True Name

[Shoonra]

I am not "Sparky".

Can you prove - not just imagine - that writing someone's name in all-cps works some sort of alchemy??

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I am not "Sparky".

Can you prove - not just imagine - that writing someone's name in all-cps works some sort of alchemy??

SUSSMAN BERNARD J

Is that your name Sparky?

Alchemy?

Imagine?

[Shoonra]

From that response, I take it that - despite your usual conversational ploy - you cannot prove your claim.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

From that response, I take it that - despite your usual conversational ploy - you cannot prove your claim.

There exist truths which cannot be proved.

My sense is that yes the spelling of the name does work some kind of alchemy to the financiers who run the world, but I don't think it's a very fruitful or useful path to follow in court.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra
From that response, I take it that - despite your usual conversational ploy - you cannot prove your claim.

Is that directed to me?

Is this your name Sparky?

SUSSMAN BERNARD J

What "claim" of "mine," specifically, are you talking about?

That "the law is an ass?"


So, is SUSSMAN, BERNARD J your name or not Sparky?

[Shoonra]

The claim that writing someone's name in all-caps has some legal effect.

I am not Sparky. The Sparky on the Militia Watchdog is, IIRC, the director, Mark Pitcavage.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The claim that writing someone's name in all-caps has some legal effect.

I am not Sparky. The Sparky on the Militia Watchdog is, IIRC, the director, Mark Pitcavage.

The connection I hear about is nihil obstat in the Catholic Encyclopedia. - But the older version and I have only the New Catholic Encyclopedia available to me here. Turns out the same in Denver at the main library. I found something from the '70s in Boulder and may be there soon, the reference librarian would not go look up the entry for me.

In the version attached, there is something about the last sentence that indicates to me the link between the captions in the link provided and the diminished status of people may be found in the older Catholic Encyclopedia.


Additionally, it seems to me that Shoonra has had time to research this out with the resources from his law librarian career. So anybody in Boulder with access to the UC library, or anyone with more motivation to research this than I have, get a look and we might find out if the Pope has engineered this nomenclature based on capitalization.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[ezrhythm]

TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

At T.A.C. 79.31(b) for Corporations, there is a requirement that entity names be in all CAPITAL LETTERS. "(b) Only upper case or capital letters with no distinction as to type face or font, will be recognized." http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/waltmak...alization.html

In "The State of Texas" there are 2 rules in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. They are rule 52. ALLEGING A CORPORATION, and rule 93. CERTAIN PLEAS TO BE VERIFIED. Rule 52 is straight forward about the corporation status.

TRCP 52. ALLEGING A CORPORATION "An allegation that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as true, unless denied by the affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or attorney, whether such corporation is a public or private corporation and however created."

Now we get to rule 93. This one is vague but interesting. In the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this rule is mentioned in the section on the "Motion to Abate", which is basically an old common law motion. I will reproduce the important parts with my comment in parentheses. - This rule takes up a whole page.

TRCP 93. CERTAIN PLEAS TO BE VERIFIED
"A pleading setting up any of the following matters, unless the truth of such matters appears of record, shall be verified by affidavit.
1. That the plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue or that the defendant has not the legal capacity to be sued. (Note: if you are not a corporation you would lack capacity, just for fun look up "civilly dead" or "civil death")
2. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in the capacity in which he sues, or that the defendant is not liable in the capacity in which he is sued.
(Note: Corporations, or members of a corporation as officers or employees of a corporation cannot sue a man who is of unlimited liability status.)
3. omitted [?]
4. That there is a defect of parties, plaintiff or defendant. (See Note in #2 above.)
5. omitted [?]
6. That any party alleged in any pleading to be a corporation is not incorporated as alleged. (See note in #2 above)"

Ok. You get the point. This rule goes on to talk about contracts without consideration. It also talks about insurance claims. These pleadings are basically denying "personam jurisdiction" and subject matter jurisdiction.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

At T.A.C. 79.31(b) for Corporations, there is a requirement that entity names be in all CAPITAL LETTERS. "(b) Only upper case or capital letters with no distinction as to type face or font, will be recognized." http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/waltmak...alization.html

You've cited an obsolete version of the rule. The current version of Rule 79.31(b) does not require all caps:

(b) No distinction as to type face or font in the presentation of an entity name will be recognized. Subscript or superscript characters cannot be entered into the computer records of the secretary of state; consequently, such characters will not appear above or below the other characters in the entity name. Example: H2 O will appear as H2O. The secretary of state however will recognize the use of either upper or lower case letters in the presentation of the entity name.

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tl oc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=1&pt=4&ch=79&rl=31

2. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in the capacity in which he sues, or that the defendant is not liable in the capacity in which he is sued.
(Note: Corporations, or members of a corporation as officers or employees of a corporation cannot sue a man who is of unlimited liability status.)

That's not what subsection 2 means. There's nothing in the law that prevents a corporation from suing and recovering judgment against an individual with unlimited liability status.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Is that addressed to me?

What, precisely, defines "some" "legal" "effect?"

What, precisely, defines "some legal effect?"

How, precisely is "some legal effect" authoritatively defined?

What, precisely, is your own definition?

Does it differ from any authoritative definition?

Did you make up the phrase?

Can you/will you precisely limit and define what you mean by "writing?"

After precisely, and authoritatively defining your terms, can you/will you show precisely where I have made the specific and particular claim "that writing someone's name in all-caps has some legal effect?"

How does "someone's" "name" "legally" derive?

What documents "someone's" "name?"

What, precisely is "someone's" "name?"

What is your NAME?

Is your name SUSSMAN BERNARD J?

So, Sparky, is your name SUSSMAN BERNARD J?

Simple: "is your name SUSSMAN BERNARD J?"

Are there not but two responsive answers to that query?

Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP
BERNARD J SUSSMAN JD MLS CP