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.

 

The Capilization of your name on legal documents?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Just a quickie really, and one that can possibly be summed up by this little quote, from the following document.



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


www.scribd.com...

Is there a deeper legal meaning to having your name in all capitals, on legal documents and licenses? Does it make you a company, and not a person, in the eyes of the goverment?

Would could be the legal implication of this, could it mean that normal law, does not apply to individual peoples?

I've not looked very far into this, and I'm at work at the moment so I've not really got time to delve much further into this, maybe someone else on here has already done research into it.

What do you reckon?




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
nO, dOESN'T mEAn a DArN tHiNg......

OoPS.....NeED A seCONd lINe...



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
See? The government doesn't hide stuff from the public, you just have to have a government issued dictionary!

I read articles 20 &21 on pages 21 &22 and from what I got from it was that the individual "John Doe" becomes a govenment entity by becoming "JOHN DOE" through the caps.

Now my question is, "Is 'JOHN DOE' a legal company or corperation, basically an alias?

Can some of our legal advisors here on ATS shed some light on this?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
A decade or so ago, a guy on Vegas AM radio was talking about "DED" (all caps) names used in legal matters. It had something to do with us all being corporate citizens instead of, I think it was, actualized citizens. He said if you wanted your case thrown out of court, insist that the all caps name is not you because that's not the way your name is written.

He also said even if you don't use a lawyer in court, you "represent" yourself as opposed to "being" yourself which was proof of this corporate structure the court uses.

He also commented on the gold-fringed flags used in courtrooms as some kind of proof that the courts are maritime courts or something like that.

I was too long ago to remember quotes, names, or even the above accurately. I just posted this to give you something to search out more info.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

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


There is no special significance or convention for the use of upper and lower case other than what is required by English grammar.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Wow, you really need a new hobby if you have time to sit around worrying about this.

That said, I did have a boss who was a naturalized citizen (country of origin being Iran, may not have helped the later part of this) and somehow got some of his citizenship papers with a middle name "Tadd" (correct) and some with "Tadel". This caused problems when he went out of the country, which he did a lot. I traced it back to the fact that he had BAD handwriting and didn't connect the lines on the 2nd "d" on one document, making it look like an "el". so do be careful with the handwriting there.

Of course I quit about the time I figured that out because he was also a crook and I had to get out of there, but I hope they figure it out by the time they catch him for what he SHOULD be in trouble for.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
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...

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.


Also try this...

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.


I'll check back in a few to see what replys come from my post...

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

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]


This is my understanding too. But I have just discovered this myself and have not had time to research it. Just the notion that this maybe the case is very ......... I am not sure what words to use....... scary?


I am sure you will get some interesting replies here



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
That is not capitalization, that is upper case.

"All caps" Means Written Like This.

That's probably why you are confused.

Your name in upper case is the name of your "person," which is the straw man on whose behalf you operate. Your person is an artifical entity in a contract with the corporation of your state of domicile (also known as a "resident"). For instance, if you live primarily in Wyoming, then your person is a resident of THE STATE OF WYOMING. If you live in Springfield, Wyoming then your person is also in a contract with THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. The same applies to your village (if applicable), county and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Similarly, a "taxpayer" is not a human being, but a person under contract to pay taxes.

You are only required to abide by laws. Your person, however, is under contract to abide by statutes, codes, ordinances, etc. as corporate policy. If your person violates its contract, then the government usually forces you accept the penalty on behalf of your person. A good lawyer can, among other things, distinguish you from your straw man to get you out of trouble.

That's why the court asks "Is XYZ your name?" or "Whose name is XYZ?" instead of "What's your name?" By agreeing with the court's description of your name, you agree to answer to the name provided to the court, which is the name of your person, in upper case. In court documentation, you are usually not described by your capitalized name. Rather, you are described using the name of your position, such "Plaintiff," "Defendant," "Complaintant," "Witness," "Counsel," "Juror," etc.

Some people like to play games and cash out the money in their straw man's trust fund. This will usually get you arrested.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by vcwxvwligen]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


This is neither the place nor the time to get into such a topic, too many tin-foil hat wearing know it alls. This is NOT A LEGAL FORUM..

Your name in all Caps dos have implications in certain matters and instances, very important implications. BUT to be fair 99% of the time it is for emphasis or reading ease only.

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.

So easy answer does your name in all caps have implications?... YES IT CAN!!!

Edit to add - Hx3_1963 seems to have a grasp on the basics, good for you. And great KUDOS for knowing here are 2 13th amendments and the 14th is a slavery amendment, everyone's enslavery..

[edit on 3/16/2009 by theindependentjournal]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 
Star 4 U!
Just for throwing that edit out there!!!

My signature threads try to cover a few of the recent events backgrounds...

...it's a deep rabbit hole going back perhaps thousands of years...

BTW: I believe we're still technically at war...since Lincoln back in 1861...



[edit on 3/16/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

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.


But, 95% of his post consists of the results of a search engine. That doesn't square.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

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?



That's for recording purposes, not for naming the plaintiff and defendant.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
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...




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Legalese is not my expertise...

If an official of the courts were to present me with a document with my name spelled in upper case, and asks if I am that person, can I legally deny that?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

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...

yeah but someone could get some of the info from that thread, from a googling, which makes it um...not square.



(I'm jesting, just taking the case you quoted to the # take extreme)

Thanks for the input people, looks like today I learn something new.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 
You could try claiming Common Law over Maritime Law...

I've heard a few instances where some minor things we're overlooked/tossed?

I'm no Lawyer soooo...if anyone knows...shoot!


This might be of interest...don't let the url get to ya...
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

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.


Why is it....when I see this come up....that no one sites any specific federal, state, or local statutes that spell out what is being suggested? Instead, they cite the above, derived from ancient Roman laws, with some suspicious additions....namely that it has anything to do with upper or lower case lettering.


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


There seems to be some disagreement here.....at least from my viewpoint. Sources that I consider to be somewhat authoritative make no mention of the upper and lower case elements of the law. And I have never seen any specific statute or law that mentions this concept.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

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.
Nice...if it would work is another matter...

The above site talks at length about Roman Law, Common vs Maritime Law and the Constitition I believe...




new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join