All Capital Spellings

[David Merrill]

There is a lot of confusion about the all upper case traditions. There is certainly some credibility to it being an encryption - redaction to cipher:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...taphysique.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...athematica.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...thematical.jpg
Metaphysics required for law link

However without relation to identity one seems to fumble around indefinitely with the model. Ndusa utilizes a mathematics so simple I admire it. He (or she) adds up direct experience and looks at a percentage success rate. I do that too.

Here is another factor:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Definition.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Name_legal,jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ble_family.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Dictionary.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...common_law.jpg

The full or legal name is when one takes their true name (first and middle) and attaches it to the family or surname. In that action one adopts a new name. The creation of the new name implies a metaphysical creation in addition to the original one Mom and Dad gave the child - an artificial entity with standing in judicio. A good book about this is Legal Identity - The Coming of Age of Public Law by Joseph Vining. (Page 22 attached)

The contractual nexus, or general social compact (trust) is found in the birth certificate registering the child in commerce.* The all upper case name is generated there by convention and aside from the argument that the UCC says to make things conspicuous like a STOP sign, really holds little sway, that a cash register will spit your full or legal name out in all upper case. It will spit out your true name that way too "DAVID MERRILL".

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...tification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ification3.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ification4.jpg

The application of abatement for misnomer is proper and as an attorney I am surprised to hear you would even apply it being an officer of the court. So you are probably non-Bar counsel who has managed around accusations of Unauthorized Practice of Law like myself. But like you observed the legal or full name will function in judicio whether all upper case lettering or not.

Once the truth about names be known it is obvious from the first line of the birth certificate above. My name is David Merrill. My parents did not name me "Van Pelt" or append that to my name. That is tradition to impart the family name with the given or Christian name. But you can read my parents' true names on the next line expressed properly separate from the family name my mother adopted in marriage.

That is not my birth certificate by the way. I do not have a birth certificate. Without a birth certificate I cannot get Government-Issued ID cards and it is impossible for me to prove I am chattel of the State. If I correct all the presumptions of a legal or full name on any papers ([birth certificate] bond agreements) then the abatement for misnomer will hold. The court system will not amend David Merrill Van Pelt or DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT to my true name, David Merrill. There is no suppositional wagering scheme going on me, the man. Only the hypothecation, hope, that I would never learn who I really am so that I would like most people, continue to support the artificial entity in commerce as though that were me.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* This hypothecation, investors floating bonds upon the hopes and chances the child will be successful is the primary meaning in the etymology of "futures".

[Ice]

David,

You and I both know that no one here would use the "ALL CAPS" spelling of their name as an actual "defense" to, or in support of, a cause of action.

The incorrect spelling would be mentioned and requested to be corrected... but it wouldn't be a point considered as worthy of more than that.

For purposes of the gist of this thread, please correct my above ascertain if it be wrong... would you, personally, actually use the "ALL CAPS" spelling as a "defense" to, or in support of, a cause of action? Or would you just have the error corrected?

Ice

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Ice

David,

You and I both know that no one here would use the "ALL CAPS" spelling of their name as an actual "defense" to, or in support of, a cause of action.

The incorrect spelling would be mentioned and requested to be corrected... but it wouldn't be a point considered as worthy of more than that.

For purposes of the gist of this thread, please correct my above ascertain if it be wrong... would you, personally, actually use the "ALL CAPS" spelling as a "defense" to, or in support of, a cause of action? Or would you just have the error corrected?

Ice

It seems that for all my writing in context of Ndusa's experience I failed to make my point clear.

Clearly require the court to correct the name from David Merrill Van Pelt a/k/a David Merrill to my name David Merrill. I agree with you both (I think) that asking them to correct the name from DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT to David Merrill Van Pelt may work but it will not abate the misnomer [Article Idem Sonins (identical sounding names)] and therefore the nuisance of a cause against the man named David Merrill.

The objective is to withdraw the man from the hypothecation of the birth certificate as a suppositional wagering scheme on a bank note.

For purposes of the gist of this thread, please correct my above ascertain if it be wrong...

I think that is what you did; you gisted exclusively from the beginning of my post and did not read the entire thing carefully.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

It seems that for all my writing in context of Ndusa's experience I failed to make my point clear.

