Notes About Deceptive All Capitals Names


J

Jimmy

Notes About Deceptive All Capitals Names

What follows is a letter to the (Oregon) State Registrar of Vital
Statistics. It appears to be a request for a particular directive,
issued by the State Registrar to the various county registrars who
prepare birth certificates. Don't be fooled by the appearances. The
real purpose of the letter is for use as a forum to expose a vital
truth about how men, women and children are legally converted into
mere things; HUMAN RESOURCES and raw materials for exploitation to
profit a relatively few beneficiaries of a perverted government
monopoly. Whether or not the State Registrar fills my request is not
important. It won't change the facts revealed in the letter. (I seldom
ask questions of a bureaucrat when I don't know the answers in
advance)!
After the letter you will find reproductions of relevant parts of two
different birth certificates: one issued in Ohio after the birth of my
son, David, and the other issued in Oregon after the birth of my
grandson, Andrew. They will help the reader visualize the fact that
the "curious practice of mixing real names with fictitious names" is
not unique to Oregon. As nearly as I can determine, it is practiced by
preparers of birth certificates in all states. And it has been going
on for at least 16 years - nationwide. Knowing that, you will also
realize that the source of the command for such a "curious practice"
is at the national, or even the international, level. The practice is
systemic. [Editor; You can receive copies of the birth certificates
from author James Hazel.]
One other thing that is not made perfectly clear in the following
letter is the fact that the "names" of "artificial persons," such as
corporations and "assumed business names," are written in all
UPPERCASE letters. Since they are fictional or fictitious "things,"
they require fictitious names. Don't confuse a fictitious name with an
alias (alias dictus).
"Alias" is when one is known by two or more different names. The term
refers only to natural persons, not to artificial "persons." A natural
person may be known by as many names as he chooses, for any lawful
reason - or for no reason. For example: so long as he doesn't use
different names with the intention to commit fraud, "James Smith" may
lawfully also be known as "John Jones." An alias, being a name of a
natural person, is always capitalized.
To the contrary, "a fictitious name is a counterfeit, feigned or
pretended name taken by a person, differing in some particular from
his true name, with the implication that it is meant to deceive and
mislead" (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition).
A fictitious name may be assumed by a natural person. But the "name"
of an artificial "person" is ALWAYS a fictitious name, and every
attorney will acknowledge that the names of artificial "persons" are
always fictitious names.
Real names are always capitalized, that is, the first letter of the
name is capitalized, and the subsequent letters are written in
lowercase. Fictitious names are generally written in all uppercase
letters, so they can be distinguished from real names. It's common for
typists to improperly write fictitious names in the same "style" as
real names. Sometimes the error is driven by the writer's ignorance,
but often it is motivated by an intent to deceive.
The real name of our friend, John Smith is written (you guessed it!)
"John Smith." "JOHN SMITH" on the other hand, is a fictitious name by
virtue of the fact that it doesn't conform to the rule of grammar
which requires capitalization of names. Except for absence of
capitalization, it is spelled like our friend's name, and it sounds
the same when spoken orally. But it's not the name for John Smith. The
"name" is fictitious in and of itself, since it is not a real name.
If John Smith were to examine the driver license in his wallet, and
the Social Security card he holds, his old military I.D., and every
card, check and statement related to his banking, he would discover
that none of them are in his name. They all concern fictitious names!
If that doesn't alarm John - wait until he learns that his children
and grandchildren: those natural, beautiful flesh, blood and spirit
fruits of his loins - bear fictitious names of THINGS; or "artificial
persons!"
James Hazel
P.O. Box 863
Mount Angel OR 97362
December 11, 1995
Edward Johnson II,
State Registrar of Vital Statistics
P.O. Box 14050
Portland OR 97214-0050
Re: Forms for entries of names on birth certificates: REQUEST FOR COPY
OF DIRECTIVE
Dear Registrar Johnson:

It recently came to my attention, while examining the birth
certificate issued pursuant to the birth of my grandson (copy enclosed
for your reference) that the data entered in the box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME" is inconsistent. The "First and Middle" given, Christian
names are properly capitalized in conformance with the rule of English
grammar which governs the writing of names; i.e. "Names are always
capitalized." But under the section reserved for the "Last" name,
"HAZEL," in all uppercase letters, is entered.
Obviously, "HAZEL" is not a name.
Names for natural persons are, of course, always capitalized; that is,
the initial letter of the word/name stands distinctly higher than the
subsequent letters. Typically, when expressed in type, the initial
letter is taken from the uppercase and the subsequent letters are
taken from the lowercase. The result is that there can be no ambiguity
or confusion as to whether a word is a name/proper noun or a common
word or common noun.
Artificial persons (which are actually contrived things that are
endowed with a few of the legal powers and privileges of natural
persons) are given fictitious names. It is fitting and appropriate
that fictitious "persons," as legal fictions, should be given
fictitious names to distinguish them from other fictional entities,
and from natural persons.
A person may apply to the CORPORATION DIVISION of the office of the
SECRETARY OF STATE, for the establishment and registration of an
ASSUMED BUSINESS NAME. The purpose of such a name is, of course, to
enter into activity for the intention of making a profit. The "name"
that is then established and registered is a fictitious name; not a
real name.
Since it does not conform with the rule of grammar which requires
capitalization of names of persons, places and things, "HAZEL," as it
appears on the birth certificate discussed herein - obviously intended
to be assumed and taken as a family surname - is a fictitious name.
Where the fictitious name (HAZEL) is entered into a box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME," and mixed together in that box with the
correctly-written given, Christian names for the child, the data in
that box is inconsistent .
It would seem to logically follow that, where one-third of the "names"
in a "name context" or box is fictitious, all of the "names," taken
together, are fictitious - sort of by the same principle that "one
rotten apple will spoil the barrel" or "guilt by association."
My concern is that, by some legal mechanism unknown to us, which has
been executed against our interests without full disclosure to us, and
without our knowledge and express or affirmative consent, we may have
been converted into things, possibly to be used as merchandise for the
profit or benefit of an unknown (to us) owner. If that is the case, it
had to happen through our unknowing tacit consent. We would certainly
never consider entering into such an arrangement voluntarily
I have examined birth certificates issued over the past 15 years in
other state jurisdictions, and have found the form of entry of "names"
to be identical with that used on the birth certificate herein under
discussion.
I have talked with county registrars, who have advised me that they
are required to use that form of entry under direction of the State
Registrar. But none could or would provide me with a copy of such a
directive. They referred me to your office for a copy of the
directive.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-11-016(2)(h) provides that:
Unless otherwise directed by the state Registrar, no certificate shall
be complete and correct and acceptable for registration: that contains
improper or inconsistent data; -
The Rule clearly provides that birth certificates may contain
inconsistent data, such as inconsistent mixing of names with
fictitious names, but only WHEN DIRECTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.
Please provide me with a copy of your directive authorizing the mixing
of name-forms on birth certificates. If no such directive has issued
from your office, please provide me with the application for
correcting of false information which appears on a birth certificate.
Yours Truly,
James Hazel
Concluding Remarks
In his Revelation, Saint John labored to describe a Beast which
enslaved Men, and devoured their souls. He exposed the nature and
mentality of the Beast's servants and supporters, of those who - like
attorneys - spoke for the Beast; and those who executed its commands,
and those lukewarm quislings who gave it their moral support - even at
the cost of their children's lives. But Saint John wrote in highly
symbolic terms - farfetched from the normal experiences of men. His
intent may have been to save individuals from their baser instincts,
and raise them to higher levels of consciousness - or to do the same
for humanity as a whole... OR BOTH. The result was a Book, which
however influential and powerful, is esoteric. His general revelations
are profound, but lack the concrete details we need to understand the
schemes the Beast's servants use to manipulate and exploit innocent
men, women and children, to understand sufficiently that we will be
able to defend ourselves against the schemes.
The foregoing Letter to the Registrar is an attempt to layer some
visible flesh onto the Saint John's etheric skeleton.
In his 13th Chapter, Saint John warned his posterity that another
beast would ascend which would execute or nail down the supremacy of
the original Beast which, for lack of an effective scheme, had so far
been unable to convert all Men into virtually inanimate things, a
conversion necessary to directly treat them as merchandise to be
milked and traded in a commercial monopoly.
Saint John predicted that the latter, irresistible scheme would
persuade all Men to believe (worship) the idea that their very lives
depended on their ability to buy and sell; to get a piece of the
action of the only game in town! They might sense that the deck was
stacked, but the deceptive tricks of the magicians who dealt their
hands - being consummate lawyers and symbolaeographers, and dedicated
servants of the Beast - were almost impossible to catch. John revealed
the governing "trick" - in general terms: In order to buy and sell
(and therefore not be killed by poverty), all men must agree to do one
of two things. They must not object to being marked or branded as the
Beast is marked. The Beast, being fictitious and having no real
existence in nature or reality - but existing only in the minds of
gullible men - is marked or branded by Nature Itself to be a
fictitious thing. Begin a fictitious thing, the beast is marked with a
pretend name... a mark that looks like a name, but really isn't.
No beast can speak for itself, but only through lawyers and agents.
The lawyers who administered the schemes of the second Beast,
established the "law" which mandates that no natural person may buy or
sell, or otherwise seek a profit, in his own Name. They define such
activities as business; "Activity entered into with the intent of
making a profit" - and require such persons to assume fictitious names
for purposes related to business. IT IS THE FICTION which is the mark
or brand Saint John warns against! It is the same NUMBER (measure) of
what the Beast is; the precise level at which it resides in reality;
it's status in relationship to every thing else - which is FICTIONAL.
And in accordance with the Rule of English Grammar it is marked or
represented, not by a capitalized name, but by a fictitious "name."
Otherwise "natural persons" who wish to participate in the
Beast-System (a worldwide commercial monopoly), and to buy the labor
and souls of other men, while selling their own to the highest bidder
must receive from the Beast (System), the privilege of using
fictitious names.
Only the managers of the scheme are required to know how the system
functions. It is they who dictate the policies that keep it running
smoothly; who provide for necessary adjustments and refinements to
make the system ever more irresistible. Who determine among themselves
what the short-term and long-term objectives will be.
It is also incumbent on the pivotal lawyers - especially judges - to
learn the deceptive principles which drive the system - so they will
be able to suppress valid challenges to its supremacy.
But it is requisite that members of the common herd be imprisoned in
abject ignorance, never doubting that they are "free and
self-sovereign individuals" who are in full control of their lives and
families, and who can speak freely on any subject they choose, and
worship whatever God their consciences dictate.
And it is especially essential that the soldiers (policy-enforcement
officers), who are required to suppress human activities which tend to
undermine the monopoly business venture, be drawn from the least
imaginative and sensitive humans. While they are chosen for their love
of violence, and must exhibit physical bravery - only intellectual and
spiritual cowards are eligible to become military, executorial,
persons.
The "Latter Beast" appeared in embryonic form barely 100 years ago.
Since its advent, it has matured into the monolithic form we "see"
today. Despite dire predictions of "an impending collapse of society
as we know it today," the Beast (System) will not implode into itself.
It will not self-destruct. It will continue on its course; growing
ever powerful and irresistible. UNLESS IT MEETS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT
THAT IS DETERMINED TO VAPORIZE IT BACK INTO THE NOTHINGNESS FROM WHICH
IT CAME!
"The System" can be rocked on its axis if numerous real, live, flesh
and blood people will act on relevant FACTS, instead of remaining
paralyzed by delusions.
"The System" cannot totally prevail except by its "legal process" of
affecting individuals by persuading them to let themselves be directly
affected by it. People "volunteer" by assuming that the fictitious
names, held out so temptingly to them, require them to assume
responsibility for everything done in the fictitious names.
Before the fictitious name scheme became a universal syndrome,
individuals could only be directly affected by due process of law
which required a real, named person to accuse him of liability for an
injury committed by the accused. The injury must have been committed
in a particular NAMED venue; i.e. in a particular state and county.
The controversy raised under oath by the accuser, would be tried and
resolved in a particular NAMED court. The accusatory instrument was
required to identify the natural person by his NAME. A typical
accusatory instrument set out all the required names in its caption,
like this:
In the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon for Marion County
State of Oregon, )
vs. ) Criminal Complaint
James Hazel )
Now, under the "Latter Beast System," ALL NAMES in accusatory
instruments are fictitious:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON )
VS. ) CRIMINAL
JAMES HAZEL ) COMPLAINT
In the final analysis, "government" can only affect you through an
administrative or "judicial" accusation - demanding that you "appear"
and "answer." Regardless of how many times in the past you have
tacitly (albeit innocently and ignorantly) "acknowledged" a fictitious
name, when you insist, your natural being can only be represented by a
REAL CAPITALIZED NAME. Therefore, being addressed or even arrested by
a fictitious name, which does not mark your natural being, there is
nothing for you to answer. You simply say: "The accusation must be
abated, it is void. My name is ("John Jones"; capital J, o, h, n;
capital J, o, n, e, s ). The accused, 'JOHN JONES,' is not an alias;
it is a fictitious name - and not mine."
"Answered" thus, numerous times in fictitious courts and agencies
which pollute the Land - the Latter Beast will begin to tremble... as
does an evil man when death approaches.
Appendix -More about Names

"My" birth certificate, issued in Montana in 1937, reserved a box for
"Full name of child," with no mention of "first, middle or last
names." The form required entry of both the father's and mother's
"color or race," indicating the subject of the certificate was the
birth of a natural being.
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1943, upon my wife's birth,
reserved a box for "(CHILD) NAME," and provided spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last." The form required entry of both the father's and
mother's "COLOR OR RACE!"
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1980, upon the birth of my
youngest son, reserves a box for: "CHILD-NAME," with spaces for
"First," "Middle" and "Last." The form has no box or space for the
"color" or "race" of either parent.
The birth certificate issued in Oregon in 1989, upon the birth of my
grandson, reserves a box for "CHILD-NAME" with spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last" - a form identical to that for "my son's" birth
certificate; and like my son's, does not demand the color or race of
the parents. There is nothing on "their" birth certificates to verify
that the "CHILD-NAME(s)" entered on them, are the names for natural
beings; born of parents having natural color or race.
Another "curious" difference between the forms: The forms for myself,
my wife, and youngest son, each require entry of "THE MOTHER'S MAIDEN
NAME," and are disinterested in the mother's current name. But the
form for my grandson (1989), requires entry of the mother's (current)
name; with a separate box for "MAIDEN SURNAME." His is the only
certificate which mentions "surname."
The four foregoing examples demonstrate very disturbing changes in
birth certificate forms implemented over several decades!
A person's "Christian (christened) or given name" is his primary name.
The so-called "middle name" is superfluous for all legal purposes. A
"surname" is generally assumed to be a family name or the
"patronymic." By legal definition, "surname" means "The last name; the
name common to all members of a family." But technically, "surname"
means a name "which is excessive, extreme; or over, beyond or above
the given (christened) name."
"Last" (regarding the Last Name entered on three of the foregoing
birth certificates) means: "the only remaining part of a collection or
sequence; most recent, latest; highest, greatest or utmost; most
valid, authoritative or conclusive."
The case is prima facie! As far as "the states"' functionaries are
concerned, "your" name stands for a fictional thing intended for use
in commerce. And as a fiction created by a "state," it (and you) are
presumed subject to all of the regulations for commerce; including
regulation and taxation.
Let "the state" do what it wishes with the fictitious names it
creates... until it equates one with YOU. Then, defend your real name,
and your honor, and your self by every means at your command - as if
your life and soul depends on it!
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

PaulMaf

From: (e-mail address removed) (Jimmy)
Date: 7/20/03 6:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <469f4ba8.0307200557.6d9ca3c1@posting.google.com>
Jimmy is off his meds again and is ready to believe any moronic nonsense.
 
