created at our birth, ever wonder why you have to submit an application for a Copy of your certificate of Birth, and cannot possess the Original?). , but only nationalized it! That most Americans acquiesce in such political arrangements, and take great offense should anyone dare to explain their implications, has led me to the conclusion that America may be the last of the collectivist societies to wither away. Most Americans, sad to say, seem unprepared to deny the state’s authority to direct their lives and property as political officials see fit. The reason for this is that most of us refuse to insist upon self-ownership.
www.slaveshipamerica.com...
As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used. The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for "inventory" control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner's manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory.
Originally posted by Hx3_1963
This is a pretty long reply I received concerning this very question you ask...
Yes...it does make a difference...
Maritime law vs common law...
...concerns the 2 different versions of the 13th Amendment...
We are all the property of others...
I'll check back in a few to see what replys come from my post...
[edit on 3/16/2009 by Hx3_1963]
Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
That's why the court asks "Is XYZ your name?" or "Whose name is XYZ?" instead of "What's your name?"
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
I won't get into a legal debate with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and uses search engines to decide their opinion.
[snip]
Hx3_1963 seems to have a grasp on the basics, good for you.
Originally posted by MrPenny
Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
That's why the court asks "Is XYZ your name?" or "Whose name is XYZ?" instead of "What's your name?"
What happened to "Please state your full name" when taking the stand? How does that work into this nefarious scheme?
yeah but someone could get some of the info from that thread, from a googling, which makes it um...not square.
Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by MrPenny
Pardon...
Try going through my 13th Amendment thread...alot of info there on that, the 14th and some other things many know not of...
The Cyclopedic Dictionary of Law
CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA. The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship, and all family rights.
CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MEDIA. A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man lost his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MINIMA. The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation of a person who had been his own master (sui juris), or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1. 16. pr.; Id. 1. 2. 3; Dig. 4. 5. 11; Mackeld. Civ. Law, § 144.
The Romans used just 23 letters to write Latin:
A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z
There were no lower case letters, and K, Y and Z used only for writing words of Greek origin. The letters J, U and W were added to the alphabet at a later stage to write languages other than Latin. J is a variant of I, U is a variant of V, and W was introduced as a 'double-v' to make a distinction between the sounds we know as 'v' and 'w' which was unnecessary in Latin. Source
Nice...if it would work is another matter...
www.biblebelievers.org.au...
Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.