MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON THE NAME

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. What English grammar experts say

2. What English grammar reference books say

2.1 Manual on Usage and Style

2.2 The Elements of Style
2.3 The American Heritage Book of English Usage
2.4 New Oxford Dictionary of English
2.5 U.S. Government Style Manual
2.6 Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization
2.7 Review's Manual on Usage and Style
2.8 Oran's Dictionary of the Law
2.9 Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law

3. Assumption of a Legal Fiction

4. The Legalities of All-Capital Letter Names
5. Executive Orders and Directives
6. Lincoln Established Executive Orders
7. The Abolition of the English and American Common Law
8. Applying it all to Current "laws"
9. Oklahoma Statutes
10. "Legal" Definition
11. American Jurisprudence
12. The Present Situation in America
13. Legal or Lawful?
14. Executive Orders Rule the Land
15. The Federal Registry is an Executive Function
16. How debt is assumed by legal fictions
17. The Birth Certificate
18. Duhaime's Law Dictionary
19. The various bankruptcies
20. All Caps Legal Person vs. the Lawful Being
21. Your Strawman is a "GOVERNMNENT AGENCY": See the Government's Own
Manual!

Related Articles:

 Proof That There Is a "Straw Man", Form #05.042 (OFFSITE LINK) - what the REAL
"Straw Man" is. Its not just an all caps name.
 Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002 (OFFSITE LINK) - Message to
those who intend to use this article to advance a common flawed argument we call
"U.C.C. Redemption"

Author: Gordon W. Epperly, Alaska

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?

1. 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.

2. What English grammar reference books say

2.1 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.

2.2 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.

2.3 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?

2.4 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.

2.5 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 ' 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, I 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 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 ' 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.

2.6 Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (NASA) has published one of the most
concise US 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 & 1c 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.

2.7 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."

2.8 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 tothe property when legal
title was uncertain."
2.9 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 fraction Fields vs. Fairbanks North Star
Borough, 818 P.2d658 (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.

3. 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 meanings 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.

4. 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?

5. 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."

6. 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 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 ruler ship 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 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 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."

7. 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-law and cannot validly assert jurisdiction, authority, or demand
for compliance from anyone. They are entirely "rules of ruler ship," 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]

8. 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
nominibusrerum 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/STATE 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."

[Rule 9(a), Federal/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure; Title 28 U.S.C. Appendix

(unstatutory; See statutory Title 1 U.S.C. ' 204 (Notes) )]

At this juncture, it is clear that the existence of a name written with all caps is a necessity-created
legal fiction. This is surely an issue to be raised and the supporting particulars are outlined within
this memorandum. Use of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement -
correction - for all parties of an action of purported "law." However, the current "courts" cannot
correct this since they are all based on presumed/assumed fictional law and must use artificial,
juristic names. Instead, they expect the lawful Christian man or woman to accept the all-caps name
and agree by silence to be treated as if he or she were a fictional entity invented and governed by
mortal enemies. They must go to unlimited lengths to deceive and coerce this compliance or the
underlying criminal farce would be exposed and a world-wide plunder/enslavement racket that has
held all of life on this planet in a vice grip for millennia would crumble and liberate every living
thing. At this point the would-be rulers of the world would be required to succeed in life by honest,
productive labors the way those upon whom they parasitically feed are forced to conduct their lives.

9. Oklahoma Statutes

Since the entire game functions on the basis of people's failure to properly rebut a rebuttable
presumption, the issue then becomes how to properly rebut their presumption that you are
knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily agreeing to be treated as if you were the all-caps name.
One angle of approach is found in the requirement for proper names to be identified in any legal
dispute. This includes a mandate to correct the legal paperwork involved when proper names are
provided. In regard to criminal prosecution this is clearly set forth in the Oklahoma Statutes,
Section 2885, O. S. 1931, 22 Okla. St. Ann. § 403:

"When a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and

in any stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it must be inserted in
the subsequent proceedings, referring to the fact of his being charged by the name
mentioned in the indictment or information."

10. "Legal" Definition

In fact, it would appear that the Oklahoma Statutes are saying that the use of a "fictitious name" in
either an indictment or information (prosecutorial) that such use is forgivable upon after the fact
correction. Unfortunately, that is not the case when held to "legal" definition.

"Fictitious name."
"A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in
some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and
patronymic [surname]), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead."