T

TaxEaseForHire

One word for Jimmy: RETARD
TaxEase

Jimmy said:
Notes About Deceptive All Capitals Names

What follows is a letter to the (Oregon) State Registrar of Vital
Statistics. It appears to be a request for a particular directive,
issued by the State Registrar to the various county registrars who
prepare birth certificates. Don't be fooled by the appearances. The
real purpose of the letter is for use as a forum to expose a vital
truth about how men, women and children are legally converted into
mere things; HUMAN RESOURCES and raw materials for exploitation to
profit a relatively few beneficiaries of a perverted government
monopoly. Whether or not the State Registrar fills my request is not
important. It won't change the facts revealed in the letter. (I seldom
ask questions of a bureaucrat when I don't know the answers in
advance)!
After the letter you will find reproductions of relevant parts of two
different birth certificates: one issued in Ohio after the birth of my
son, David, and the other issued in Oregon after the birth of my
grandson, Andrew. They will help the reader visualize the fact that
the "curious practice of mixing real names with fictitious names" is
not unique to Oregon. As nearly as I can determine, it is practiced by
preparers of birth certificates in all states. And it has been going
on for at least 16 years - nationwide. Knowing that, you will also
realize that the source of the command for such a "curious practice"
is at the national, or even the international, level. The practice is
systemic. [Editor; You can receive copies of the birth certificates
from author James Hazel.]
One other thing that is not made perfectly clear in the following
letter is the fact that the "names" of "artificial persons," such as
corporations and "assumed business names," are written in all
UPPERCASE letters. Since they are fictional or fictitious "things,"
they require fictitious names. Don't confuse a fictitious name with an
alias (alias dictus).
"Alias" is when one is known by two or more different names. The term
refers only to natural persons, not to artificial "persons." A natural
person may be known by as many names as he chooses, for any lawful
reason - or for no reason. For example: so long as he doesn't use
different names with the intention to commit fraud, "James Smith" may
lawfully also be known as "John Jones." An alias, being a name of a
natural person, is always capitalized.
To the contrary, "a fictitious name is a counterfeit, feigned or
pretended name taken by a person, differing in some particular from
his true name, with the implication that it is meant to deceive and
mislead" (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition).
A fictitious name may be assumed by a natural person. But the "name"
of an artificial "person" is ALWAYS a fictitious name, and every
attorney will acknowledge that the names of artificial "persons" are
always fictitious names.
Real names are always capitalized, that is, the first letter of the
name is capitalized, and the subsequent letters are written in
lowercase. Fictitious names are generally written in all uppercase
letters, so they can be distinguished from real names. It's common for
typists to improperly write fictitious names in the same "style" as
real names. Sometimes the error is driven by the writer's ignorance,
but often it is motivated by an intent to deceive.
The real name of our friend, John Smith is written (you guessed it!)
"John Smith." "JOHN SMITH" on the other hand, is a fictitious name by
virtue of the fact that it doesn't conform to the rule of grammar
which requires capitalization of names. Except for absence of
capitalization, it is spelled like our friend's name, and it sounds
the same when spoken orally. But it's not the name for John Smith. The
"name" is fictitious in and of itself, since it is not a real name.
If John Smith were to examine the driver license in his wallet, and
the Social Security card he holds, his old military I.D., and every
card, check and statement related to his banking, he would discover
that none of them are in his name. They all concern fictitious names!
If that doesn't alarm John - wait until he learns that his children
and grandchildren: those natural, beautiful flesh, blood and spirit
fruits of his loins - bear fictitious names of THINGS; or "artificial
persons!"
James Hazel
P.O. Box 863
Mount Angel OR 97362
December 11, 1995
Edward Johnson II,
State Registrar of Vital Statistics
P.O. Box 14050
Portland OR 97214-0050
Re: Forms for entries of names on birth certificates: REQUEST FOR COPY
OF DIRECTIVE
Dear Registrar Johnson:

It recently came to my attention, while examining the birth
certificate issued pursuant to the birth of my grandson (copy enclosed
for your reference) that the data entered in the box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME" is inconsistent. The "First and Middle" given, Christian
names are properly capitalized in conformance with the rule of English
grammar which governs the writing of names; i.e. "Names are always
capitalized." But under the section reserved for the "Last" name,
"HAZEL," in all uppercase letters, is entered.
Obviously, "HAZEL" is not a name.
Names for natural persons are, of course, always capitalized; that is,
the initial letter of the word/name stands distinctly higher than the
subsequent letters. Typically, when expressed in type, the initial
letter is taken from the uppercase and the subsequent letters are
taken from the lowercase. The result is that there can be no ambiguity
or confusion as to whether a word is a name/proper noun or a common
word or common noun.
Artificial persons (which are actually contrived things that are
endowed with a few of the legal powers and privileges of natural
persons) are given fictitious names. It is fitting and appropriate
that fictitious "persons," as legal fictions, should be given
fictitious names to distinguish them from other fictional entities,
and from natural persons.
A person may apply to the CORPORATION DIVISION of the office of the
SECRETARY OF STATE, for the establishment and registration of an
ASSUMED BUSINESS NAME. The purpose of such a name is, of course, to
enter into activity for the intention of making a profit. The "name"
that is then established and registered is a fictitious name; not a
real name.
Since it does not conform with the rule of grammar which requires
capitalization of names of persons, places and things, "HAZEL," as it
appears on the birth certificate discussed herein - obviously intended
to be assumed and taken as a family surname - is a fictitious name.
Where the fictitious name (HAZEL) is entered into a box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME," and mixed together in that box with the
correctly-written given, Christian names for the child, the data in
that box is inconsistent .
It would seem to logically follow that, where one-third of the "names"
in a "name context" or box is fictitious, all of the "names," taken
together, are fictitious - sort of by the same principle that "one
rotten apple will spoil the barrel" or "guilt by association."
My concern is that, by some legal mechanism unknown to us, which has
been executed against our interests without full disclosure to us, and
without our knowledge and express or affirmative consent, we may have
been converted into things, possibly to be used as merchandise for the
profit or benefit of an unknown (to us) owner. If that is the case, it
had to happen through our unknowing tacit consent. We would certainly
never consider entering into such an arrangement voluntarily
I have examined birth certificates issued over the past 15 years in
other state jurisdictions, and have found the form of entry of "names"
to be identical with that used on the birth certificate herein under
discussion.
I have talked with county registrars, who have advised me that they
are required to use that form of entry under direction of the State
Registrar. But none could or would provide me with a copy of such a
directive. They referred me to your office for a copy of the
directive.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-11-016(2)(h) provides that:
Unless otherwise directed by the state Registrar, no certificate shall
be complete and correct and acceptable for registration: that contains
improper or inconsistent data; -
The Rule clearly provides that birth certificates may contain
inconsistent data, such as inconsistent mixing of names with
fictitious names, but only WHEN DIRECTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.
Please provide me with a copy of your directive authorizing the mixing
of name-forms on birth certificates. If no such directive has issued
from your office, please provide me with the application for
correcting of false information which appears on a birth certificate.
Yours Truly,
James Hazel
Concluding Remarks
In his Revelation, Saint John labored to describe a Beast which
enslaved Men, and devoured their souls. He exposed the nature and
mentality of the Beast's servants and supporters, of those who - like
attorneys - spoke for the Beast; and those who executed its commands,
and those lukewarm quislings who gave it their moral support - even at
the cost of their children's lives. But Saint John wrote in highly
symbolic terms - farfetched from the normal experiences of men. His
intent may have been to save individuals from their baser instincts,
and raise them to higher levels of consciousness - or to do the same
for humanity as a whole... OR BOTH. The result was a Book, which
however influential and powerful, is esoteric. His general revelations
are profound, but lack the concrete details we need to understand the
schemes the Beast's servants use to manipulate and exploit innocent
men, women and children, to understand sufficiently that we will be
able to defend ourselves against the schemes.
The foregoing Letter to the Registrar is an attempt to layer some
visible flesh onto the Saint John's etheric skeleton.
In his 13th Chapter, Saint John warned his posterity that another
beast would ascend which would execute or nail down the supremacy of
the original Beast which, for lack of an effective scheme, had so far
been unable to convert all Men into virtually inanimate things, a
conversion necessary to directly treat them as merchandise to be
milked and traded in a commercial monopoly.
Saint John predicted that the latter, irresistible scheme would
persuade all Men to believe (worship) the idea that their very lives
depended on their ability to buy and sell; to get a piece of the
action of the only game in town! They might sense that the deck was
stacked, but the deceptive tricks of the magicians who dealt their
hands - being consummate lawyers and symbolaeographers, and dedicated
servants of the Beast - were almost impossible to catch. John revealed
the governing "trick" - in general terms: In order to buy and sell
(and therefore not be killed by poverty), all men must agree to do one
of two things. They must not object to being marked or branded as the
Beast is marked. The Beast, being fictitious and having no real
existence in nature or reality - but existing only in the minds of
gullible men - is marked or branded by Nature Itself to be a
fictitious thing. Begin a fictitious thing, the beast is marked with a
pretend name... a mark that looks like a name, but really isn't.
No beast can speak for itself, but only through lawyers and agents.
The lawyers who administered the schemes of the second Beast,
established the "law" which mandates that no natural person may buy or
sell, or otherwise seek a profit, in his own Name. They define such
activities as business; "Activity entered into with the intent of
making a profit" - and require such persons to assume fictitious names
for purposes related to business. IT IS THE FICTION which is the mark
or brand Saint John warns against! It is the same NUMBER (measure) of
what the Beast is; the precise level at which it resides in reality;
it's status in relationship to every thing else - which is FICTIONAL.
And in accordance with the Rule of English Grammar it is marked or
represented, not by a capitalized name, but by a fictitious "name."
Otherwise "natural persons" who wish to participate in the
Beast-System (a worldwide commercial monopoly), and to buy the labor
and souls of other men, while selling their own to the highest bidder
must receive from the Beast (System), the privilege of using
fictitious names.
Only the managers of the scheme are required to know how the system
functions. It is they who dictate the policies that keep it running
smoothly; who provide for necessary adjustments and refinements to
make the system ever more irresistible. Who determine among themselves
what the short-term and long-term objectives will be.
It is also incumbent on the pivotal lawyers - especially judges - to
learn the deceptive principles which drive the system - so they will
be able to suppress valid challenges to its supremacy.
But it is requisite that members of the common herd be imprisoned in
abject ignorance, never doubting that they are "free and
self-sovereign individuals" who are in full control of their lives and
families, and who can speak freely on any subject they choose, and
worship whatever God their consciences dictate.
And it is especially essential that the soldiers (policy-enforcement
officers), who are required to suppress human activities which tend to
undermine the monopoly business venture, be drawn from the least
imaginative and sensitive humans. While they are chosen for their love
of violence, and must exhibit physical bravery - only intellectual and
spiritual cowards are eligible to become military, executorial,
persons.
The "Latter Beast" appeared in embryonic form barely 100 years ago.
Since its advent, it has matured into the monolithic form we "see"
today. Despite dire predictions of "an impending collapse of society
as we know it today," the Beast (System) will not implode into itself.
It will not self-destruct. It will continue on its course; growing
ever powerful and irresistible. UNLESS IT MEETS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT
THAT IS DETERMINED TO VAPORIZE IT BACK INTO THE NOTHINGNESS FROM WHICH
IT CAME!
"The System" can be rocked on its axis if numerous real, live, flesh
and blood people will act on relevant FACTS, instead of remaining
paralyzed by delusions.
"The System" cannot totally prevail except by its "legal process" of
affecting individuals by persuading them to let themselves be directly
affected by it. People "volunteer" by assuming that the fictitious
names, held out so temptingly to them, require them to assume
responsibility for everything done in the fictitious names.
Before the fictitious name scheme became a universal syndrome,
individuals could only be directly affected by due process of law
which required a real, named person to accuse him of liability for an
injury committed by the accused. The injury must have been committed
in a particular NAMED venue; i.e. in a particular state and county.
The controversy raised under oath by the accuser, would be tried and
resolved in a particular NAMED court. The accusatory instrument was
required to identify the natural person by his NAME. A typical
accusatory instrument set out all the required names in its caption,
like this:
In the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon for Marion County
State of Oregon, )
vs. ) Criminal Complaint
James Hazel )
Now, under the "Latter Beast System," ALL NAMES in accusatory
instruments are fictitious:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON )
VS. ) CRIMINAL
JAMES HAZEL ) COMPLAINT
In the final analysis, "government" can only affect you through an
administrative or "judicial" accusation - demanding that you "appear"
and "answer." Regardless of how many times in the past you have
tacitly (albeit innocently and ignorantly) "acknowledged" a fictitious
name, when you insist, your natural being can only be represented by a
REAL CAPITALIZED NAME. Therefore, being addressed or even arrested by
a fictitious name, which does not mark your natural being, there is
nothing for you to answer. You simply say: "The accusation must be
abated, it is void. My name is ("John Jones"; capital J, o, h, n;
capital J, o, n, e, s ). The accused, 'JOHN JONES,' is not an alias;
it is a fictitious name - and not mine."
"Answered" thus, numerous times in fictitious courts and agencies
which pollute the Land - the Latter Beast will begin to tremble... as
does an evil man when death approaches.
Appendix -More about Names

