From the June 2003 Idaho Observer:

Are we flesh and blood or a legal fiction?

Part 2: Legal Fiction

A debate regarding the relevance of our names as spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on government documents has been ongoing for some time. Does the ALL CAPS name indicate a citizenship status not described in the Constitution, or does government use an ALL CAPS representation of our names merely as a matter of style? In Part 1 of this three-part article (The IO, May, 2003) we discovered that there is no grammatical rule or style manual anywhere on Earth explaining government use of ALL CAP names. This month we will continue exploring this controversial topic by discussing whether or not the ALL CAP name government uses for us infers our status as a “legal fiction.”

The authors of The Real Life Dictionary of the Law, Gerald and Kathleen Hill, describe the term legal fiction:

“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.'”

From Oran's Dictionary of the Law, 1999, this definition of legal fiction is found:

“A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent “John Doe” off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain.”

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996, states:

“legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption.”

Is this the reason behind the use of full caps when writing a proper name? Are the U.S. and state governments deliberately using a legal fiction to “address” people? We say deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in full caps.

In the same respect, by identifying their own government entity in full caps, they are legally stating that they are also a legal fiction.

The assumption of a legal fiction

As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder, the use of full caps for writing a proper name is an “internal style” for what is apparently an undefined usage. Whether a proper name written in full caps is a legal fiction and can be substituted for a proper name, is the issue. If so, from where does this legal fiction originate and what enforces it?

In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption of purported fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It's 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. There is a difference between the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the first. Pretending and accepting without proof are similar, 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.”

Now, what happens if all the meanings for the word assume are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meaning of assume would be: The pretended acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt.

Therefore, if we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.

Use of the legal fiction JOHN SMITH in place of the proper name John Smith implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, it is considered valid. An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. This is in accord with the Uniform Commercial Code made a part of the statutes in each state. A legal fiction written with full caps - resembling a proper name but grammatically not a proper name - is being held as a debtor for an assumed debt.

What happens if the proper name, i.e. John Smith, answers for or assumes the legal fiction, i.e. JOHN SMITH? They become one and the same. This is the crux of the full caps legal fictions used by the U.S. government and the states. It is the way that they can bring someone into their fictional venue and jurisdiction that they have created. Why won't they use “The State of Texas” or “John Smith” in their courts or on driver's licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using legal fictions since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manuals state.

American Jurisprudence

In general, it's necessary to properly identify parties to court actions. If not properly identified, then 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.”

Federal Rules and Legal Fictions

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(a) Capacity, states:

“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.”

It appears that the existence of a name written with full caps is a legal fiction. Use of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement or correction. However, the current “courts” cannot correct this since they are based on fictional law and use fictional names. Instead, they expect the lawful man or woman to accept their full caps name and become a legal fiction, just as they are.

A Legal Person

One of the terms used predominantly by the present civil governments and courts in America is legal person. Just what is a legal person?

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 esp. the capacity to sue and be sued. -- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996.

Person. 1. 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.) -- 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. Many laws give certain powers to “persons” which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -- Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

A person is basically an entity; a legal fiction of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?

Legal or Lawful?

It's quite necessary to also define what is legal as opposed with what is lawful. 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. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. “Legal” looks more to the letter, and “Lawful” to the spirit, 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 of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of “equitable”, and the equivalent of “constructive”. 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24

Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules and are implied rather than actual. A legal process can be defective in law. This falls in line with our previous discussions of legal fictions and the color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules of law. This may help your understanding as to why the Federal and State Rules of Civil & Criminal Procedure are cited in every court petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the legal fictions, i.e., the 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 the Constitution has little bearing or authority in the present day “legal” courts. Legalism has taken over the law.

How debt is assumed by legal fictions

Since an assumption, by definition, implies debt, what debt does a legal fiction assume?

The government use of full caps in place of proper names is absolutely no mistake. It signifies an internal “legal” rule and authority. Its foundation is legal fiction and the result is further legal fiction that is created, promulgated, instituted, administrated, and enforced via legal rule, code, statute and policy. Let's just call them 'the laws that are but never were.'

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.

The Birth Certificate

Since the early 1960s, state governments created legal fictions signified by full caps with birth certificates to “persons” bearing legal fiction full caps names. It may look as if it's your proper name, but that's impossible since no proper name is ever written in full caps. The birth certificate is the government's legal instrument for its legal title to the personal legal fiction they have created just for you.

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 name of the child's fictional person, as signified in full caps, i.e. JAMES SMITH.

cer*tif*i*cate, noun. 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, who 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 full 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 legal person named on it in full caps has become a surety or guarantor.

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 independent contract with the obligee of the original contract. -- Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

It's not difficult to see that a state created birth certificate, written with full caps in the name of a legal person, is a document evidencing debt. This is how it works: Once each State has registered the birth certificates with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of the Treasury - also a part of the Executive Office - then issues treasury securities in the form of treasury bonds, notes, and bills using the birth certificates as sureties or guarantors for these purported Securities. This is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person. This means that the bankrupt corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of all Americans as collateral for payment. They simply do this by converting the lawful name into a legal person.

Legally, you are considered a slave or indentured servant to the various federal, state and local governments via your STATE issued and created birth certificate in the name of your full caps person. The reason this birth certificate was issued is so that they hold the title of birth to your legal person.

This is compounded further when one voluntarily obtains a driver's license or a Social Security Identification number. They own even your personal and private life through your STATE issued marriage certificate issued in the names of legal persons. You have no rights in birth, marriage, or even death. They hold the sovereign right to all legal fiction titles they have created under this “legal“ scheme.

Our current problem is that we have voluntarily agreed to their system of legal fiction by simply remaining silent - a legal default - and not taking claim to our own rights. The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no court hearing to determine if those rules are correct. Their “law” is self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, their “laws” automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed.

Cujusque rei potissima pars principium est -- The principal part of everything is in the beginning.

***

Next month: Part 3 will conclude this study of the relevance of government's ALL CAP name for us by discussing the legal foundations of citizenship as described in the Constitution and citizenship as it was altered upon ratification of the 14th Amendment.