[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]

The use of, by implication, mistake, or otherwise, of fictitious names within any lawful and even
"legal" document renders said document/instrument fatally flawed for simple fraud. And, since no
Private Citizen can be held accountable for the same crime twice, by guarantee, then if initially one
is charged in the wrong name, and that mistaken identity at any stage of the proceeding renders the
present proceeding null, void, and dismissed. This renders the above "statute" also null, void, and
never written, for this fatal error cannot be corrected and one must, secondly, face the same charges.
Mistaken Identity cannot be used as a correctable error merely because one cannot be charged twice
for the same cause, even if the first charged was mistaken.

But that is not the limit of "legal" definition of "fictitious" use of names. It is much more serious to
use a fictitious name as a "plaintiff":

"Fictitious plaintiff."
"A person appearing in the writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but
who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his
name in it.'
"It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624.]

Obviously, any action in which both and/or all parties are fictitious is a "fictitious action" and it is
"legally" defined as such:

"Fictitious action."

"An action brought for the sole purpose of obtaining the opinion of the court on a
point of law, not for the settlement of any actual controversy between the parties."

[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]

These three "legal" definitions have now led us to one final definition that defines any and all such
"fictitious actions":

"Fictitious."

"Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit.'

"Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent.'

"Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object."

[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]

It does not take a Rocket Scientist to figure out many of these "ulterior objects"; constitutional
abrogation, tyranny, despotism, false personation, embezzlement of the Public Money, banking
fraud, commercial fraud, identity theft, neglect of office, malfeasance, misfeasance, and
nonfeasance of office, piracy, privateering, kidnapping, false imprisonment, ransoming,
constitutional malpractice, maritime fraud, military fraud, trademark infringement/counterfeiting,
anti-Christian acts, securities fraud, communism, fascism, Alien Enemy Program, etc. The list is
almost endless.

It appears, thus far, that "legal" definition of these fictitious/legal fiction/imaginary/etc.

assumptive/presumptive has far and away been the most damaging references used to the cause and
case of the tyrants and despots that are so prevalent.

11. American Jurisprudence

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." [Footnote numbers and cites are omitted.]

12. The present situation in America

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.] 8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic. -
 Blackstone. [Webster's 1828 Dictionary]

"...a Sovereign is not a "person" [United Mine Workers vs. United States, 330 U.S.
258 (1947)]

"A name is word or words used to distinguish and identify a person." [Name, 65
C.J.S. ' 1, pg. 1]

"Person. It may include [limited to] artificial beings, as corporations ...territorial

corporations ... foreign corporations ... relating to taxation and revenue laws ... XIV
Amendment "persons" ... A county ... a slave ... estate of a decedent ... a judge
holding court ... an infant [Ward of the Court] ... officers, partnerships, and women
...participants in the forbidden acts ["defendants" & "plaintiffs"] ... agents, officers,
and members of the board of directors or trustees, or their controlling bodies, of
corporations ... the legal subject [subject-matter] or substance [rem; res] ..."
[Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., pg. 2574]

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. Anyone acting against anyone under such non-law is self-confessing to be a naked criminal
aggressor, and con man who has forfeited all credibility and right to demand allegiance, obedience,
or compliance with any jurisdiction he might assert. If you, as a real being, are in real law and it is
impossible for an attorney or judge to recognize or access it, you are not (and cannot be made
subject to by them) in their jurisdiction. The crucial issue is then how to notice them of your
position and standing.

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 corrupted "alter ego" version
of that name, manufactured under the legal fiction of "right of presumption" will have "credibility"
only so long as the presumption remains unchallenged. The rule of the world is that anything and
everything skates unless you bust it.
13. 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."

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
act full in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of
equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. [2 Abbott's Law Dictionary 24]

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 have to follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This is 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 U.S.C.
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, 5th ed., Pg. 241]

14. Executive Orders rule the land

The current situation is that legalism has usurped and engulfed the law. The administration of legal
rules, codes, and statutes now prevail instead of actual law. This takes place on a Federal as well as
State level. Government administrates what it has created through its own purported "laws," which
are not lawful, but merely "legal." They are arbitrary constructs existing only because of the actions
of people acting on fictitious (self-created) authority, i.e. no authority; they are authorized and
enforced by legal Executive Orders. Executive Orders are not lawful and never have been. As you
read the following, be aware of the words "code" and "administration."

Looking at the United States Census 2000 reveals that the legal authority for this census comes
from "Office of Management and Budget" (0MB) Approval No. 0607-0856. The 0MB is a part of
the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible
for implementing the national census, which is a division of the "Economics and Statistics
Administration" of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The USDOC is a department of
the Executive Branch. Obviously, Census 2000 is authorized, carried out, controlled, enforced and
implemented by the President - the Executive Branch of the Federal Government - functioning as it
has been since 1861, in the lawless realm of necessity (which is now even more degenerate than
when it commenced under Lincoln).