"My" birth certificate, issued in Montana in 1937, reserved a box for
"Full name of child," with no mention of "first, middle or last
names." The form required entry of both the father's and mother's
"color or race," indicating the subject of the certificate was the
birth of a natural being.
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1943, upon my wife's birth,
reserved a box for "(CHILD) NAME," and provided spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last." The form required entry of both the father's and
mother's "COLOR OR RACE!"
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1980, upon the birth of my
youngest son, reserves a box for: "CHILD-NAME," with spaces for
"First," "Middle" and "Last." The form has no box or space for the
"color" or "race" of either parent.
The birth certificate issued in Oregon in 1989, upon the birth of my
grandson, reserves a box for "CHILD-NAME" with spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last" - a form identical to that for "my son's" birth
certificate; and like my son's, does not demand the color or race of
the parents. There is nothing on "their" birth certificates to verify
that the "CHILD-NAME(s)" entered on them, are the names for natural
beings; born of parents having natural color or race.
Another "curious" difference between the forms: The forms for myself,
my wife, and youngest son, each require entry of "THE MOTHER'S MAIDEN
NAME," and are disinterested in the mother's current name. But the
form for my grandson (1989), requires entry of the mother's (current)
name; with a separate box for "MAIDEN SURNAME." His is the only
certificate which mentions "surname."
The four foregoing examples demonstrate very disturbing changes in
birth certificate forms implemented over several decades!
A person's "Christian (christened) or given name" is his primary name.
The so-called "middle name" is superfluous for all legal purposes. A
"surname" is generally assumed to be a family name or the
"patronymic." By legal definition, "surname" means "The last name; the
name common to all members of a family." But technically, "surname"
means a name "which is excessive, extreme; or over, beyond or above
the given (christened) name."
"Last" (regarding the Last Name entered on three of the foregoing
birth certificates) means: "the only remaining part of a collection or
sequence; most recent, latest; highest, greatest or utmost; most
valid, authoritative or conclusive."
The case is prima facie! As far as "the states"' functionaries are
concerned, "your" name stands for a fictional thing intended for use
in commerce. And as a fiction created by a "state," it (and you) are
presumed subject to all of the regulations for commerce; including
regulation and taxation.
Let "the state" do what it wishes with the fictitious names it
creates... until it equates one with YOU. Then, defend your real name,
and your honor, and your self by every means at your command - as if
your life and soul depends on it!
 
P

PaulMaf

From: "TaxEaseForHire" (e-mail address removed)
Date: 7/21/03 6:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <Fu0Ta.9264$46.1892173@news2.telusplanet.net>
One word for Jimmy: RETARD
TaxEase
You should not insult retards like that. Jimmy and his cohorts make them (the
retards) look like Einsteins in comparison.
 
J

Jimmy

TaxEaseForHire said:
One word for Jimmy: RETARD
TaxEase
On your word without substance?? Ha! Guess who's the retard.

Jimmy

Jimmy said:
Notes About Deceptive All Capitals Names

What follows is a letter to the (Oregon) State Registrar of Vital
Statistics. It appears to be a request for a particular directive,
issued by the State Registrar to the various county registrars who
prepare birth certificates. Don't be fooled by the appearances. The
real purpose of the letter is for use as a forum to expose a vital
truth about how men, women and children are legally converted into
mere things; HUMAN RESOURCES and raw materials for exploitation to
profit a relatively few beneficiaries of a perverted government
monopoly. Whether or not the State Registrar fills my request is not
important. It won't change the facts revealed in the letter. (I seldom
ask questions of a bureaucrat when I don't know the answers in
advance)!
After the letter you will find reproductions of relevant parts of two
different birth certificates: one issued in Ohio after the birth of my
son, David, and the other issued in Oregon after the birth of my
grandson, Andrew. They will help the reader visualize the fact that
the "curious practice of mixing real names with fictitious names" is
not unique to Oregon. As nearly as I can determine, it is practiced by
preparers of birth certificates in all states. And it has been going
on for at least 16 years - nationwide. Knowing that, you will also
realize that the source of the command for such a "curious practice"
is at the national, or even the international, level. The practice is
systemic. [Editor; You can receive copies of the birth certificates
from author James Hazel.]
One other thing that is not made perfectly clear in the following
letter is the fact that the "names" of "artificial persons," such as
corporations and "assumed business names," are written in all
UPPERCASE letters. Since they are fictional or fictitious "things,"
they require fictitious names. Don't confuse a fictitious name with an
alias (alias dictus).
"Alias" is when one is known by two or more different names. The term
refers only to natural persons, not to artificial "persons." A natural
person may be known by as many names as he chooses, for any lawful
reason - or for no reason. For example: so long as he doesn't use
different names with the intention to commit fraud, "James Smith" may
lawfully also be known as "John Jones." An alias, being a name of a
natural person, is always capitalized.
To the contrary, "a fictitious name is a counterfeit, feigned or
pretended name taken by a person, differing in some particular from
his true name, with the implication that it is meant to deceive and
mislead" (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition).
A fictitious name may be assumed by a natural person. But the "name"
of an artificial "person" is ALWAYS a fictitious name, and every
attorney will acknowledge that the names of artificial "persons" are
always fictitious names.
Real names are always capitalized, that is, the first letter of the
name is capitalized, and the subsequent letters are written in
lowercase. Fictitious names are generally written in all uppercase
letters, so they can be distinguished from real names. It's common for
typists to improperly write fictitious names in the same "style" as
real names. Sometimes the error is driven by the writer's ignorance,
but often it is motivated by an intent to deceive.
The real name of our friend, John Smith is written (you guessed it!)
"John Smith." "JOHN SMITH" on the other hand, is a fictitious name by
virtue of the fact that it doesn't conform to the rule of grammar
which requires capitalization of names. Except for absence of
capitalization, it is spelled like our friend's name, and it sounds
the same when spoken orally. But it's not the name for John Smith. The
"name" is fictitious in and of itself, since it is not a real name.
If John Smith were to examine the driver license in his wallet, and
the Social Security card he holds, his old military I.D., and every
card, check and statement related to his banking, he would discover
that none of them are in his name. They all concern fictitious names!
If that doesn't alarm John - wait until he learns that his children
and grandchildren: those natural, beautiful flesh, blood and spirit
fruits of his loins - bear fictitious names of THINGS; or "artificial
persons!"
James Hazel
P.O. Box 863
Mount Angel OR 97362
December 11, 1995
Edward Johnson II,
State Registrar of Vital Statistics
P.O. Box 14050
Portland OR 97214-0050
Re: Forms for entries of names on birth certificates: REQUEST FOR COPY
OF DIRECTIVE
Dear Registrar Johnson:

It recently came to my attention, while examining the birth
certificate issued pursuant to the birth of my grandson (copy enclosed
for your reference) that the data entered in the box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME" is inconsistent. The "First and Middle" given, Christian
names are properly capitalized in conformance with the rule of English
grammar which governs the writing of names; i.e. "Names are always
capitalized." But under the section reserved for the "Last" name,
"HAZEL," in all uppercase letters, is entered.
Obviously, "HAZEL" is not a name.
Names for natural persons are, of course, always capitalized; that is,
the initial letter of the word/name stands distinctly higher than the
subsequent letters. Typically, when expressed in type, the initial
letter is taken from the uppercase and the subsequent letters are
taken from the lowercase. The result is that there can be no ambiguity
or confusion as to whether a word is a name/proper noun or a common
word or common noun.
Artificial persons (which are actually contrived things that are
endowed with a few of the legal powers and privileges of natural
persons) are given fictitious names. It is fitting and appropriate
that fictitious "persons," as legal fictions, should be given
fictitious names to distinguish them from other fictional entities,
and from natural persons.
A person may apply to the CORPORATION DIVISION of the office of the
SECRETARY OF STATE, for the establishment and registration of an
ASSUMED BUSINESS NAME. The purpose of such a name is, of course, to
enter into activity for the intention of making a profit. The "name"
that is then established and registered is a fictitious name; not a
real name.
Since it does not conform with the rule of grammar which requires
capitalization of names of persons, places and things, "HAZEL," as it
appears on the birth certificate discussed herein - obviously intended
to be assumed and taken as a family surname - is a fictitious name.
Where the fictitious name (HAZEL) is entered into a box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME," and mixed together in that box with the
correctly-written given, Christian names for the child, the data in
that box is inconsistent .
It would seem to logically follow that, where one-third of the "names"
in a "name context" or box is fictitious, all of the "names," taken
together, are fictitious - sort of by the same principle that "one
rotten apple will spoil the barrel" or "guilt by association."
My concern is that, by some legal mechanism unknown to us, which has
been executed against our interests without full disclosure to us, and
without our knowledge and express or affirmative consent, we may have
been converted into things, possibly to be used as merchandise for the
profit or benefit of an unknown (to us) owner. If that is the case, it
had to happen through our unknowing tacit consent. We would certainly
never consider entering into such an arrangement voluntarily
I have examined birth certificates issued over the past 15 years in
other state jurisdictions, and have found the form of entry of "names"
to be identical with that used on the birth certificate herein under
discussion.
I have talked with county registrars, who have advised me that they
are required to use that form of entry under direction of the State
Registrar. But none could or would provide me with a copy of such a
directive. They referred me to your office for a copy of the
directive.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-11-016(2)(h) provides that:
Unless otherwise directed by the state Registrar, no certificate shall
be complete and correct and acceptable for registration: that contains
improper or inconsistent data; -
The Rule clearly provides that birth certificates may contain
inconsistent data, such as inconsistent mixing of names with
fictitious names, but only WHEN DIRECTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.
Please provide me with a copy of your directive authorizing the mixing
of name-forms on birth certificates. If no such directive has issued
from your office, please provide me with the application for
correcting of false information which appears on a birth certificate.
Yours Truly,
James Hazel
Concluding Remarks
In his Revelation, Saint John labored to describe a Beast which
enslaved Men, and devoured their souls. He exposed the nature and
mentality of the Beast's servants and supporters, of those who - like
attorneys - spoke for the Beast; and those who executed its commands,
and those lukewarm quislings who gave it their moral support - even at
the cost of their children's lives. But Saint John wrote in highly
symbolic terms - farfetched from the normal experiences of men. His
intent may have been to save individuals from their baser instincts,
and raise them to higher levels of consciousness - or to do the same
for humanity as a whole... OR BOTH. The result was a Book, which
however influential and powerful, is esoteric. His general revelations
are profound, but lack the concrete details we need to understand the
schemes the Beast's servants use to manipulate and exploit innocent
men, women and children, to understand sufficiently that we will be
able to defend ourselves against the schemes.
The foregoing Letter to the Registrar is an attempt to layer some
visible flesh onto the Saint John's etheric skeleton.
In his 13th Chapter, Saint John warned his posterity that another
beast would ascend which would execute or nail down the supremacy of
the original Beast which, for lack of an effective scheme, had so far
been unable to convert all Men into virtually inanimate things, a
conversion necessary to directly treat them as merchandise to be
milked and traded in a commercial monopoly.
Saint John predicted that the latter, irresistible scheme would
persuade all Men to believe (worship) the idea that their very lives
depended on their ability to buy and sell; to get a piece of the
action of the only game in town! They might sense that the deck was
stacked, but the deceptive tricks of the magicians who dealt their
hands - being consummate lawyers and symbolaeographers, and dedicated
servants of the Beast - were almost impossible to catch. John revealed
the governing "trick" - in general terms: In order to buy and sell
(and therefore not be killed by poverty), all men must agree to do one
of two things. They must not object to being marked or branded as the
Beast is marked. The Beast, being fictitious and having no real
existence in nature or reality - but existing only in the minds of
gullible men - is marked or branded by Nature Itself to be a
fictitious thing. Begin a fictitious thing, the beast is marked with a
pretend name... a mark that looks like a name, but really isn't.
No beast can speak for itself, but only through lawyers and agents.
The lawyers who administered the schemes of the second Beast,
established the "law" which mandates that no natural person may buy or
sell, or otherwise seek a profit, in his own Name. They define such
activities as business; "Activity entered into with the intent of
making a profit" - and require such persons to assume fictitious names
for purposes related to business. IT IS THE FICTION which is the mark
or brand Saint John warns against! It is the same NUMBER (measure) of
what the Beast is; the precise level at which it resides in reality;
it's status in relationship to every thing else - which is FICTIONAL.
And in accordance with the Rule of English Grammar it is marked or
represented, not by a capitalized name, but by a fictitious "name."
Otherwise "natural persons" who wish to participate in the
Beast-System (a worldwide commercial monopoly), and to buy the labor
and souls of other men, while selling their own to the highest bidder
must receive from the Beast (System), the privilege of using
fictitious names.
Only the managers of the scheme are required to know how the system
functions. It is they who dictate the policies that keep it running
smoothly; who provide for necessary adjustments and refinements to
make the system ever more irresistible. Who determine among themselves
what the short-term and long-term objectives will be.
It is also incumbent on the pivotal lawyers - especially judges - to
learn the deceptive principles which drive the system - so they will
be able to suppress valid challenges to its supremacy.
But it is requisite that members of the common herd be imprisoned in
abject ignorance, never doubting that they are "free and
self-sovereign individuals" who are in full control of their lives and
families, and who can speak freely on any subject they choose, and
worship whatever God their consciences dictate.
And it is especially essential that the soldiers (policy-enforcement
officers), who are required to suppress human activities which tend to
undermine the monopoly business venture, be drawn from the least
imaginative and sensitive humans. While they are chosen for their love
of violence, and must exhibit physical bravery - only intellectual and
spiritual cowards are eligible to become military, executorial,
persons.
The "Latter Beast" appeared in embryonic form barely 100 years ago.
Since its advent, it has matured into the monolithic form we "see"
today. Despite dire predictions of "an impending collapse of society
as we know it today," the Beast (System) will not implode into itself.
It will not self-destruct. It will continue on its course; growing
ever powerful and irresistible. UNLESS IT MEETS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT
THAT IS DETERMINED TO VAPORIZE IT BACK INTO THE NOTHINGNESS FROM WHICH
IT CAME!
"The System" can be rocked on its axis if numerous real, live, flesh
and blood people will act on relevant FACTS, instead of remaining
paralyzed by delusions.
"The System" cannot totally prevail except by its "legal process" of
affecting individuals by persuading them to let themselves be directly
affected by it. People "volunteer" by assuming that the fictitious
names, held out so temptingly to them, require them to assume
responsibility for everything done in the fictitious names.
Before the fictitious name scheme became a universal syndrome,
individuals could only be directly affected by due process of law
which required a real, named person to accuse him of liability for an
injury committed by the accused. The injury must have been committed
in a particular NAMED venue; i.e. in a particular state and county.
The controversy raised under oath by the accuser, would be tried and
resolved in a particular NAMED court. The accusatory instrument was
required to identify the natural person by his NAME. A typical
accusatory instrument set out all the required names in its caption,
like this:
In the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon for Marion County
State of Oregon, )
vs. ) Criminal Complaint
James Hazel )
Now, under the "Latter Beast System," ALL NAMES in accusatory
instruments are fictitious:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON )
VS. ) CRIMINAL
JAMES HAZEL ) COMPLAINT
In the final analysis, "government" can only affect you through an
administrative or "judicial" accusation - demanding that you "appear"
and "answer." Regardless of how many times in the past you have
tacitly (albeit innocently and ignorantly) "acknowledged" a fictitious
name, when you insist, your natural being can only be represented by a
REAL CAPITALIZED NAME. Therefore, being addressed or even arrested by
a fictitious name, which does not mark your natural being, there is
nothing for you to answer. You simply say: "The accusation must be
abated, it is void. My name is ("John Jones"; capital J, o, h, n;
capital J, o, n, e, s ). The accused, 'JOHN JONES,' is not an alias;
it is a fictitious name - and not mine."
"Answered" thus, numerous times in fictitious courts and agencies
which pollute the Land - the Latter Beast will begin to tremble... as
does an evil man when death approaches.
Appendix -More about Names

