We have Human Rights intrinsic to our Bio-Spiritual Self, but what Rights does our Name have? Are our Human Rightsdiminished when we use our Name?
To answer these questions we must first know what our Human Rights are (read them), and what a Name is.
As a living bio-spiritual being, you interact with fictions like governments and corporations, so you need a "fiction" of law to interact on their level of reality. Not being real, a fiction can not interact with a living being directly, therefore the living being is given a fiction of their own for interacting in the world, (see the Game of Countries) of fictions. As a Real being you can never be a fiction, therefore you are given one to represent the Living you in the legal (i.e. fictional) realm, that fiction is called your name. For legal purposes such as Passports, Licenses, Court cases and the like that you're name is written using all capital letters , e.g., JOHN PAUL JONES.
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 we 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 a way of getting around the constraints on data transmission that now limit many networks".
Here is a reference source, within contemporary—modern—English, that states it is of an informal manner to write 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 3 Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man has been named as John Mackintosh. Phrases. 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.
U.S. Government Style Manual
Is the spelling and usage of a proper name defined officially by U.S. Government? Yes. The United States Government Printing Office in their Style Manual, March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.
Chapter 3, Capitalization, at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names:
"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."
At Chapter 17, 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 § 17 in entirety, we found no other references that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization.
At § 17.9, this same official U.S. 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 § 17.12 are also consistent with the aforementioned § 17.9 specification: that is, all proper names are to be spelled with capital first letters; the balance of each spelled with lower case letters.
Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has publish one of the most concise U.S. Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication SP-7084, 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
Correct: The best electronic publishing systems combine what you see is what you get
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 U.S. Government Executive Department U.S. Congress U.S. Army; • U.S. Navy.”
According to this official U.S. 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 or to achieve justice. There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.'
Oran's Dictionary of the Law
From Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of Fiction is found:
"A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent ‘John Doe’ off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain."
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 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 U.S. 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 report, 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.
Please go no further until you understand and comprehend exactly what the above paragraphs have stated. If necessary, re-read the above until you have a full understanding of what is involved in the meaning of a name spelled in all-capital letters.
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 you incur that debt? If so, how and when? Where is the contract of indebtedness you signed and your proof of default thereon?
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. At this point, this should be very clear to every reader.
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. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. Constitution. Was it created according to the lawful process or outside of lawful process?
Executive Orders and Directives
For years we 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 U.S. 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 world’s firepower, the motto of the Powers That Be is: “We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got.”
Legal-fiction "laws," such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were instituted by Lincoln soon thereafter and became the basis for the current "laws" in the US. Every purported "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 defined:
= 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 overreaching, invade the space and territory of others, covet other people’s land or property, steal the fruits of their labors, and attempt to succeed in life by win/lose games. All existing “authority” in the United States today derives exclusively from the War Powers. Truman’s re-affirmation 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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-law and cannot validly assert jurisdiction, authority, or demand for compliance from anyone. They are entirely “rules of rulership,” i.e. organized piracy, privilege, plunder, and enslavement, invented and enforced by those who would rule over others by legalized violence in the complete absence of moral authority, adequate knowledge, and natural-law mechanics to accomplish any results other than disruption, conflict, damage, and devastation. The established maxim of law applies:
Extra territorium just dicenti non paretur impune. One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory cannot be obeyed with impunity. 10 Co. 77; Dig. 2. 1. 20; Story, Confl. Laws § 539; Broom, Max. 100, 101.
Applying it all to Current "laws"
An established maxim of law states the importance of the name:
Ad recte docendum oportet, primum inquirere nomina, quia rerum cognitio a nominibus rerum dependet. In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names. Co. Litt. 68.
Title III, Pleadings and Motions, Rule 9(a) Capacity, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states, in pertinent part:
"When an issue is raised as to the legal existence of a named party, or the party's capacity to be sued, or the authority of a party to be sued, the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include supporting particulars."
In general, it is essential to identify parties to court actions properly. If the alleged parties to an action are not precisely identified, then who is involved with whom or what, and how? If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d, at Judgments:
"§ 100 Parties—A judgment should identify the parties for and against whom it is rendered, with such certainty that it may be readily enforced, and a judgment which does not do so may be regarded as void for uncertainty. Such identification may be achieved by naming the persons for and against whom the judgment is rendered. Technical deficiencies in the naming of the persons for and against whom judgment is rendered can be corrected if the parties are not prejudiced. A reference in a judgment to a party plainly liable, followed by an omission of that party's name from the language of the decree, at least gives rise to an ambiguity and calling for an inquiry into the court's real intention as reflected in the entire record and surrounding circumstances."
The present situation: A legal person = a legal fiction
One of the terms used predominantly by the present civil governments and courts in America is “legal person.” Just what is a legal person? Some definitions are:
[A] legal person: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and especially the capacity to sue and be sued. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996.
Person. I. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word).—Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999.
Person. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.--Duhaime's Law Dictionary.
PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
A corporation incorporated under de jure law, i.e. by bona fide express contract between real beings capable of contracting, is a legal fact. Using the juristic artifice of “presumption,” or “assumption” (a device known as a “legal fiction”), implied contract, constructive trusts, another entirely separate entity can be created using the name of the bona fide corporate legal fact (the name of the corporation) by altering the name of the corporation into some other corrupted format, such as ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS or abbreviated words in the name. The corporation exists in law, but has arbitrarily been assigned another NAME. No such corporation (legal fact), nor any valid law, nor even a valid legal fiction, can be created under the “law of necessity,” i.e. under “no law.” Likewise, the arbitrary use of the legal-fiction artifice of “right of presumption” (over unwary, uninformed, and usually blindly trusting people) can be legitimately exercised under “no law.” Anything whatsoever done under alleged authority of naked criminal aggression, i.e. law of necessity, can be rendered legitimate. Maxims of law describing “necessity” include:
• “Necessity has no law.” Plowd. 18, and 15 Vin. Abr. 534; 22 id. 540. • “In time of war laws are silent,” Cicero.
Non-existent law, the legal condition that universally prevails in the official systems of the world today, means that no lawful basis exists upon which anything can be created, or be made to transpire, upon which basis allegiance and obedience can be legitimately demanded. Acting under the law of necessity, i.e. lawlessness, allows complete and total right of everyone to disregard any and all alleged assertions of any lawful, verifiable, and legitimate jurisdiction over anything or anyone.
A person created under de jure law, with the person’s identifying name appearing as prescribed by law and according to the rules of English grammar, is a legal fact. A fictional “alter ego” version of that name, manufactured under the legal fiction of “right of presumption” for purposes of jurisprudence.
Legal or Lawful?
It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful. The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893:
Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal", a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. See legal. [Bold emphasis added]
Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual "Legal" looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and "Lawful" to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle."Legal" imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott's Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]
Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This may help you to understand why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., “STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.
Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land—the law of the people—and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.
Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:
Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.