In fact, the Executive Office of the President controls the entire nation through various departments
and agencies effecting justice, communications, health, energy, transportation, education, defense,
treasury, labor, agriculture, mails, and much more, through a myriad of Executive Orders,
Proclamations, Policies, and Decisions.

Every US President since Lincoln has claimed his 'authority' for these Executive Orders on Article
II, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America (1764 to Date):

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of
the United States; ... He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and
all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law
vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President
alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

In reality, the Congress is completely by-passed. Since the Senate was convened in April, 1861 by
Presidential Executive Order No. 2, (not by lawful constitutional due process), there is no United
States Congress. The current "Senate" and "House" are, like everything, "colorable" ("color of
Senate") under the direct authority of the Executive Office of the President. The President legally
needs neither the consent nor a vote from the Senate simply because the Senate's legal authority to
meet exists only by Executive Order. Ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, Federal judges, and
all officers of the UNITED STATES are appointed by, and under authority of, the Executive Office
of the President.

15. The Federal Registry is an Executive function

The first official act of every incoming President is to re-affirm the War Powers. He must do so, or
he is devoid of power to function in office. The War Powers are set forth in the Trading With The
Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (The Banking Relief
Act). In the Amendatory Act, every citizen of the United States was made an enemy of the
Government, i.e. the Federal Reserve/IMF, et al, Creditors in bankruptcy who have conquered the
country by their great paper-money banking swindle.

For the past 65 years, every Presidential Executive Order has become purported "law" simply by its
publication in the Federal Register, which is operated by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).
In 1935, the OFR was established by the Federal Register Act. The purported authority for the OFR
is found within the United States Code, Title 44, at Chapter 15:

"' 1506. Administrative Committee of the Federal Register; establishment and

composition; powers and duties

The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register shall consist of the Archivist
of the United States or Acting Archivist, who shall be chairman, an officer of the
Department of Justice designated by the Attorney General, and the Public Printer
or Acting Public Printer. The Director of the Federal Register shall act as secretary
of the committee. The committee shall prescribe, with the approval of the President,
regulations for carrying out this chapter."

Notice that the entire Administrative Committee of the Federal Register is comprised of officers of
the Federal Government. Who appoints all Federal officers? The President does. This "act" also
gives the President the authority to decree all the regulations to carry out the act. By this monopoly
the Executive establishes, controls, regulates, and enforces the Federal Government without need
for any approval from the Senate or anyone else (other than his undisclosed superiors). He operates
without any accountability to the people at all. How can this be considered lawful?

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson couldn't persuade Congress to agree with his desire to arm
United States vessels traversing hostile German waters before the United States entered World War
I, so Wilson simply invoked the "policy" through a Presidential Executive Order. President Franklin
D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941 forcing 100,000 Americans of
Japanese descent to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps while all their property was
confiscated. Is it any wonder that the Congress, which the President "legally" controls, did not
impeach President William Jefferson Clinton when the evidence for impeachment was
overwhelming? On that note, why is it that Attorney-Presidents have used Executive Orders the
most? Who, but an attorney, would know and understand legal rules the best. Sadly, they enforce
what's "legal" and ignore what's lawful. In fact, they have no access to what is lawful since the
entirety of their "authority," which is ethically and existentially specious, derives from the War
Powers.

16. How debt is assumed by legal fictions

We now refer back to the matter of assumption, as already discussed, with its relationship to
arbitrarily created juristic persons, e.g. "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" or "JOHN P JONES." Since an
assumption, by definition, implies debt, what debt does a legal fiction assume? Now that we have
explored the legal - executive - basis of the current Federal and State governments, it's time to put
all this together.

The government use of all caps in place of proper names is absolutely no mistake. It signifies an
internal ("legal") rule and authority. Its foundation is pure artifice and the results have compounded
into more deceit in the form of created, promulgated, instituted, administered, and enforced rules,
codes, statutes, and policy - i.e. "the laws that appear to be but are not, never were, and never can
be."

"Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who enjoys the benefit, ought also
to bear the burden. He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying
disadvantage - a privilege is subject to its condition or conditions." [Bouvier's
Maxims of Law (1856)]

17. The Birth Certificate

Since the early 1960's, State governments - themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons
signified by all caps - have issued Birth Certificates to "persons" with legal fiction all-caps names.
This is not a lawful record of your physical birth, but rather the birth of the juristic, all-caps name. It
may appear to be your true name, but since no proper name is ever written in all caps (either
lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify who you are. The Birth Certificate is the
government's self-created document of title for its new "property," i.e. the deed to the juristic-name
artificial person whose all-caps name "mirrors" your true name. The Birth Certificate brings the
new all-caps name into colorable admiralty/maritime law, the same way a ship (and ship of state) is
berthed.