"My" birth certificate, issued in Montana in 1937, reserved a box for
"Full name of child," with no mention of "first, middle or last
names." The form required entry of both the father's and mother's
"color or race," indicating the subject of the certificate was the
birth of a natural being.
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1943, upon my wife's birth,
reserved a box for "(CHILD) NAME," and provided spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last." The form required entry of both the father's and
mother's "COLOR OR RACE!"
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1980, upon the birth of my
youngest son, reserves a box for: "CHILD-NAME," with spaces for
"First," "Middle" and "Last." The form has no box or space for the
"color" or "race" of either parent.
The birth certificate issued in Oregon in 1989, upon the birth of my
grandson, reserves a box for "CHILD-NAME" with spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last" - a form identical to that for "my son's" birth
certificate; and like my son's, does not demand the color or race of
the parents. There is nothing on "their" birth certificates to verify
that the "CHILD-NAME(s)" entered on them, are the names for natural
beings; born of parents having natural color or race.
Another "curious" difference between the forms: The forms for myself,
my wife, and youngest son, each require entry of "THE MOTHER'S MAIDEN
NAME," and are disinterested in the mother's current name. But the
form for my grandson (1989), requires entry of the mother's (current)
name; with a separate box for "MAIDEN SURNAME." His is the only
certificate which mentions "surname."
The four foregoing examples demonstrate very disturbing changes in
birth certificate forms implemented over several decades!
A person's "Christian (christened) or given name" is his primary name.
The so-called "middle name" is superfluous for all legal purposes. A
"surname" is generally assumed to be a family name or the
"patronymic." By legal definition, "surname" means "The last name; the
name common to all members of a family." But technically, "surname"
means a name "which is excessive, extreme; or over, beyond or above
the given (christened) name."
"Last" (regarding the Last Name entered on three of the foregoing
birth certificates) means: "the only remaining part of a collection or
sequence; most recent, latest; highest, greatest or utmost; most
valid, authoritative or conclusive."
The case is prima facie! As far as "the states"' functionaries are
concerned, "your" name stands for a fictional thing intended for use
in commerce. And as a fiction created by a "state," it (and you) are
presumed subject to all of the regulations for commerce; including
regulation and taxation.
Let "the state" do what it wishes with the fictitious names it
creates... until it equates one with YOU. Then, defend your real name,
and your honor, and your self by every means at your command - as if
your life and soul depends on it!
 
T

TaxEaseForHire

Garbage arguments about conspiracies surrounding capital letters, or state
abbreviations, or state vs. State are not worthy of response. Anyone that wd
fall for that nonsense is in desperate need of psychiatric help. Same goes
for medical conspiracies and those who refuse to use the zip codes on
letters. Get help. SOON.
TaxEase

Jimmy said:
"TaxEaseForHire" <whydoesyourdogsniffmycrotch@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news: said:
One word for Jimmy: RETARD
TaxEase
On your word without substance?? Ha! Guess who's the retard.

Jimmy

Jimmy said:
Notes About Deceptive All Capitals Names

What follows is a letter to the (Oregon) State Registrar of Vital
Statistics. It appears to be a request for a particular directive,
issued by the State Registrar to the various county registrars who
prepare birth certificates. Don't be fooled by the appearances. The
real purpose of the letter is for use as a forum to expose a vital
truth about how men, women and children are legally converted into
mere things; HUMAN RESOURCES and raw materials for exploitation to
profit a relatively few beneficiaries of a perverted government
monopoly. Whether or not the State Registrar fills my request is not
important. It won't change the facts revealed in the letter. (I seldom
ask questions of a bureaucrat when I don't know the answers in
advance)!
After the letter you will find reproductions of relevant parts of two
different birth certificates: one issued in Ohio after the birth of my
son, David, and the other issued in Oregon after the birth of my
grandson, Andrew. They will help the reader visualize the fact that
the "curious practice of mixing real names with fictitious names" is
not unique to Oregon. As nearly as I can determine, it is practiced by
preparers of birth certificates in all states. And it has been going
on for at least 16 years - nationwide. Knowing that, you will also
realize that the source of the command for such a "curious practice"
is at the national, or even the international, level. The practice is
systemic. [Editor; You can receive copies of the birth certificates
from author James Hazel.]
One other thing that is not made perfectly clear in the following
letter is the fact that the "names" of "artificial persons," such as
corporations and "assumed business names," are written in all
UPPERCASE letters. Since they are fictional or fictitious "things,"
they require fictitious names. Don't confuse a fictitious name with an
alias (alias dictus).
"Alias" is when one is known by two or more different names. The term
refers only to natural persons, not to artificial "persons." A natural
person may be known by as many names as he chooses, for any lawful
reason - or for no reason. For example: so long as he doesn't use
different names with the intention to commit fraud, "James Smith" may
lawfully also be known as "John Jones." An alias, being a name of a
natural person, is always capitalized.
To the contrary, "a fictitious name is a counterfeit, feigned or
pretended name taken by a person, differing in some particular from
his true name, with the implication that it is meant to deceive and
mislead" (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition).
A fictitious name may be assumed by a natural person. But the "name"
of an artificial "person" is ALWAYS a fictitious name, and every
attorney will acknowledge that the names of artificial "persons" are
always fictitious names.
Real names are always capitalized, that is, the first letter of the
name is capitalized, and the subsequent letters are written in
lowercase. Fictitious names are generally written in all uppercase
letters, so they can be distinguished from real names. It's common for
typists to improperly write fictitious names in the same "style" as
real names. Sometimes the error is driven by the writer's ignorance,
but often it is motivated by an intent to deceive.
The real name of our friend, John Smith is written (you guessed it!)
"John Smith." "JOHN SMITH" on the other hand, is a fictitious name by
virtue of the fact that it doesn't conform to the rule of grammar
which requires capitalization of names. Except for absence of
capitalization, it is spelled like our friend's name, and it sounds
the same when spoken orally. But it's not the name for John Smith. The
"name" is fictitious in and of itself, since it is not a real name.
If John Smith were to examine the driver license in his wallet, and
the Social Security card he holds, his old military I.D., and every
card, check and statement related to his banking, he would discover
that none of them are in his name. They all concern fictitious names!
If that doesn't alarm John - wait until he learns that his children
and grandchildren: those natural, beautiful flesh, blood and spirit
fruits of his loins - bear fictitious names of THINGS; or "artificial
persons!"
James Hazel
P.O. Box 863
Mount Angel OR 97362
December 11, 1995
Edward Johnson II,
State Registrar of Vital Statistics
P.O. Box 14050
Portland OR 97214-0050
Re: Forms for entries of names on birth certificates: REQUEST FOR COPY
OF DIRECTIVE
Dear Registrar Johnson:

It recently came to my attention, while examining the birth
certificate issued pursuant to the birth of my grandson (copy enclosed
for your reference) that the data entered in the box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME" is inconsistent. The "First and Middle" given, Christian
names are properly capitalized in conformance with the rule of English
grammar which governs the writing of names; i.e. "Names are always
capitalized." But under the section reserved for the "Last" name,
"HAZEL," in all uppercase letters, is entered.
Obviously, "HAZEL" is not a name.
Names for natural persons are, of course, always capitalized; that is,
the initial letter of the word/name stands distinctly higher than the
subsequent letters. Typically, when expressed in type, the initial
letter is taken from the uppercase and the subsequent letters are
taken from the lowercase. The result is that there can be no ambiguity
or confusion as to whether a word is a name/proper noun or a common
word or common noun.
Artificial persons (which are actually contrived things that are
endowed with a few of the legal powers and privileges of natural
persons) are given fictitious names. It is fitting and appropriate
that fictitious "persons," as legal fictions, should be given
fictitious names to distinguish them from other fictional entities,
and from natural persons.
A person may apply to the CORPORATION DIVISION of the office of the
SECRETARY OF STATE, for the establishment and registration of an
ASSUMED BUSINESS NAME. The purpose of such a name is, of course, to
enter into activity for the intention of making a profit. The "name"
that is then established and registered is a fictitious name; not a
real name.
Since it does not conform with the rule of grammar which requires
capitalization of names of persons, places and things, "HAZEL," as it
appears on the birth certificate discussed herein - obviously intended
to be assumed and taken as a family surname - is a fictitious name.
Where the fictitious name (HAZEL) is entered into a box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME," and mixed together in that box with the
correctly-written given, Christian names for the child, the data in
that box is inconsistent .
It would seem to logically follow that, where one-third of the "names"
in a "name context" or box is fictitious, all of the "names," taken
together, are fictitious - sort of by the same principle that "one
rotten apple will spoil the barrel" or "guilt by association."
My concern is that, by some legal mechanism unknown to us, which has
been executed against our interests without full disclosure to us, and
without our knowledge and express or affirmative consent, we may have
been converted into things, possibly to be used as merchandise for the
profit or benefit of an unknown (to us) owner. If that is the case, it
had to happen through our unknowing tacit consent. We would certainly
never consider entering into such an arrangement voluntarily
I have examined birth certificates issued over the past 15 years in
other state jurisdictions, and have found the form of entry of "names"
to be identical with that used on the birth certificate herein under
discussion.
I have talked with county registrars, who have advised me that they
are required to use that form of entry under direction of the State
Registrar. But none could or would provide me with a copy of such a
directive. They referred me to your office for a copy of the
directive.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-11-016(2)(h) provides that:
Unless otherwise directed by the state Registrar, no certificate shall
be complete and correct and acceptable for registration: that contains
improper or inconsistent data; -
The Rule clearly provides that birth certificates may contain
inconsistent data, such as inconsistent mixing of names with
fictitious names, but only WHEN DIRECTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.
Please provide me with a copy of your directive authorizing the mixing
of name-forms on birth certificates. If no such directive has issued
from your office, please provide me with the application for
correcting of false information which appears on a birth certificate.
Yours Truly,
James Hazel
Concluding Remarks
In his Revelation, Saint John labored to describe a Beast which
enslaved Men, and devoured their souls. He exposed the nature and
mentality of the Beast's servants and supporters, of those who - like
attorneys - spoke for the Beast; and those who executed its commands,
and those lukewarm quislings who gave it their moral support - even at
the cost of their children's lives. But Saint John wrote in highly
symbolic terms - farfetched from the normal experiences of men. His
intent may have been to save individuals from their baser instincts,
and raise them to higher levels of consciousness - or to do the same
for humanity as a whole... OR BOTH. The result was a Book, which
however influential and powerful, is esoteric. His general revelations
are profound, but lack the concrete details we need to understand the
schemes the Beast's servants use to manipulate and exploit innocent
men, women and children, to understand sufficiently that we will be
able to defend ourselves against the schemes.
The foregoing Letter to the Registrar is an attempt to layer some
visible flesh onto the Saint John's etheric skeleton.
In his 13th Chapter, Saint John warned his posterity that another
beast would ascend which would execute or nail down the supremacy of
the original Beast which, for lack of an effective scheme, had so far
been unable to convert all Men into virtually inanimate things, a
conversion necessary to directly treat them as merchandise to be
milked and traded in a commercial monopoly.
Saint John predicted that the latter, irresistible scheme would
persuade all Men to believe (worship) the idea that their very lives
depended on their ability to buy and sell; to get a piece of the
action of the only game in town! They might sense that the deck was
stacked, but the deceptive tricks of the magicians who dealt their
hands - being consummate lawyers and symbolaeographers, and dedicated
servants of the Beast - were almost impossible to catch. John revealed
the governing "trick" - in general terms: In order to buy and sell
(and therefore not be killed by poverty), all men must agree to do one
of two things. They must not object to being marked or branded as the
Beast is marked. The Beast, being fictitious and having no real
existence in nature or reality - but existing only in the minds of
gullible men - is marked or branded by Nature Itself to be a
fictitious thing. Begin a fictitious thing, the beast is marked with a
pretend name... a mark that looks like a name, but really isn't.
No beast can speak for itself, but only through lawyers and agents.
The lawyers who administered the schemes of the second Beast,
established the "law" which mandates that no natural person may buy or
sell, or otherwise seek a profit, in his own Name. They define such
activities as business; "Activity entered into with the intent of
making a profit" - and require such persons to assume fictitious names
for purposes related to business. IT IS THE FICTION which is the mark
or brand Saint John warns against! It is the same NUMBER (measure) of
what the Beast is; the precise level at which it resides in reality;
it's status in relationship to every thing else - which is FICTIONAL.
And in accordance with the Rule of English Grammar it is marked or
represented, not by a capitalized name, but by a fictitious "name."
Otherwise "natural persons" who wish to participate in the
Beast-System (a worldwide commercial monopoly), and to buy the labor
and souls of other men, while selling their own to the highest bidder
must receive from the Beast (System), the privilege of using
fictitious names.
Only the managers of the scheme are required to know how the system
functions. It is they who dictate the policies that keep it running
smoothly; who provide for necessary adjustments and refinements to
make the system ever more irresistible. Who determine among themselves
what the short-term and long-term objectives will be.
It is also incumbent on the pivotal lawyers - especially judges - to
learn the deceptive principles which drive the system - so they will
be able to suppress valid challenges to its supremacy.
But it is requisite that members of the common herd be imprisoned in
abject ignorance, never doubting that they are "free and
self-sovereign individuals" who are in full control of their lives and
families, and who can speak freely on any subject they choose, and
worship whatever God their consciences dictate.
And it is especially essential that the soldiers (policy-enforcement
officers), who are required to suppress human activities which tend to
undermine the monopoly business venture, be drawn from the least
imaginative and sensitive humans. While they are chosen for their love
of violence, and must exhibit physical bravery - only intellectual and
spiritual cowards are eligible to become military, executorial,
persons.
The "Latter Beast" appeared in embryonic form barely 100 years ago.
Since its advent, it has matured into the monolithic form we "see"
today. Despite dire predictions of "an impending collapse of society
as we know it today," the Beast (System) will not implode into itself.
It will not self-destruct. It will continue on its course; growing
ever powerful and irresistible. UNLESS IT MEETS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT
THAT IS DETERMINED TO VAPORIZE IT BACK INTO THE NOTHINGNESS FROM WHICH
IT CAME!
"The System" can be rocked on its axis if numerous real, live, flesh
and blood people will act on relevant FACTS, instead of remaining
paralyzed by delusions.
"The System" cannot totally prevail except by its "legal process" of
affecting individuals by persuading them to let themselves be directly
affected by it. People "volunteer" by assuming that the fictitious
names, held out so temptingly to them, require them to assume
responsibility for everything done in the fictitious names.
Before the fictitious name scheme became a universal syndrome,
individuals could only be directly affected by due process of law
which required a real, named person to accuse him of liability for an
injury committed by the accused. The injury must have been committed
in a particular NAMED venue; i.e. in a particular state and county.
The controversy raised under oath by the accuser, would be tried and
resolved in a particular NAMED court. The accusatory instrument was
required to identify the natural person by his NAME. A typical
accusatory instrument set out all the required names in its caption,
like this:
In the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon for Marion County
State of Oregon, )
vs. ) Criminal Complaint
James Hazel )
Now, under the "Latter Beast System," ALL NAMES in accusatory
instruments are fictitious:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON )
VS. ) CRIMINAL
JAMES HAZEL ) COMPLAINT
In the final analysis, "government" can only affect you through an
administrative or "judicial" accusation - demanding that you "appear"
and "answer." Regardless of how many times in the past you have
tacitly (albeit innocently and ignorantly) "acknowledged" a fictitious
name, when you insist, your natural being can only be represented by a
REAL CAPITALIZED NAME. Therefore, being addressed or even arrested by
a fictitious name, which does not mark your natural being, there is
nothing for you to answer. You simply say: "The accusation must be
abated, it is void. My name is ("John Jones"; capital J, o, h, n;
capital J, o, n, e, s ). The accused, 'JOHN JONES,' is not an alias;
it is a fictitious name - and not mine."
"Answered" thus, numerous times in fictitious courts and agencies
which pollute the Land - the Latter Beast will begin to tremble... as
does an evil man when death approaches.
Appendix -More about Names

