MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN LAW ON THE PEOPLE & THEIR PERSON In American jurisprudence, it is essential to identify parties to court actions properly. If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d (Am. Jur. 2d) at Judgments; §100 Parties it is stated that, Law revolves around how words are preciously defined and used. A Man should be defined by law as he is supposed to be defined and recognized. An ancient maxim of law states: In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names. 57 Am. Jur. 2d © 200l West Group beginning on page 613 and continuing through page 675, deals with the subject NAME. § 1 Defines a name in relevant part as the word or combination of words by which a person is distinguished from other individuals. .. Petition of Dengler, 246 N.W. 2d 758 (N.D. 1976). § 2 relates the common law authority to adopt any name a man or woman wishes, providing it is not done for fraudulent purposes. In re: Adoption /Guardianship No. 3155 Circuit Court for Harford County, 103 Md. App. 300, 653 A. 2d 521, 525 (1995); Rappley v. Rappley, 183 Mich. App. 396, 454 N.W. 2d 231 (1990). The rules of English grammar authorize a capitalized letter only for a very limited number of well- defined uses. One such use is the initial letter of a proper name. A capital letter is defined as, of the large size used at the beginning of a sentence or as the first letter of a proper name. No lexical authority exists for use of all-capital letters in writing the proper name of a man or woman. An all-capital letters written version of ones name is not ones name, but strictly an artificial construct, existing by color of law only. It is this very construct which we intend to show here today. This construct or manifest has been a long contested; point of confusion, amongst many lay man. Here we will attempt, to show the court that the man, is not the person or legal fiction as it is sometimes called. Let us start with the most obvious difference the letters being capitalized this full capitalization represents a corporate soul and invokes the following. Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968 Capitis Diminutio Maxima; (meaning a maximum loss of status) – The very highest, or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a mans 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. This means the man, is now considered to be CIVILITER MORTUUS meaning one who is civilly dead; one who is considered as if he were naturally dead, so far as his rights are concerned. In The Real Life Dictionary of the Law, Orans Dictionary of the Law, and Merriam-Webster’ s Dictionary of Law, the term legal fiction is used and described. The synopsis of these shows that a legal fiction is an assumption or presumption on something that is, or may be, false or nonexistent is true or real... Something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth, or accuracy of that assumption or presumption. There is one area which does use all capital letters for proper names – Corporate Law. Names of artificial entities (artificial persons) are written in legalese (artificial English), i.e., ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Now let us examine case law on the matter as we have already distinguished there being a clear, difference in the name. That one name shows a natural person; the other names an artificial person/IE the all caps name. 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). IDEM SONANS. As we pursue this line of logic, we need to address IDEM SONANS. Its definition can be found in 14 C.J.S., Names, pg. 36. (a) in general... If names sound alike, they are usually regarded as the same, although spelled differently, and the variance in their spelling is considered immaterial. With respect to names, the phrase idem sonans means “of the same sound. The general rule is that the law (Public) does not regard the spelling of names as much as it does their sound. Great latitude is allowed in the pronunciation and spelling of proper names, since proper names are often spelled differently, although pronounced the same (Terry-Terri) . If they sound alike, or even if common usage (widely known) has made their pronunciation identical, they are regarded as the same and a variance in their spelling is immaterial, unless it is such as misleads a person to his prejudice, or the misspelling transforms the name into a wholly distinct appellation/corporate soul. Same sounding names discussed above are like Terry and Terri, not Terry and TERRY, as the latter is not a proper name, but an abbreviation/ acronym/initiali sm. So what is JOHN! It could be a corporation, a vessel, a computer term, etc. It is not widely recognized or known, and therefore, according to the Government Printing Office publication on style, an improper abbreviation. This is nothing other than an appearance of legitimacy (legal). The exception clause of the idem sonans test must be invoked, i.e., “…unless it is such as misleads a natural person to his prejudice, or the misspelling transforms the name into a wholly distinct appellation.” We intend to prove both happen, by way of (fraud upon the court) by the Trust Administrator/judge. First thing one must comprehend is, (can a man/woman, be a person in law)? The astounding answer is what we seek to find. We think it’s first proper to establish what a person is in law. Please see the following definition from Black’s law dictionary 5th edition. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 5TH EDITION PG 1028 Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, cor¬ porations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1). Bankruptcy Act. Person includes individual, part¬ nership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30). Corporation. A corporation is a person within meaning of equal protection and due process provi¬ sions of United States Constitution. Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Ha¬waii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 911. The term persons in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of Houston v. U. S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181. Foreign government. Foreign governments other¬ wise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are persons entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti¬ trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4. Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396. Illegitimate child. Illegitimate children are persons within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48. Interested person. Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others hav¬ ing a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries repre¬ senting interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular pur¬ poses of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20). Municipalities. Municipalities and other government units are persons within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are persons for purposes of Sec¬ tion 1983 in those cases in which a local govern¬ ment would be suable in its own name. Monell v. N.Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law. Protected person. One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made. Uniform Probate Code, § 5-101(3). Here we see an amazing transformation the term person in law is without any doubt a corporation. This is truly a wholly distinct appellation, as official sources of reference and information, do not identify, describe, or define JOHN. 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). [Emphasis added] 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 Peoples case, the States argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant Manson). This would mean by fully capitalizing a man/woman’s name the court, transforms the name into a wholly distinct appellation/a corporation, or share holder”. This action would invoke Capitis Diminutio Maxima & CIVILITER MORTUUS causing the man to be without rights. The following case law, leaves no doubt to the belief. (A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision such as grants of corporate existence and powers. States may exclude a foreign corporation entirely or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as, in their judgment, will best promote the public interest). (Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868) Of couse if a man/woman has not had full disclosure of the aforesaid transformation; it is (Agreed that without full disclosure unknowingly, from first date of waiver, a waiver of rights has no power)./10 Brady. supra 748. Johnson v. Zebet, 304-US 458. 464. Aetna Inc Co. v. Kennedy 301 US 389-393 However this still does not show the people/man or woman is a separate entity which is only an authorized signature, for the person. So we must look further in to the case law to denote, a difference between the people, and the artificial person/corporate soul. Now without further delay please sees the following case cites. ( in common usage, the term person does not include the sovereign people, and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people). Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947) Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b) The sovereign people are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192. Now we have established the clear difference between the two entities the people, and the person and it is very clear the people are not a person or persons in law, but rather only the authorized signature for the all caps name. We feel it important to note that no contract exists, which forces the people to stand as surety; for the all caps name. As such it is equally important; to state the people in no way agree, to be surety for the all caps name. This should clear the question of why the United States Supreme court has ruled as follows. (S)tatutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether (creatures of statute and offices of] state, local, or federal (government). (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100. (1975). United States Supreme Court, (much less any inferior court of limited jurisdiction) cannot supply what Congress (or the legislatures of the several states) has studiously omitted in a statute.“ (Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co. 360 U.S. 55, p. 55 475042/56451 (1959)). (T)he fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do. (United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 95 (1985)). [N]o clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant (United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954)); All legislation is prima facia territorial and words having universal scope will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only every one subject to such [territorial] legislation, not that all the legislator subsequently may be able to catch. (American Banana Co. v United Fruit Co. 213 US 347, 29 S Ct 511, 53 L Ed 826 (1909)) Criminal statutes are not by implication given extra territorial effect (or personum jurisdiction). (United States v Flores, 289 US 137, 53 S Ct 580, 77 L Ed 1086). “A statute will not be presumed to have extra territorial effect... outside the (territorial) jurisdiction of the legislature. over the people residing outside the (territorial) jurisdiction, of the legislature. (Bond v Jay, 7 Cranch 350, 3 L Ed 367). The reason is now clear the people are not a person in law, & all statutes, codes, and regulations, refer to the juridical person, the legal fiction or Government employees. While the people are the authorized signature they are in no way surety for the juridical person. This name is the name by which one must be recognized if one were to work in government, then and only then can one be held as surety for the name. this is the reason when one the people receive their Birth Certificate it states do not use as ID. Because when one uses the birth certificate as ID they put their self on the public record as a Government Employee, allowing the presumption and assumption of the courts to take place. However this does not absolve the administrator/Judge, of liability as the administrator/Judge, was fully aware of the fraud perpetrated upon the court.
Posted on: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 23:25:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015