Clearly require the court to correct the name from David Merrill Van Pelt a/k/a David Merrill to my name David Merrill. I agree with you both (I think) that asking them to correct the name from DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT to David Merrill Van Pelt may work but it will not abate the misnomer [Article Idem Sonins (identical sounding names)] and therefore the nuisance of a cause against the man named David Merrill.

The objective is to withdraw the man from the hypothecation of the birth certificate as a suppositional wagering scheme on a bank note.



I think that is what you did; you gisted exclusively from the beginning of my post and did not read the entire thing carefully.


Regards,

David Merrill.

David,

I meant the gist of this THREAD... not your post. The gist of this thread seems to be using the ALL CAPS spelling as a "defense" in a court action, and how that is in error.

You and I seem to be at agreement about having the error corrected.

It is my contention that ndusa has a belief that maybe the members here are endorsing the use of ALL CAPS spelling as a defense and has come here to attempt to enlighten those on the subject by pasting some info... and disrespecting the name of a patriot group and charging that folks don't research these issues for themself (they just accept it cuz someone said it) in the process.

I will say this: I have never seen any court actually "amend" the paperwork... but I do believe there was one case spoken of in here in which the court took "notice" of the error... at least, I think that was mentioned in this forum... somewhere.

But, as is demonstrated in your post, I believe he has opportunity to learn much more in regards the issue of ALL CAPS than what knowledge he may currently hold on the subject. And I only say that because he has only spoke of the issue mostly as it relates to court actions and the usual excuses as to why ALL CAPS are used with such frequency by those government agencies.

By the way, whenever I am sent documents from the Fed. Courts... they always have a paper with my name spelled in upper / lower case in the address window. I guess this to be because they do not want me to "refuse it for cause." ROFLMAO.

But thanks for pointing out that, yes, you did seek to have the error corrected.

Ice

[David Merrill]

I will say this: I have never seen any court actually "amend" the paperwork... but I do believe there was one case spoken of in here in which the court took "notice" of the error... at least, I think that was mentioned in this forum... somewhere.

Same here but if Ndusa is an active attorney then the distinctions between the NOM DE GUERRE and the Legal Name are rendered moot. Because the client is already fully attorned.

It is very difficult to master the distinctions between trust and legal name in any useful way. But if these folks are going to an attorney, then the point is moot. It is simply one attorney (in a black robe) honoring another attorney's request to appease a silly distinction made in error by the client.

For instance look carefully at the exchange instructions recently attached to the IBOE:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/genera...rocessing.html

The Living Man, at the bottom is the holder in due course for funds attributed by floating bonds against the birth certificate in the form FIRST MIDDLE LAST - the trust. If the bank does not Refuse for Cause timely, like the first bank did (see the rejection slip attached) then it gets stuck with it. Therefore it may as well follow through and collect according to the instructions, because if it does not collect, it is waiving the debt incurred by accepting the IBOE.*

So there is some merit about the all upper case lettering name. I doubt many Posters here at suijuris believe that can be argued to abate a traffic case for misnomer - we agree there.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* Here the transfer occurs instantaneously with the novation.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ovation_ER.jpg

I even offered to instruct the administrator how to draft a Comptroller Warrant. So what? Is the bank going to hope Henry M. Paulson, Jr. (recently replaced Secretary John Snow) will send them a bunch of paper? More than likely Henry would tell them, if they tried to collect, "Debit the account there on your books. Don't waste the Treasury's time and resources asking us to debit it and send the FRNs to you. You are the ones who held onto the instrument for more than 72 hours."

[Shoonra]

The only comment I would make to the essay at the beginning of this thread is about the Bluebook. It is now up to the 19th edition (a revision every five years - whether they need one or not), and it is not universal. It was intended, and is mostly applicable, for the preparation of articles in law reviews. Some of its instructions made no sense until typewriters were replaced by word processors (so that italics, small caps, etc. became possible).

Many state and federal courts make some reference to the Bluebook in their rules - but there are changes (mostly for the sake of change, every batch of editors of the Harvard Law Review must get their oar in) in each edition and judges don't seem to notice or care if the lawyer is using the style of the current edition or any other edition in the last 30 years. At least one state, California, uses a different style manual - the Yellow Book, and the University of Chicago Law School published the Maroon Book about 20 years ago and it got limited acceptance. About 5 years ago the Assn of Legal Writing Directors (IIRC) published their own competing manual, the Green Book. The US Supreme Court, oddly enough, doesn't have any style manual; each Justice sets his own style for his own staff and his own decisions (therefore some Justices - Frankfurter was one - will refer to pre-1880 Supreme Court decisions only by the name of the reporter and not by a US volume number, and others will use the US number).