"My" birth certificate, issued in Montana in 1937, reserved a box for
"Full name of child," with no mention of "first, middle or last
names." The form required entry of both the father's and mother's
"color or race," indicating the subject of the certificate was the
birth of a natural being.
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1943, upon my wife's birth,
reserved a box for "(CHILD) NAME," and provided spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last." The form required entry of both the father's and
mother's "COLOR OR RACE!"
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1980, upon the birth of my
youngest son, reserves a box for: "CHILD-NAME," with spaces for
"First," "Middle" and "Last." The form has no box or space for the
"color" or "race" of either parent.
The birth certificate issued in Oregon in 1989, upon the birth of my
grandson, reserves a box for "CHILD-NAME" with spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last" - a form identical to that for "my son's" birth
certificate; and like my son's, does not demand the color or race of
the parents. There is nothing on "their" birth certificates to verify
that the "CHILD-NAME(s)" entered on them, are the names for natural
beings; born of parents having natural color or race.
Another "curious" difference between the forms: The forms for myself,
my wife, and youngest son, each require entry of "THE MOTHER'S MAIDEN
NAME," and are disinterested in the mother's current name. But the
form for my grandson (1989), requires entry of the mother's (current)
name; with a separate box for "MAIDEN SURNAME." His is the only
certificate which mentions "surname."
The four foregoing examples demonstrate very disturbing changes in
birth certificate forms implemented over several decades!
A person's "Christian (christened) or given name" is his primary name.
The so-called "middle name" is superfluous for all legal purposes. A
"surname" is generally assumed to be a family name or the
"patronymic." By legal definition, "surname" means "The last name; the
name common to all members of a family." But technically, "surname"
means a name "which is excessive, extreme; or over, beyond or above
the given (christened) name."
"Last" (regarding the Last Name entered on three of the foregoing
birth certificates) means: "the only remaining part of a collection or
sequence; most recent, latest; highest, greatest or utmost; most
valid, authoritative or conclusive."
The case is prima facie! As far as "the states"' functionaries are
concerned, "your" name stands for a fictional thing intended for use
in commerce. And as a fiction created by a "state," it (and you) are
presumed subject to all of the regulations for commerce; including
regulation and taxation.
Let "the state" do what it wishes with the fictitious names it
creates... until it equates one with YOU. Then, defend your real name,
and your honor, and your self by every means at your command - as if
your life and soul depends on it!
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jimmy

TaxEaseForHire said:
Garbage arguments about conspiracies surrounding capital letters, or state
abbreviations, or state vs. State are not worthy of response. Anyone that wd
fall for that nonsense is in desperate need of psychiatric help. Same goes
for medical conspiracies and those who refuse to use the zip codes on
letters. Get help. SOON.
TaxEase
There you have it folks. TaxEase doesn't believe grammer and proper
spelling make any difference in law. Guess that makes things real easy
for him, eh "TaxEase"ForHire?

Jimmy

Jimmy said:
"TaxEaseForHire" <whydoesyourdogsniffmycrotch@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news: said:
One word for Jimmy: RETARD
TaxEase
On your word without substance?? Ha! Guess who's the retard.

Jimmy

Notes About Deceptive All Capitals Names

What follows is a letter to the (Oregon) State Registrar of Vital
Statistics. It appears to be a request for a particular directive,
issued by the State Registrar to the various county registrars who
prepare birth certificates. Don't be fooled by the appearances. The
real purpose of the letter is for use as a forum to expose a vital
truth about how men, women and children are legally converted into
mere things; HUMAN RESOURCES and raw materials for exploitation to
profit a relatively few beneficiaries of a perverted government
monopoly. Whether or not the State Registrar fills my request is not
important. It won't change the facts revealed in the letter. (I seldom
ask questions of a bureaucrat when I don't know the answers in
advance)!
After the letter you will find reproductions of relevant parts of two
different birth certificates: one issued in Ohio after the birth of my
son, David, and the other issued in Oregon after the birth of my
grandson, Andrew. They will help the reader visualize the fact that
the "curious practice of mixing real names with fictitious names" is
not unique to Oregon. As nearly as I can determine, it is practiced by
preparers of birth certificates in all states. And it has been going
on for at least 16 years - nationwide. Knowing that, you will also
realize that the source of the command for such a "curious practice"
is at the national, or even the international, level. The practice is
systemic. [Editor; You can receive copies of the birth certificates
from author James Hazel.]
One other thing that is not made perfectly clear in the following
letter is the fact that the "names" of "artificial persons," such as
corporations and "assumed business names," are written in all
UPPERCASE letters. Since they are fictional or fictitious "things,"
they require fictitious names. Don't confuse a fictitious name with an
alias (alias dictus).
"Alias" is when one is known by two or more different names. The term
refers only to natural persons, not to artificial "persons." A natural
person may be known by as many names as he chooses, for any lawful
reason - or for no reason. For example: so long as he doesn't use
different names with the intention to commit fraud, "James Smith" may
lawfully also be known as "John Jones." An alias, being a name of a
natural person, is always capitalized.
To the contrary, "a fictitious name is a counterfeit, feigned or
pretended name taken by a person, differing in some particular from
his true name, with the implication that it is meant to deceive and
mislead" (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition).
A fictitious name may be assumed by a natural person. But the "name"
of an artificial "person" is ALWAYS a fictitious name, and every
attorney will acknowledge that the names of artificial "persons" are
always fictitious names.
Real names are always capitalized, that is, the first letter of the
name is capitalized, and the subsequent letters are written in
lowercase. Fictitious names are generally written in all uppercase
letters, so they can be distinguished from real names. It's common for
typists to improperly write fictitious names in the same "style" as
real names. Sometimes the error is driven by the writer's ignorance,
but often it is motivated by an intent to deceive.
The real name of our friend, John Smith is written (you guessed it!)
"John Smith." "JOHN SMITH" on the other hand, is a fictitious name by
virtue of the fact that it doesn't conform to the rule of grammar
which requires capitalization of names. Except for absence of
capitalization, it is spelled like our friend's name, and it sounds
the same when spoken orally. But it's not the name for John Smith. The
"name" is fictitious in and of itself, since it is not a real name.
If John Smith were to examine the driver license in his wallet, and
the Social Security card he holds, his old military I.D., and every
card, check and statement related to his banking, he would discover
that none of them are in his name. They all concern fictitious names!
If that doesn't alarm John - wait until he learns that his children
and grandchildren: those natural, beautiful flesh, blood and spirit
fruits of his loins - bear fictitious names of THINGS; or "artificial
persons!"
James Hazel
P.O. Box 863
Mount Angel OR 97362
December 11, 1995
Edward Johnson II,
State Registrar of Vital Statistics
P.O. Box 14050
Portland OR 97214-0050
Re: Forms for entries of names on birth certificates: REQUEST FOR COPY
OF DIRECTIVE
Dear Registrar Johnson:

It recently came to my attention, while examining the birth
certificate issued pursuant to the birth of my grandson (copy enclosed
for your reference) that the data entered in the box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME" is inconsistent. The "First and Middle" given, Christian
names are properly capitalized in conformance with the rule of English
grammar which governs the writing of names; i.e. "Names are always
capitalized." But under the section reserved for the "Last" name,
"HAZEL," in all uppercase letters, is entered.
Obviously, "HAZEL" is not a name.
Names for natural persons are, of course, always capitalized; that is,
the initial letter of the word/name stands distinctly higher than the
subsequent letters. Typically, when expressed in type, the initial
letter is taken from the uppercase and the subsequent letters are
taken from the lowercase. The result is that there can be no ambiguity
or confusion as to whether a word is a name/proper noun or a common
word or common noun.
Artificial persons (which are actually contrived things that are
endowed with a few of the legal powers and privileges of natural
persons) are given fictitious names. It is fitting and appropriate
that fictitious "persons," as legal fictions, should be given
fictitious names to distinguish them from other fictional entities,
and from natural persons.
A person may apply to the CORPORATION DIVISION of the office of the
SECRETARY OF STATE, for the establishment and registration of an
ASSUMED BUSINESS NAME. The purpose of such a name is, of course, to
enter into activity for the intention of making a profit. The "name"
that is then established and registered is a fictitious name; not a
real name.
Since it does not conform with the rule of grammar which requires
capitalization of names of persons, places and things, "HAZEL," as it
appears on the birth certificate discussed herein - obviously intended
to be assumed and taken as a family surname - is a fictitious name.
Where the fictitious name (HAZEL) is entered into a box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME," and mixed together in that box with the
correctly-written given, Christian names for the child, the data in
that box is inconsistent .
It would seem to logically follow that, where one-third of the "names"
in a "name context" or box is fictitious, all of the "names," taken
together, are fictitious - sort of by the same principle that "one
rotten apple will spoil the barrel" or "guilt by association."
My concern is that, by some legal mechanism unknown to us, which has
been executed against our interests without full disclosure to us, and
without our knowledge and express or affirmative consent, we may have
been converted into things, possibly to be used as merchandise for the
profit or benefit of an unknown (to us) owner. If that is the case, it
had to happen through our unknowing tacit consent. We would certainly
never consider entering into such an arrangement voluntarily
I have examined birth certificates issued over the past 15 years in
other state jurisdictions, and have found the form of entry of "names"
to be identical with that used on the birth certificate herein under
discussion.
I have talked with county registrars, who have advised me that they
are required to use that form of entry under direction of the State
Registrar. But none could or would provide me with a copy of such a
directive. They referred me to your office for a copy of the
directive.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-11-016(2)(h) provides that:
Unless otherwise directed by the state Registrar, no certificate shall
be complete and correct and acceptable for registration: that contains
improper or inconsistent data; -
The Rule clearly provides that birth certificates may contain
inconsistent data, such as inconsistent mixing of names with
fictitious names, but only WHEN DIRECTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.
Please provide me with a copy of your directive authorizing the mixing
of name-forms on birth certificates. If no such directive has issued
from your office, please provide me with the application for
correcting of false information which appears on a birth certificate.
Yours Truly,
James Hazel
Concluding Remarks
In his Revelation, Saint John labored to describe a Beast which
enslaved Men, and devoured their souls. He exposed the nature and
mentality of the Beast's servants and supporters, of those who - like
attorneys - spoke for the Beast; and those who executed its commands,
and those lukewarm quislings who gave it their moral support - even at
the cost of their children's lives. But Saint John wrote in highly
symbolic terms - farfetched from the normal experiences of men. His
intent may have been to save individuals from their baser instincts,
and raise them to higher levels of consciousness - or to do the same
for humanity as a whole... OR BOTH. The result was a Book, which
however influential and powerful, is esoteric. His general revelations
are profound, but lack the concrete details we need to understand the
schemes the Beast's servants use to manipulate and exploit innocent
men, women and children, to understand sufficiently that we will be
able to defend ourselves against the schemes.
The foregoing Letter to the Registrar is an attempt to layer some
visible flesh onto the Saint John's etheric skeleton.
In his 13th Chapter, Saint John warned his posterity that another
beast would ascend which would execute or nail down the supremacy of
the original Beast which, for lack of an effective scheme, had so far
been unable to convert all Men into virtually inanimate things, a
conversion necessary to directly treat them as merchandise to be
milked and traded in a commercial monopoly.
Saint John predicted that the latter, irresistible scheme would
persuade all Men to believe (worship) the idea that their very lives
depended on their ability to buy and sell; to get a piece of the
action of the only game in town! They might sense that the deck was
stacked, but the deceptive tricks of the magicians who dealt their
hands - being consummate lawyers and symbolaeographers, and dedicated
servants of the Beast - were almost impossible to catch. John revealed
the governing "trick" - in general terms: In order to buy and sell
(and therefore not be killed by poverty), all men must agree to do one
of two things. They must not object to being marked or branded as the
Beast is marked. The Beast, being fictitious and having no real
existence in nature or reality - but existing only in the minds of
gullible men - is marked or branded by Nature Itself to be a
fictitious thing. Begin a fictitious thing, the beast is marked with a
pretend name... a mark that looks like a name, but really isn't.
No beast can speak for itself, but only through lawyers and agents.
The lawyers who administered the schemes of the second Beast,
established the "law" which mandates that no natural person may buy or
sell, or otherwise seek a profit, in his own Name. They define such
activities as business; "Activity entered into with the intent of
making a profit" - and require such persons to assume fictitious names
for purposes related to business. IT IS THE FICTION which is the mark
or brand Saint John warns against! It is the same NUMBER (measure) of
what the Beast is; the precise level at which it resides in reality;
it's status in relationship to every thing else - which is FICTIONAL.
And in accordance with the Rule of English Grammar it is marked or
represented, not by a capitalized name, but by a fictitious "name."
Otherwise "natural persons" who wish to participate in the
Beast-System (a worldwide commercial monopoly), and to buy the labor
and souls of other men, while selling their own to the highest bidder
must receive from the Beast (System), the privilege of using
fictitious names.
Only the managers of the scheme are required to know how the system
functions. It is they who dictate the policies that keep it running
smoothly; who provide for necessary adjustments and refinements to
make the system ever more irresistible. Who determine among themselves
what the short-term and long-term objectives will be.
It is also incumbent on the pivotal lawyers - especially judges - to
learn the deceptive principles which drive the system - so they will
be able to suppress valid challenges to its supremacy.
But it is requisite that members of the common herd be imprisoned in
abject ignorance, never doubting that they are "free and
self-sovereign individuals" who are in full control of their lives and
families, and who can speak freely on any subject they choose, and
worship whatever God their consciences dictate.
And it is especially essential that the soldiers (policy-enforcement
officers), who are required to suppress human activities which tend to
undermine the monopoly business venture, be drawn from the least
imaginative and sensitive humans. While they are chosen for their love
of violence, and must exhibit physical bravery - only intellectual and
spiritual cowards are eligible to become military, executorial,
persons.
The "Latter Beast" appeared in embryonic form barely 100 years ago.
Since its advent, it has matured into the monolithic form we "see"
today. Despite dire predictions of "an impending collapse of society
as we know it today," the Beast (System) will not implode into itself.
It will not self-destruct. It will continue on its course; growing
ever powerful and irresistible. UNLESS IT MEETS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT
THAT IS DETERMINED TO VAPORIZE IT BACK INTO THE NOTHINGNESS FROM WHICH
IT CAME!
"The System" can be rocked on its axis if numerous real, live, flesh
and blood people will act on relevant FACTS, instead of remaining
paralyzed by delusions.
"The System" cannot totally prevail except by its "legal process" of
affecting individuals by persuading them to let themselves be directly
affected by it. People "volunteer" by assuming that the fictitious
names, held out so temptingly to them, require them to assume
responsibility for everything done in the fictitious names.
Before the fictitious name scheme became a universal syndrome,
individuals could only be directly affected by due process of law
which required a real, named person to accuse him of liability for an
injury committed by the accused. The injury must have been committed
in a particular NAMED venue; i.e. in a particular state and county.
The controversy raised under oath by the accuser, would be tried and
resolved in a particular NAMED court. The accusatory instrument was
required to identify the natural person by his NAME. A typical
accusatory instrument set out all the required names in its caption,
like this:
In the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon for Marion County
State of Oregon, )
vs. ) Criminal Complaint
James Hazel )
Now, under the "Latter Beast System," ALL NAMES in accusatory
instruments are fictitious:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON )
VS. ) CRIMINAL
JAMES HAZEL ) COMPLAINT
In the final analysis, "government" can only affect you through an
administrative or "judicial" accusation - demanding that you "appear"
and "answer." Regardless of how many times in the past you have
tacitly (albeit innocently and ignorantly) "acknowledged" a fictitious
name, when you insist, your natural being can only be represented by a
REAL CAPITALIZED NAME. Therefore, being addressed or even arrested by
a fictitious name, which does not mark your natural being, there is
nothing for you to answer. You simply say: "The accusation must be
abated, it is void. My name is ("John Jones"; capital J, o, h, n;
capital J, o, n, e, s ). The accused, 'JOHN JONES,' is not an alias;
it is a fictitious name - and not mine."
"Answered" thus, numerous times in fictitious courts and agencies
which pollute the Land - the Latter Beast will begin to tremble... as
does an evil man when death approaches.
Appendix -More about Names

"My" birth certificate, issued in Montana in 1937, reserved a box for
"Full name of child," with no mention of "first, middle or last
names." The form required entry of both the father's and mother's
"color or race," indicating the subject of the certificate was the
birth of a natural being.
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1943, upon my wife's birth,
reserved a box for "(CHILD) NAME," and provided spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last." The form required entry of both the father's and
mother's "COLOR OR RACE!"
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1980, upon the birth of my
youngest son, reserves a box for: "CHILD-NAME," with spaces for
"First," "Middle" and "Last." The form has no box or space for the
"color" or "race" of either parent.
The birth certificate issued in Oregon in 1989, upon the birth of my
grandson, reserves a box for "CHILD-NAME" with spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last" - a form identical to that for "my son's" birth
certificate; and like my son's, does not demand the color or race of
the parents. There is nothing on "their" birth certificates to verify
that the "CHILD-NAME(s)" entered on them, are the names for natural
beings; born of parents having natural color or race.
Another "curious" difference between the forms: The forms for myself,
my wife, and youngest son, each require entry of "THE MOTHER'S MAIDEN
NAME," and are disinterested in the mother's current name. But the
form for my grandson (1989), requires entry of the mother's (current)
name; with a separate box for "MAIDEN SURNAME." His is the only
certificate which mentions "surname."
The four foregoing examples demonstrate very disturbing changes in
birth certificate forms implemented over several decades!
A person's "Christian (christened) or given name" is his primary name.
The so-called "middle name" is superfluous for all legal purposes. A
"surname" is generally assumed to be a family name or the
"patronymic." By legal definition, "surname" means "The last name; the
name common to all members of a family." But technically, "surname"
means a name "which is excessive, extreme; or over, beyond or above
the given (christened) name."
"Last" (regarding the Last Name entered on three of the foregoing
birth certificates) means: "the only remaining part of a collection or
sequence; most recent, latest; highest, greatest or utmost; most
valid, authoritative or conclusive."
The case is prima facie! As far as "the states"' functionaries are
concerned, "your" name stands for a fictional thing intended for use
in commerce. And as a fiction created by a "state," it (and you) are
presumed subject to all of the regulations for commerce; including
regulation and taxation.
Let "the state" do what it wishes with the fictitious names it
creates... until it equates one with YOU. Then, defend your real name,
and your honor, and your self by every means at your command - as if
your life and soul depends on it!
 
T

TaxEaseForHire

Jimmy, do you really think that the use of capitals changes the SPELLING of
a word? Did you finish, even, elementary? Does it make any difference if I
say stuff yourself, or STUFF YOURSELF? It really doesn't matter, as long as
you do as I am suggesting.
But seriously folks... upper case, lower case, that doesn't affect GRAMMAR
(or grammar, just for Jimmy, or jimmy, or JIMMY, or JiMmY, or whatever) or
spelling. We ALL know that, except for the said Jimmy, JiMMy, etc.
There are, of course, remedial English classes available at your local
college (a.k.a. high school, if you are in Canada).
TaxEase

Jimmy said:
"TaxEaseForHire" <whydoesyourdogsniffmycrotch@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news: said:
Garbage arguments about conspiracies surrounding capital letters, or state
abbreviations, or state vs. State are not worthy of response. Anyone that wd
fall for that nonsense is in desperate need of psychiatric help. Same goes
for medical conspiracies and those who refuse to use the zip codes on
letters. Get help. SOON.
TaxEase
There you have it folks. TaxEase doesn't believe grammer and proper
spelling make any difference in law. Guess that makes things real easy
for him, eh "TaxEase"ForHire?

Jimmy

Jimmy said:
"TaxEaseForHire" <whydoesyourdogsniffmycrotch@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news: said:
One word for Jimmy: RETARD
TaxEase

On your word without substance?? Ha! Guess who's the retard.

Jimmy



Notes About Deceptive All Capitals Names

What follows is a letter to the (Oregon) State Registrar of Vital
Statistics. It appears to be a request for a particular directive,
issued by the State Registrar to the various county registrars who
prepare birth certificates. Don't be fooled by the appearances. The
real purpose of the letter is for use as a forum to expose a vital
truth about how men, women and children are legally converted into
mere things; HUMAN RESOURCES and raw materials for exploitation to
profit a relatively few beneficiaries of a perverted government
monopoly. Whether or not the State Registrar fills my request is not
important. It won't change the facts revealed in the letter. (I seldom
ask questions of a bureaucrat when I don't know the answers in
advance)!
After the letter you will find reproductions of relevant parts of two
different birth certificates: one issued in Ohio after the birth of my
son, David, and the other issued in Oregon after the birth of my
grandson, Andrew. They will help the reader visualize the fact that
the "curious practice of mixing real names with fictitious names" is
not unique to Oregon. As nearly as I can determine, it is practiced by
preparers of birth certificates in all states. And it has been going
on for at least 16 years - nationwide. Knowing that, you will also
realize that the source of the command for such a "curious practice"
is at the national, or even the international, level. The practice is
systemic. [Editor; You can receive copies of the birth certificates
from author James Hazel.]
One other thing that is not made perfectly clear in the following
letter is the fact that the "names" of "artificial persons," such as
corporations and "assumed business names," are written in all
UPPERCASE letters. Since they are fictional or fictitious "things,"
they require fictitious names. Don't confuse a fictitious name with an
alias (alias dictus).
"Alias" is when one is known by two or more different names. The term
refers only to natural persons, not to artificial "persons." A natural
person may be known by as many names as he chooses, for any lawful
reason - or for no reason. For example: so long as he doesn't use
different names with the intention to commit fraud, "James Smith" may
lawfully also be known as "John Jones." An alias, being a name of a
natural person, is always capitalized.
To the contrary, "a fictitious name is a counterfeit, feigned or
pretended name taken by a person, differing in some particular from
his true name, with the implication that it is meant to deceive and
mislead" (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition).
A fictitious name may be assumed by a natural person. But the "name"
of an artificial "person" is ALWAYS a fictitious name, and every
attorney will acknowledge that the names of artificial "persons" are
always fictitious names.
Real names are always capitalized, that is, the first letter of the
name is capitalized, and the subsequent letters are written in
lowercase. Fictitious names are generally written in all uppercase
letters, so they can be distinguished from real names. It's common for
typists to improperly write fictitious names in the same "style" as
real names. Sometimes the error is driven by the writer's ignorance,
but often it is motivated by an intent to deceive.
The real name of our friend, John Smith is written (you guessed it!)
"John Smith." "JOHN SMITH" on the other hand, is a fictitious name by
virtue of the fact that it doesn't conform to the rule of grammar
which requires capitalization of names. Except for absence of
capitalization, it is spelled like our friend's name, and it sounds
the same when spoken orally. But it's not the name for John Smith. The
"name" is fictitious in and of itself, since it is not a real name.
If John Smith were to examine the driver license in his wallet, and
the Social Security card he holds, his old military I.D., and every
card, check and statement related to his banking, he would discover
that none of them are in his name. They all concern fictitious names!
If that doesn't alarm John - wait until he learns that his children
and grandchildren: those natural, beautiful flesh, blood and spirit
fruits of his loins - bear fictitious names of THINGS; or "artificial
persons!"
James Hazel
P.O. Box 863
Mount Angel OR 97362
December 11, 1995
Edward Johnson II,
State Registrar of Vital Statistics
P.O. Box 14050
Portland OR 97214-0050
Re: Forms for entries of names on birth certificates: REQUEST FOR COPY
OF DIRECTIVE
Dear Registrar Johnson:

It recently came to my attention, while examining the birth
certificate issued pursuant to the birth of my grandson (copy enclosed
for your reference) that the data entered in the box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME" is inconsistent. The "First and Middle" given, Christian
names are properly capitalized in conformance with the rule of English
grammar which governs the writing of names; i.e. "Names are always
capitalized." But under the section reserved for the "Last" name,
"HAZEL," in all uppercase letters, is entered.
Obviously, "HAZEL" is not a name.
Names for natural persons are, of course, always capitalized; that is,
the initial letter of the word/name stands distinctly higher than the
subsequent letters. Typically, when expressed in type, the initial
letter is taken from the uppercase and the subsequent letters are
taken from the lowercase. The result is that there can be no ambiguity
or confusion as to whether a word is a name/proper noun or a common
word or common noun.
Artificial persons (which are actually contrived things that are
endowed with a few of the legal powers and privileges of natural
persons) are given fictitious names. It is fitting and appropriate
that fictitious "persons," as legal fictions, should be given
fictitious names to distinguish them from other fictional entities,
and from natural persons.
A person may apply to the CORPORATION DIVISION of the office of the
SECRETARY OF STATE, for the establishment and registration of an
ASSUMED BUSINESS NAME. The purpose of such a name is, of course, to
enter into activity for the intention of making a profit. The "name"
that is then established and registered is a fictitious name; not a
real name.
Since it does not conform with the rule of grammar which requires
capitalization of names of persons, places and things, "HAZEL," as it
appears on the birth certificate discussed herein - obviously intended
to be assumed and taken as a family surname - is a fictitious name.
Where the fictitious name (HAZEL) is entered into a box reserved for
"CHILD-NAME," and mixed together in that box with the
correctly-written given, Christian names for the child, the data in
that box is inconsistent .
It would seem to logically follow that, where one-third of the "names"
in a "name context" or box is fictitious, all of the "names," taken
together, are fictitious - sort of by the same principle that "one
rotten apple will spoil the barrel" or "guilt by association."
My concern is that, by some legal mechanism unknown to us, which has
been executed against our interests without full disclosure to us, and
without our knowledge and express or affirmative consent, we may have
been converted into things, possibly to be used as merchandise for the
profit or benefit of an unknown (to us) owner. If that is the case, it
had to happen through our unknowing tacit consent. We would certainly
never consider entering into such an arrangement voluntarily
I have examined birth certificates issued over the past 15 years in
other state jurisdictions, and have found the form of entry of "names"
to be identical with that used on the birth certificate herein under
discussion.
I have talked with county registrars, who have advised me that they
are required to use that form of entry under direction of the State
Registrar. But none could or would provide me with a copy of such a
directive. They referred me to your office for a copy of the
directive.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-11-016(2)(h) provides that:
Unless otherwise directed by the state Registrar, no certificate shall
be complete and correct and acceptable for registration: that contains
improper or inconsistent data; -
The Rule clearly provides that birth certificates may contain
inconsistent data, such as inconsistent mixing of names with
fictitious names, but only WHEN DIRECTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.
Please provide me with a copy of your directive authorizing the mixing
of name-forms on birth certificates. If no such directive has issued
from your office, please provide me with the application for
correcting of false information which appears on a birth certificate.
Yours Truly,
James Hazel
Concluding Remarks
In his Revelation, Saint John labored to describe a Beast which
enslaved Men, and devoured their souls. He exposed the nature and
mentality of the Beast's servants and supporters, of those who - like
attorneys - spoke for the Beast; and those who executed its commands,
and those lukewarm quislings who gave it their moral support - even at
the cost of their children's lives. But Saint John wrote in highly
symbolic terms - farfetched from the normal experiences of men. His
intent may have been to save individuals from their baser instincts,
and raise them to higher levels of consciousness - or to do the same
for humanity as a whole... OR BOTH. The result was a Book, which
however influential and powerful, is esoteric. His general revelations
are profound, but lack the concrete details we need to understand the
schemes the Beast's servants use to manipulate and exploit innocent
men, women and children, to understand sufficiently that we will be
able to defend ourselves against the schemes.
The foregoing Letter to the Registrar is an attempt to layer some
visible flesh onto the Saint John's etheric skeleton.
In his 13th Chapter, Saint John warned his posterity that another
beast would ascend which would execute or nail down the supremacy of
the original Beast which, for lack of an effective scheme, had so far
been unable to convert all Men into virtually inanimate things, a
conversion necessary to directly treat them as merchandise to be
milked and traded in a commercial monopoly.
Saint John predicted that the latter, irresistible scheme would
persuade all Men to believe (worship) the idea that their very lives
depended on their ability to buy and sell; to get a piece of the
action of the only game in town! They might sense that the deck was
stacked, but the deceptive tricks of the magicians who dealt their
hands - being consummate lawyers and symbolaeographers, and dedicated
servants of the Beast - were almost impossible to catch. John revealed
the governing "trick" - in general terms: In order to buy and sell
(and therefore not be killed by poverty), all men must agree to do one
of two things. They must not object to being marked or branded as the
Beast is marked. The Beast, being fictitious and having no real
existence in nature or reality - but existing only in the minds of
gullible men - is marked or branded by Nature Itself to be a
fictitious thing. Begin a fictitious thing, the beast is marked with a
pretend name... a mark that looks like a name, but really isn't.
No beast can speak for itself, but only through lawyers and agents.
The lawyers who administered the schemes of the second Beast,
established the "law" which mandates that no natural person may buy or
sell, or otherwise seek a profit, in his own Name. They define such
activities as business; "Activity entered into with the intent of
making a profit" - and require such persons to assume fictitious names
for purposes related to business. IT IS THE FICTION which is the mark
or brand Saint John warns against! It is the same NUMBER (measure) of
what the Beast is; the precise level at which it resides in reality;
it's status in relationship to every thing else - which is FICTIONAL.
And in accordance with the Rule of English Grammar it is marked or
represented, not by a capitalized name, but by a fictitious "name."
Otherwise "natural persons" who wish to participate in the
Beast-System (a worldwide commercial monopoly), and to buy the labor
and souls of other men, while selling their own to the highest bidder
must receive from the Beast (System), the privilege of using
fictitious names.
Only the managers of the scheme are required to know how the system
functions. It is they who dictate the policies that keep it running
smoothly; who provide for necessary adjustments and refinements to
make the system ever more irresistible. Who determine among themselves
what the short-term and long-term objectives will be.
It is also incumbent on the pivotal lawyers - especially judges - to
learn the deceptive principles which drive the system - so they will
be able to suppress valid challenges to its supremacy.
But it is requisite that members of the common herd be imprisoned in
abject ignorance, never doubting that they are "free and
self-sovereign individuals" who are in full control of their lives and
families, and who can speak freely on any subject they choose, and
worship whatever God their consciences dictate.
And it is especially essential that the soldiers (policy-enforcement
officers), who are required to suppress human activities which tend to
undermine the monopoly business venture, be drawn from the least
imaginative and sensitive humans. While they are chosen for their love
of violence, and must exhibit physical bravery - only intellectual and
spiritual cowards are eligible to become military, executorial,
persons.
The "Latter Beast" appeared in embryonic form barely 100 years ago.
Since its advent, it has matured into the monolithic form we "see"
today. Despite dire predictions of "an impending collapse of society
as we know it today," the Beast (System) will not implode into itself.
It will not self-destruct. It will continue on its course; growing
ever powerful and irresistible. UNLESS IT MEETS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT
THAT IS DETERMINED TO VAPORIZE IT BACK INTO THE NOTHINGNESS FROM WHICH
IT CAME!
"The System" can be rocked on its axis if numerous real, live, flesh
and blood people will act on relevant FACTS, instead of remaining
paralyzed by delusions.
"The System" cannot totally prevail except by its "legal process" of
affecting individuals by persuading them to let themselves be directly
affected by it. People "volunteer" by assuming that the fictitious
names, held out so temptingly to them, require them to assume
responsibility for everything done in the fictitious names.
Before the fictitious name scheme became a universal syndrome,
individuals could only be directly affected by due process of law
which required a real, named person to accuse him of liability for an
injury committed by the accused. The injury must have been committed
in a particular NAMED venue; i.e. in a particular state and county.
The controversy raised under oath by the accuser, would be tried and
resolved in a particular NAMED court. The accusatory instrument was
required to identify the natural person by his NAME. A typical
accusatory instrument set out all the required names in its caption,
like this:
In the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon for Marion County
State of Oregon, )
vs. ) Criminal Complaint
James Hazel )
Now, under the "Latter Beast System," ALL NAMES in accusatory
instruments are fictitious:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON )
VS. ) CRIMINAL
JAMES HAZEL ) COMPLAINT
In the final analysis, "government" can only affect you through an
administrative or "judicial" accusation - demanding that you "appear"
and "answer." Regardless of how many times in the past you have
tacitly (albeit innocently and ignorantly) "acknowledged" a fictitious
name, when you insist, your natural being can only be represented by a
REAL CAPITALIZED NAME. Therefore, being addressed or even arrested by
a fictitious name, which does not mark your natural being, there is
nothing for you to answer. You simply say: "The accusation must be
abated, it is void. My name is ("John Jones"; capital J, o, h, n;
capital J, o, n, e, s ). The accused, 'JOHN JONES,' is not an alias;
it is a fictitious name - and not mine."
"Answered" thus, numerous times in fictitious courts and agencies
which pollute the Land - the Latter Beast will begin to tremble... as
does an evil man when death approaches.
Appendix -More about Names

"My" birth certificate, issued in Montana in 1937, reserved a box for
"Full name of child," with no mention of "first, middle or last
names." The form required entry of both the father's and mother's
"color or race," indicating the subject of the certificate was the
birth of a natural being.
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1943, upon my wife's birth,
reserved a box for "(CHILD) NAME," and provided spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last." The form required entry of both the father's and
mother's "COLOR OR RACE!"
The birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1980, upon the birth of my
youngest son, reserves a box for: "CHILD-NAME," with spaces for
"First," "Middle" and "Last." The form has no box or space for the
"color" or "race" of either parent.
The birth certificate issued in Oregon in 1989, upon the birth of my
grandson, reserves a box for "CHILD-NAME" with spaces for "First,"
"Middle" and "Last" - a form identical to that for "my son's" birth
certificate; and like my son's, does not demand the color or race of
the parents. There is nothing on "their" birth certificates to verify
that the "CHILD-NAME(s)" entered on them, are the names for natural
beings; born of parents having natural color or race.
Another "curious" difference between the forms: The forms for myself,
my wife, and youngest son, each require entry of "THE MOTHER'S MAIDEN
NAME," and are disinterested in the mother's current name. But the
form for my grandson (1989), requires entry of the mother's (current)
name; with a separate box for "MAIDEN SURNAME." His is the only
certificate which mentions "surname."
The four foregoing examples demonstrate very disturbing changes in
birth certificate forms implemented over several decades!
A person's "Christian (christened) or given name" is his primary name.
The so-called "middle name" is superfluous for all legal purposes. A
"surname" is generally assumed to be a family name or the
"patronymic." By legal definition, "surname" means "The last name; the
name common to all members of a family." But technically, "surname"
means a name "which is excessive, extreme; or over, beyond or above
the given (christened) name."
"Last" (regarding the Last Name entered on three of the foregoing
birth certificates) means: "the only remaining part of a collection or
sequence; most recent, latest; highest, greatest or utmost; most
valid, authoritative or conclusive."
The case is prima facie! As far as "the states"' functionaries are
concerned, "your" name stands for a fictional thing intended for use
in commerce. And as a fiction created by a "state," it (and you) are
presumed subject to all of the regulations for commerce; including
regulation and taxation.
Let "the state" do what it wishes with the fictitious names it
creates... until it equates one with YOU. Then, defend your real name,
and your honor, and your self by every means at your command - as if
your life and soul depends on it!
 
B

Brian Rookard

StaR said:
If you change the NAME of the FICTITIOUS (created by the law) LEGAL
ENTITY known as a "natural person" that represents a man, the NEW NAME
for the FICTITIOUS LEGAL ENTITY (person( is not a fictitious or
assumed NAME. In other words, it doesn't mater what the hell you NAME
the FICTIOUS (created by the law) LEGAL ENTITY.

What's your point BRIAN?

Gee, and I thought the authority cited was pretty darn clear.

Only tax protesting morons can twist plain English in such a fashion.

There is no basis for your assertions StaR.
 
S

StaR

Gee, and I thought the authority cited was pretty darn clear.

Only tax protesting morons can twist plain English in such a fashion.
Only a GOOF would not see that both statements say the same thing.
There is no basis for your assertions StaR.
Give it up simpleton, we are all aware that none of you idiots are
able to refute the mountain of references I provide.

But hey, since you insist on parading your stupidity for all to see,
tell me something Brian....

Is it true Brian that our "civil law is generally applied by way of
eminence to the civil or municipal law of the Roman empire, without
distinction as to the time when the principles of such law were
established or modified. In another sense, the civil law is that
collection of laws comprised in the institutes, the code, and the
digest of the emperor Justinian, and the novel constitutions of
himself and some of his successors." ?

Is it true Brian that "'Civil Law,' 'Roman Law' and 'Roman Civil Law'
are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence."?

Is it true Brian that a "man" can only be considered a "person" when
in reference to a CIVIL SOCIETY and its CIVIL LAW.

Is it true Brian that Canada and the United States of America are
corporations?

Is it true Brian that the rights entitled and duties imposed are
dependent on the ranking one holds within these corporations?

Is it true Brian that in 1881 an Indian was not a person within the
meaning of the American constitution?

Is it true Brian that in 1858 in the state of Virginia, in the eyes of
the law, a slave (man) was not a person?

Is it true Brian that in 1909, as for voting rights, the statutory
word "person" did not in these circumstances include women?

Do you agree Brian that answering yes to any of these questions is
evidence that who the word "person" is applied to is dependent on its
definition within an act?

Are you man enough to answer these questions or are you going to act
like a mindless "person"?

StaR
 
Q

Quantrell

Jimmy, do you really think that the use of capitals changes the SPELLING of
If you change the NAME of the FICTITIOUS (created by the law) LEGAL
ENTITY known as a "natural person" that represents a man, the NEW NAME
for the FICTITIOUS LEGAL ENTITY (person( is not a fictitious or
assumed NAME. In other words, it doesn't mater what the hell you NAME
the FICTIOUS (created by the law) LEGAL ENTITY.