One important area to address, before going any further, is the governmental use of older data
storage from the late 1950's until the early 1980's. As a "left over" from various teletype-oriented
systems, many government data storage methods used all caps for proper names. The IRS was
supposedly still complaining about some of their antiquated storage systems as recent as the early
1980's. At first, this may have been a necessity of the technology at the time, not a deliberate act.
Perhaps, when this technology was first being used and implemented into the mainstream of
communications, some legal experts saw it as a perfect tool for their perfidious intentions. What
better excuse could there be?

However, since local, State, and Federal offices primarily used typewriters during that same time
period, and Birth Certificates and other important documents, such as driver's licenses, were
produced with typewriters, it's very doubtful that this poses much of an excuse to explain all-caps
usage for proper names. The only reasonable usage of the older databank all-caps storage systems
would have been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in bulk, including payment checks,
which the governments did frequently.

Automated computer systems, with daisy-wheel and pin printers used prevalently in the early
1980's, emulated the IBM electric typewriter Courier or Helvetica fonts in both upper and lower
case letters. Shortly thereafter, the introduction of laser and ink-jet printers with multiple fonts
became the standard. For the past fifteen years, there is no excuse that the government computers
will not accommodate the use of lower case letters unless the older data is still stored in its original
form, i.e. all caps, and has not been translated due to the costs of re-entry. But this does not excuse
the entry of new data, only "legacy" data. In fact, on many government forms today, proper names
are in all caps while other areas of the same computer produced document are in both upper and
lower case. One can only conclude that now, more than ever, the use of all caps in substitution the
writing a proper name is no mistake.

When a child is born, the hospital sends the original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the
"State Bureau of Vital Statistics," sometimes called the "Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services" (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES with birth, death, and
health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then
issues a Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the baby's true name, i.e. JAMES
WILBER SMITH.

cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificate, from Middle French, from Medieval
Latin ceruficatum. from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of
certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3: a document evidencing ownership or debt.
[Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998)]

The Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce -
- the Executive Office -- specifically through their own sub-agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, which
is responsible to register vital statistics from all the States. The word "registered," as it is used
within commercial or legal based equity law, does not mean that the all-caps name was merely
noted in a book for reference purposes. When a Birth Certificate is registered with the U.S.
Department of Commerce, it means that the all-caps legal person named thereon has become a
surety or guarantor, a condition and obligation that is automatically and unwittingly assumed unless
you rebut the presumption by effectively noticing them: "It ain't me."

registered. Security, bond. -- [Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996)]

Security. I a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to make

certain the fulfillment of an obligation. Example: used his property as security for a
loan. lb: "surety." 2: Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to
ownership. -- Ibid.

Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person undertakes to

perform a certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract). ... with the condition
that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the person ... to pay a sum of money
or will result in the forfeiture of money put up by the person or surety. 1b: One who
acts as a surety. 2: An interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt issued
by a government body or corporation that is sometimes secured by a lien on
property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need. -- Ibid.

Surety. The person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a
certain action if the principal to a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the
original contract. [Duhaime's Law Dictionary]

1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking.

2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of another.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety includes a guarantor, and
the two terms are generally interchangeable.
[Merriam Webster's "Dictionary of Law" (1996)]

Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of another, but
separately, as part of an independently contract with the obligee of the original
contract. [Duhaime's Law Dictionary]

18. Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

It is not difficult to see that a state-created Birth Certificate, with an all-caps, name is a document
evidencing debt the moment it is issued. Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S.
Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan
from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a "purchase
money security interest" in the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the sale
proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury securities in
the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new "securities."
This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person whose name appears on the Birth
Certificate. This also means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of
their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every "citizen of the United States"/American
with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the
lawful, true name of the child into a legal, juristic name of a person.

Dubuque rei potissinia pars prineipium est

The principal part of everything is in the beginning. ("Well begun is half done.")

Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal, State and
local governments via your STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the name of
your all-caps person.

Birth Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim "exclusive" title to the legal person created
thereby. This is further compounded when one voluntarily obtains a Driver's License or a Social
Security Account Number. The state even owns your personal and private life through your
STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps names. You have no rights in birth,
marriage, or even death. The state holds title to all legal persons the state creates via Birth
Certificates until the rightful owner, i.e. you, reclaims/redeems it by becoming the holder in due
course of the instrument.