The Bluebook suggests editorial style but it is not law and using italics, small caps, all-caps, etc., in way different from the Bluebook might be red-lined by an editor or a very anal judge but it wouldn't have a legal effect on anything.

The instruction about using all-caps for the names of individuals, especially the parties in a lawsuit, on legal and official papers is found in several different guidebooks for legal secretaries and typists. It certainly isn't official. Some court rules want the names of parties in all-caps for the heading of pleadings and maybe even in the body of the document -- and without regard as to whether the parties are human, corporate, or something else, just so long as they are parties to the court case.

Part of the explanation was given in the Jaeger decision. Going back to before typewriters, court papers and such were, naturally, handwritten; the scriveners and clerks who did this were usually trained in some consistent style of handwriting which, I suppose, minimized writer's cramp -- there were several such styles, with names like Chancery, Exchequer, Civil Service, etc. They tended to be tight forms of cursive lettering which required some experience to read easily. To make it much easier - especially in an age when many people had limited literacy - to distinguish the different documents and tell which papers related to what case, the names of principals were put in block letters.

When typewriters replaced handwritten court papers, this practice was perpetuated in the form of all-caps. (The only alternative in the manual typewriter was to underline -- which tended to cut into the paper and especially into the carbon paper used to make copies). This style was carried over into the age of word processing. But putting a name into all-caps works no alchemy in changing the party so named.

You will not find a law or a court decision to the effect that typing a name in all-caps works any such alchemy.

[David Merrill]

Of all my evidence to support my ideas about name, I find this one the most entertaining. The chief judge sent an extra mailing to notify the man, in addition to notifying the person. Attached:

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by Ice

I will say this: I have never seen any court actually "amend" the paperwork... but I do believe there was one case spoken of in here in which the court took "notice" of the error... at least, I think that was mentioned in this forum... somewhere.
Ice

Of course you have never seen the Court amend anything, it can't. But the parties can and do all the time. I've done it, an example was when I didn't know who the doctor was, so I put Doctor "John Doe" lol. Of course I amended it, once I knew who the doctor was . The reason I put in on there, was I was limited on time to file my complaint, and didn't want to leave it out.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Of all my evidence to support my ideas about name, I find this one the most entertaining. The chief judge sent an extra mailing to notify the man, in addition to notifying the person. Attached:

Without Prejudice.
Interestingly enough, some government agencies are known to send letters with one portion in ALL CAPS the other in 'normal form'. The suggestion is that the ALL CAPS portion is a message (perhaps directive) to the corporation. The lower case is a message to the alleged fiduciary.

Incoming military commands coming in over the likes of radioteletype or the like tend to be in ALL CAPS.

A study at Austin State University suggests that all caps slows reading time compared to mixed case.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Ice

For purposes of the gist of this thread, please correct my above ascertain if it be wrong... would you, personally, actually use the "ALL CAPS" spelling as a "defense" to, or in support of, a cause of action? Or would you just have the error corrected?

First the Upper Case name is notice. It is notice that you are in an administrative tribunal. This leads to automatic fact that there is no Judicial participation. This court proceeds summarily and in special proceedings. Special proceedings are not actions. So no, you never would use the name defense to defend against an action, it is used only in special proceedings which are not actions. If a court proceeds against you without judicial process then they are enforcing a bill of attainder. Bills of attainder cannot be used to punish an individual person. Seperation of powers is implemented through the "no bills of attainder" clause. Since the tribunal cannot prossecute an individual private person they must say that the notice was obviou and you went along with it. You can say all day long that it is not your name, and you would be correct. It is not a buisness or a trust nor a misnomer. When you accept it by responding to it you have accepted the notice,,, much like how David Merrill goes off about the PRA notice. Notice was given and accepted. Now that they have noticed you it is realy not that bad in their eyes, to proceed with summary proceedure. A tribunal cannot inflict punishment on an individual (please read my Nature of courts threads and the postings I placed in the Admiralty thread. So what is the uppercase name, It is noticing you that if you are indeed an individual you have a clear way out. That name notices me that I am going to be tried with out individual rights, I am going to object. There is no error, they are trying to get you to admit you were in the public service or a public corporation, because no attainder clause applies to private groups as well.