What's your point BRIAN?

StaR
Brian) Gee, and I thought the authority cited was pretty darn clear.

Only tax protesting morons can twist plain English in such a fashion.

There is no basis for your assertions StaR.


Q) The "basis" for StaR's assertion is that he needs a new theory ever
since the detax claim that natural persons are not subject to the rule
of law was shot down in court.

Ignorant of case law on the subject Eldon and his crowd once argued
that the law didn't apply to them since they are "natural persons".
When that assertion was shot to hell in the Kennedy case it became
necessary for Eldon and is hanger-on, StaR, to invent yet another
theory in order to keep the detax cult in the snake oil selling game.

Desperate for a new scam Eldon came up with the silly notion that
natural persons are tricked, via adhesion contracts, into becoming
"corporate entities". According to Eldon and StaR one may simply
cancel these contracts.

What StaR won't tell you is that this scam was short circuited four
long years ago when Eldon was pulled over for a routine traffic
violation. The paranoid Eldon, fearful that recognizing the authority
of the traffic cop would constitute the completion of a contract with
the government, proceeded on a course of argumentative detax babble
that escalated into his assaulting the traffic cop.

Prior to his trial Eldon sent the court a phony baloney affidavit
canceling his supposed contract with the government and simply didn't
show up in court. Needless to say Eldon was arrested and hauled into
court where he was forced to argue his theory at his trial (he was
convicted) and during his appeal.

As we all know Eldon's theory was laughed out of court, thus forcing
StaR to develop yet another new spin. . .this one being that natural
persons are really un-natural.

Just as Eldon ignored centuries of law in order to develop his
previous theories StaR is trying to tell us that Blackstone, Bouvier
and a mountain of case law should be ignored in favor of his crazy
theory.

We can be certain that StaR will post a million words he says backs
him up. But, I call on him again to prove his theory in a court of
law.

All our anonymous visitor has to do is leave his bicycle in a no
parking zone and then successfully argue against the ticket using his
lame theory.

The ball is in StaRetard's court. . .
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

sussmanbern

Jimmy's point is completely absurd. There is nothing, absolutely
nothing, in the law that changes a person by writing his name in block
letters (i.e. all caps). He cannot point to a single court case that
says such a stupid thing. And other people who trotted out in court a
similar argument (e.g., as an excuse for not responding properly to
some official document such as a summons) have had their heads handed
back to them.

Names are put in all-caps as a convenience to readers. This goes
back more (much more) than a century, before the use of typewriters,
when legal and official papers were entirely done by hand using quills
or dip pens by people who tried to use some standardized (and sometime
elegant) handwriting style such as copperplate or chancery style.
This handwriting might have been artistic and efficient but it wasn't
always easy to read ... and this at a time when the majority of the
general public could barely write their own names. So the practice
was adopted fairly early (some centuries ago) to put the names of the
principal persons - the parties or the recipients or whatever - in
block letters so that their names would be easily spotted and read.

This practice continued even after the introduction of the
typewriter ... especially because early on the only method of making
copies was carbon paper, and (since boldface or italics was not
possible on conventional typewriters) the only alternative way to draw
attention to the names of principals would be underlining, which would
actually rip up thin typing paper and carbon paper. So even in
typewriting, the names of principals were put in all-caps.

Even since the introduction of word processors capable of flashy
typographics, the old practice has continued. This practice or
custom is taught in typing textbooks for legal typists, and often
articulated in a court's rules, as a convenience for the judge, court
staff, and others.

But it works no legal alchemy on the person whose name is printed
in all-caps.
 
D

Diablo

Hey Rookard,

So this is where you are hiding. You seem to have run away again from
another of your demented rants.

You had said, "...Let's see, a "nonperson" is one whose rights are
denied ... and this is what the de-tox morons want to claim they are ...
in other words, they're men without rights..."

I then asked the following:

Name-calling aside, Rookard, what Rights are being denied? Are these
'Absolute Rights' or mere privileges? Who is denying these Rights?

Again, a 'non-person' has had their legal identity removed. YES or NO,
Rookard?

Are they dead? YES or No, Rookard?

If a 'non-person' has had their legal identity removed, then a 'person'
has had their legal identity established.


"...a person who lacks proof of identity is, in the eyes of officials, a
non-person...". -www.unicef.org/pon98/06-13.pdf

In true COWARD form (you're learning from Raider) you chose to run away.
Here is your chance to answer the questions.

Are you up for it?
 
T

Terry Spragg

StaR said:
If you change the NAME of the FICTITIOUS (created by the law) LEGAL
ENTITY known as a "natural person" that represents a man, the NEW NAME
for the FICTITIOUS LEGAL ENTITY (person( is not a fictitious or
assumed NAME. In other words, it doesn't mater what the hell you NAME
the FICTIOUS (created by the law) LEGAL ENTITY.

What's your point BRIAN?

StaR
StaR, one might ask what the heck you are trying to say? Your
construction above is unintelligible, a mere fragment of noise,
and otherwise ruined in every logical sense by bad punctuation
and unmatched nesting of parentheses. It is not possible to parse
it unequivocally. It seems to be the utterance of an illiterate
incohate.

The spirit is equally as important as the letter of the law.
When unintelligible, it is nothing, an ass, a hole containing no
value, nil, not even a place holder.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I honestly cannot understand
what you are saying. This confusion is not because you are
writing instead of speaking or SHOUTING, but because your thought
does not seem unambiguously expressed.

Perhaps we are using different rules of language, or even a
different language?

Language, including body language, spelling, grammar, context and
punctuation are the only tools we have for communication. Do we
need them? As poor as some of us may be with regards to masterly
creations or understanding, spouting illegible gibberish is not
acceptable in any meaningful sense, except as a measure of sanity
in the utterer.

Those who use obscure and unintelligible language purposefully
can only be attempting to undermine our most valuable resourse as
a civilisation: the ability to communicate. One must watch
carefully for those constructions which are purposeful, intended
to obfuscate true meaning, "weasle" speech, employed by those
with motive, those who would evade responsibility by denying
their true selves.

This would be either as a result of an attack on society, on
civility itself, or as an act of an ignorant man, one who does
not know what he is doing, or how to do it acceptably, or one who
believes that some part of humanity is better somehow if we all
live as deaf and mute though not neccesarily savage beasts.

Which is it?

Does my third grade grammar teacher actually rule the world,
after all? It seems so, in truth.

It might seem that you say that the accurate determination of
identity is unimportant. I think that is wrong.

If I go to a court to ask that my inheritance, stolen by an act
of assumed identity, be restored to me, I will need to prove who
I am, who my parents were, what their estate was, what their
intentions were, what my estate should be. I would also need to
unequivocally identify the assets in that estate.

To minimise or possibly encourage some confusion, the law legally
converts all names to all capitals, except in the case of real
human beings who may insist that they are who they are, and not
be someone else. Still, a name such a "Sony", or "SONY
INCORPERATED" may or may not be exclusive, registerd, fully owned
by an individual or company of shareholders. As that group may
insist, I, with you, insist that my name be mine only, save that
elswhere, it might be used by some other father or mother to
identify their child, innocently born, named by others in
innocent ignorance and not by fiction. So, my name, as does his,
includes a genaeology, my expression that I am of a particular
estate, birthplace and time, even if I do not know these things,
if I am an orphan or foundling.

A registered company has a formally defined identity in law,
while I think I am who I am, and you are whom you may be, with
legal papers, a commonly used language, an unique name, or
without. The "gobblgook company" may or may not exist, but Jim
Smith will tell you who he is. Who will speak for gobblgook?
Only a human may do so. In every "ficticiously named" entity,
company or corporation, there must be at least one person who is
responsible for the direction and supervision of that company,
and for it's legal liabilities.

Who ownes my debt? Who demands payment? Who will give me a
receipt?

Does an impersonal business have more legitimacy than a live
human in law, or in life? Do I need an army of civility lawyers
to defend myself against one who would steal my name? That army
is in the street outside the courthouse, sleeping, and every
judge, every legislator knows that he too must go home at night
to sleep, travelling through the streets, among the people. He
must bare his neck to his wife and children or butler or cook who
will not tolerate injustice if it becomes large enough. Even
Kings fear coups. Long live the revolution! Rise up! Who's with
me? The majority of King Anarch may rule again, if it not rule
this day.

Find an honourable lawyer and ask him, then tell him what to say
in your name, if your mouth be full of pebbles or your pen run
dry. He may want for money. He may introduce you to a judge, who
may give you an opinion, and you may appeal to the highest court,
or to the legislature, who may legalise your most unlikely
demand, fight wars for you, win, and then be dissolved in
revolution and hanged by anonymous mobs in the street, and all
their records burned and they all be forgotton, and still your
thought may live on, deriveable in logic if not recalled by
concious thought. If they could have existed, they will always
exist, though no ear may ever hear the crash of it's descent into
some forest-mired floor.

Many things are attributed to anonymity. The thoughts remain.
Are we then to believe that the true names of men matter not, nor
the names of things, nor of actions, nor of thoughts, nor of
languages, nor of laws, nor of civilisations themselves? Are we
all the same person, all of one mind in God, wether we see him or
not? Are we supposed to read your mind, or will you impress upon
us your true intent by power of want alone? By your works you
will be known.

Perhaps you are right, or not. We cannot judge what you wrote.
You may be better for it.

--
Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by
copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is
specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested
solicitations. Reproduction or conveyance for any unauthorised
purpose is THEFT and PLAGIARISM. Abuse is Invasion of privacy
and harassment. Abusers may be prosecuted. -This notice footer
released to public domain. Spamspoof salad by spamchock -
SofDevCo
(e-mail address removed)
 
Q

Quantrell

StaR) Only a GOOF would not see that both statements say the same
thing.

StaR) Do you agree. . .that answering yes to any of these questions is
evidence that who the word "person" is applied to is dependent on its
definition within an act?

Q) StaR, the lynchpin of the detax argument is that natural persons
are not subject to the rule of law.

You will not argue this point, and continue to palaver on countless
others, because you know it has already been shot down in court!

So the real question here is whether or not you are man enough to
admit that the argument you present as new has already lost in open
court.
 
S

StaR

Only a GOOF would not see that both statements say the same thing.


Give it up simpleton, we are all aware that none of you idiots are
able to refute the mountain of references I provide.

But hey, since you insist on parading your stupidity for all to see,
tell me something Brian....

Is it true Brian that our "civil law is generally applied by way of
eminence to the civil or municipal law of the Roman empire, without
distinction as to the time when the principles of such law were
established or modified. In another sense, the civil law is that
collection of laws comprised in the institutes, the code, and the
digest of the emperor Justinian, and the novel constitutions of
himself and some of his successors." ?

Is it true Brian that "'Civil Law,' 'Roman Law' and 'Roman Civil Law'
are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence."?

Is it true Brian that a "man" can only be considered a "person" when
in reference to a CIVIL SOCIETY and its CIVIL LAW.

Is it true Brian that Canada and the United States of America are
corporations?

Is it true Brian that the rights entitled and duties imposed are
dependent on the ranking one holds within these corporations?

Is it true Brian that in 1881 an Indian was not a person within the
meaning of the American constitution?

Is it true Brian that in 1858 in the state of Virginia, in the eyes of
the law, a slave (man) was not a person?

Is it true Brian that in 1909, as for voting rights, the statutory
word "person" did not in these circumstances include women?

Do you agree Brian that answering yes to any of these questions is
evidence that who the word "person" is applied to is dependent on its
definition within an act?

Are you man enough to answer these questions or are you going to act
like a mindless "person"?

StaR
Brian?
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ron

Q) StaR, the lynchpin of the detax argument is that natural persons
are not subject to the rule of law.




You are truly the most ridiculous 'tard on the net Squirmy.


The ITA is specific to PERSONS.

PERSONS are created by GOVERNMENT (itself a PERSON) so it
(GOVERNMENT) can interact with it's own kind.


And *YOU*, ya poor boob, don't know if you're a man, a mouse, a 'tard
or a turd.


BTW, I wish to be kept up to date on the matter concerning Jean
Porteau as you promised you would do, so get at it!!
 
Q

Quantrell

TaxEaseForHire said:
You are truly the most ridiculous 'tard on the net Squirmy.

The ITA is specific to PERSONS.
Q 2) Including natural persons?
PERSONS are created by GOVERNMENT (itself a PERSON) so it
(GOVERNMENT) can interact with it's own kind.
Q 2) Like when it convicted Eldon of assualt?

LOL!!!!!
And *YOU*, ya poor boob, don't know if you're a man, a mouse, a 'tard
or a turd.
Q 2) I know you are a fool.
BTW, I wish to be kept up to date on the matter concerning Jean
Porteau as you promised you would do, so get at it!!
Q 2) So call him.

Do you need contact information?

His last known number was 306-463-4772.

Q 2) No comment on this last point, MoRon?
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

StaR

Is it true Brian that our "civil law is generally applied by way of
eminence to the civil or municipal law of the Roman empire, without
distinction as to the time when the principles of such law were
established or modified. In another sense, the civil law is that
collection of laws comprised in the institutes, the code, and the
digest of the emperor Justinian, and the novel constitutions of
himself and some of his successors." ?

Is it true Brian that "'Civil Law,' 'Roman Law' and 'Roman Civil Law'
are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence."?

Is it true Brian that a "man" can only be considered a "person" when
in reference to a CIVIL SOCIETY and its CIVIL LAW.

Is it true Brian that Canada and the United States of America are
corporations?

Is it true Brian that the rights entitled and duties imposed are
dependent on the ranking one holds within these corporations?

Is it true Brian that in 1881 an Indian was not a person within the
meaning of the American constitution?

Is it true Brian that in 1858 in the state of Virginia, in the eyes of
the law, a slave (man) was not a person?

Is it true Brian that in 1909, as for voting rights, the statutory
word "person" did not in these circumstances include women?

Do you agree Brian that answering yes to any of these questions is
evidence that who the word "person" is applied to is dependent on its
definition within an act?

StaR
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top