The main problem is that the mother and father, and then the eighteen-year-old man or woman,
voluntarily agreed to this contrived system of plunder and slavery by remaining silent - a legal
default, latches, and failing to claim one's own Rights. The maxim of law becomes crucially
operative: "He who fails to assert his rights has none."

The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no court hearing to determine if those rules
are correct. Government rules are self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, such
"laws" automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed.

19. The various bankruptcies

The legal person known as the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally
mandated silver or gold - gold coin or bullion - with which to back any currency. All private held
and federally held gold coins and bullion in America was seized via Executive Order of April 5,
1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Corporation under the terms of the
bankruptcy.

Congress - still convening strictly under Executive Order authority - confirmed the bankruptcy
through the Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5,
1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Public Law 73-
10. This 1933 public law states, in part:

"... every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which
purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of
 coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby,
is declared to be against public policy."

The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was
appointed "Receiver" for the bankrupt U.S. in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public
Law 94-564, "Legislative History," page 5967.

Since 1933, the only "assets" used by the UNITED STATES to "pay its debt" to the Fed have been
the blood, sweat, and tears of every American unfortunate to be saddled with a Birth Certificate and
a Social Security Account Number (the U.S. Government must conceal this fact from the American
people at all cost). Their future labor and tax revenues have been "legally" pledged via the new all-
caps, juristic-person names appearing on the Birth Certificates, i.e. the securities used as collateral
for loans of credit (thin-air belief) to pay daily operational costs, re-organization expenses in
bankruptcy, insurance policy premiums required to float the bankrupt government, and interest on
the ever-increasing, wholly fraudulent, debt.

20. All Caps Legal Person vs. The Lawful Being

Just who or what is the all-caps person, i.e. "JOHN PAUL JONES," "JOHN P JONES," or some
other all capital letter corruption thereof? It is the entity the government created to take the place of
the real being, i.e. John Paul Jones. The lawful Christian name of birthright has been replaced with
a legal corporate name of deceit and fraud. If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person,
the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being distinguishes
himself/herself as a party other than the legal fiction, the two are separated.

A result of the federal bankruptcy was the creation of the "UNITED STATES," which was made a
part of the legal reorganization. The name of each STATE was also converted to its respective, all-
caps legal person, e.g. STATE OF DELAWARE. These new legal persons were then used to create
more legal persons, such as corporations, with all-capital letters names, as well. Once this was
accomplished, the con began to pick up speed. All areas of government and all alleged "courts of
law," are de facto, "color of law and right" institutions. The "CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE
COUNTY" and the "U.S. DISTRICT COURT" can recognize and deal only with other legal
persons. This is why a lawful name is never entered in their records. The all-caps legal person is
used instead. Jurisdiction in such sham courts covers only other artificial persons.

The proper jurisdiction for a lawful being is a Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue

court. Unfortunately, such jurisdiction was "shelved" in 1938 and is no longer available. The only
courts today are statutory commercial tribunals collecting tribute (plunder) from the alleged
Creditors who think they have conquered the country on their way to ruling the world.

21. Your Strawman is a "GOVERNMENT AGENCY": See the Evidence From the
Government's Own manual!!

See the “U.S. Government Styles Manual” for the evidence in section on “ABBREVIATIONS
AND LETTER SYMBOLS” at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/styleman/2000/pdf/chap09.pdf

This section states (emphasis added):

9.8. Except as otherwise designated, points and spaces are omitted after initials used as shortened
names of governmental agencies and of other organized bodies. ``Other organized bodies'' shall be
interpreted to mean organized bodies that have become popularly identified with a symbol, such as
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), GM (General Motors), GMAC (General Motors
Acceptance Corp.), etc. (See ``List of Abbreviations.'') Symbols, when they appear in copy, may be
used for acts of Congress. Example: ARA (Area Redevelopment Act).

VFW
NLRB
TVA
AFL-CIO
ARC
ASTM

Now do you see the trick?

The “governmental agency” for “John-Jay:Jones” is: “JOHN JAY JONES”.

There is no conspiracy about this -- it is just “hidden” in plain sight!!!

Chapter 11 deals with "Italics" and in 11.7 mentions that "Vessels" are in "other than lowercase
roman". An "Vessel" is defined in 18 USC 9 as "… any citizen thereof or any corporation created
by or under the laws of the United States or any State or Territory or district or possession." See
links below:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/styleman/2000/pdf/chap11.pdf

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/9.html