What’s In A Name?

State v. R.E. Wilson (Mont.Supm unpub 12/3/98). Appellant argued that his convictions, for driving without a license or insurance or registration, was invalid solely because the court papers identified him as “Richard E. Wilson,” whereas he claimed his actual name is “Richard Earl., of Wilson” (period after Earl and no capital for Wilson), consisting of his “nomen, pronomen and cognomentation” in that order. The court rejected this argument by ruling, “The caption more than adequately identifies [the] appellant as the party in interest…and appellant’s efforts to distinguish his name from that shown on the caption by means of punctuation and terminology are wholly unpersuasive.”

[The appellant basically argued that he can drive without a license solely because the court misspelled his name. This is not true. #1: The way a court spells a name is not an excuse for driving without a license. The reason for exercising your duty of movement on the common way is solely because Christ commanded us to do so without permission from men. #2. The fact that he admitted to “driving” gave them jurisdiction because it’s a commercial term. #3: He admitted to being, or did not refute the accusation that he was, an “appellant” and a “party” to the action, which gave the court jurisdiction.]

And approximately at the same time, The Cincinnati Enquirer (12/16/98) reported that an Ohio court rejected that a defendant who had taken to identifying himself as “Jack Edward; Taylor” was not the jack Edward Taylor” named in the court documents, especially since there were plenty of old letters and other papers he had signed in the usual way and sometimes without his middle name. The verdict was rebutted on use of semicolon. [This defendant, by his own act, showed himself to be a false witness by signing his name on other pieces of paper the same way that he himself said it was not spelled. By signing his name to the “fictitous name” in all caps, he stood as surety in the flesh for the “person” the State created. He became “one flesh” and merged with a lie. The State used his own evidence against him. This is God’s rod of correction for having a double mind.]

US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469. Threatened to sue the court clerk and others if they didn’t address all their mail and paperwork to a very strange and long description of him with his name interrupted by a colon and his street address without a zip code.

[Followers of Christ are forbidden to sue others (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) and it is not the character of a bondman of Christ to use threats against others. The words we speak will be used to judge us as to whether we are truely of God, or of the world.]

US v. Klimek (ED Penn 1997) 952 F.Supp 1100. Tried to refuse all pleadings and court papers that spelled his name in all caps and without intervening punctuation.

Swartzendruber v. US (WD Mo unpub 4/17/97). Threatened to refuse any court papers that printed her name in the normal way or which were addressed in the normal way, didn’t help because her case was immediately dismissed.

In re Busby (MD Fla unpub 10/2/98) 82 AFTR2d 6924. Used colon in midst of name in pleadings, but case option had normal name.

The Supreme Court held in Grannis v. Ordean (1914) 234 US 385 at 395, that “even in names, due process of law does not require ideal accuracy. In the spelling and pronunciation of proper names there are no generally accepted standards, and the well-established doctrine of idem sonans…is recognition of this.” In that case, a person with the unusual name of Albert Gilfuss ignored the delivery of a summons and court pleadings against “Albert Gilfuss” (presumably typed in all-caps) and the default judgment against him was binding.

A similar ruling on a misspelling on an indictment in Faust v. US (1896) 163 US 452.[Idem Sonans is when a name sounds the same, but spelled differently. And thus why, if you answer to a name that sounds the same as yours, yet is spelled in all caps, you give the court jurisdiction. So don’t answer! Also, notice that Albert had these papers “delivered” to him, insinuating he had an address, which gave the court jurisdiction.]

In a Missouri arraignment in 1996, “one of the ‘freemen’ stood up to announce that…he refused to recognize anything but his ‘full Christian name’ (evidently not printed in all caps and with some punctuation). This resulted in an unusual scene. An arrest warrant was issued and executed for the defendant’s failure to appear at his arraignment even though he was physically present in the court room.” J.W. Nixon & E.R. Ardini, Combating Common Law Courts, Criminal Justice, spring 1998, p.14.

[This is why it is so important not to appear before their courts. Take note of these:

Maxims of Law:

The presence of the body cures the error in the name; the truth of the name cures an error in the description.

An error in the name is immaterial if the body is certain.

An error in the name is nothing when there is certainty as to the person.

The truth of the demonstration removes the error of the name.

A general appearance cures antecedent irregularity of process, a defective service, etc.

Certain legal consequences are attached to the voluntary act of a person.]

In one instance, a federal judge, confronted with a tax protester whose argument consisted of the fact that all the tax and legal documents spelled his name out in capitals in a normal way while he insisted his name was spelled out with capitals and lower case letters and with punctuation in the middle (i.e. Edgar Francis., Bradley), ordered him to undergo psychiatric examination (which subsequently found him to be competent to stand trial). B.L. Kaufman, Judge Orders Defendant Tested, Cincinnati Enquirer, 6/17/98.

[Can you blame the judge? Here is a guy admitting the name on these documents is his name! Then turns around and says it’s not his name (because it’s not spelled that way). This guy is obviously confused (or deceived)]

So remember, if a court yells out a name that “sounds” like your name, and you know that the name called out is not your name (because the court has spelled it in all capital letters), then do not answer to that fictitious name!

3 comments

  1. OK, there is both good and bad information in here. In the case of Randy Lee Rebuts the IRS (formerly searchable as Randy Lee Beats the IRS) he did indeed beat the charges by showing the corrupted court officials that it was a case of mistaken identity (the fake judge in the case himself referred to it as such in addressing Attorney Gregory A. Roth) and dismissed the case! So, if it worked in one instance, why wouldn’t it work again and again and again? Is there a variation in outcomes due to which fake judge you are in front of?
    Here is what does NOT vary from fake judge to fake judge; it is that the legal system is now 100% corrupted and acting in a criminal manner!! The Agents, Operators, Officers and Actors of the legal system commit the crime of fraud every day in every case!! One form of fraud, if you bother to look it up in any law dictionary, is non-full disclosure of ALL known relevant facts of the matter at hand! So if any of the men or women in any of the aforementioned jobs does not give you complete disclosure of all known and relevant facts of the matter, they are committing the crime of fraud upon you!
    If those men and women noted above refuse to sign an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury that they promise to not commit any kind or amount of fraud upon you during the proceedings, then it can be construed that they do indeed intend to commit fraud of some kind or amount upon you, right?? If they are an honest man or woman of good and pure intent, then they will not hesitate even one second to sign it! I am an honest man, therefore I will sign affidavits attesting that I will not commit fraud all day long!! I will not EVER defraud anybody so long as I may live, who else can make that claim?? If they do sign that affidavit, then as soon as they commit any amount of fraud upon you, you have them in your snare!!
    There is NO obligation for ANY man or woman to be made a victim of somebody’s crimes!! It’s because NO man or woman has any kind of a right to commit crimes!! Do you see that?
    The Three Magic Questions are: What is the EXACT AMOUNT of crime that ANY man or woman has the right to commit? What is the EXACT AMOUNT of crime that ANY man or woman has an actual obligation to endure? What is the BASIC PREMISE that is being operated off of, in the instant case? If those three, simple questions cannot be answered honestly, then it MUST mean that the one(s) you are asking them of are contemplating committing some kind of crime upon you!!

  2. The Achilles’ Heel of EVERYTHING in the Universe

    Yes, Dear Reader, there IS an Achilles’ Heel to everything in the universe, and it has been sitting right out in the open all of this time, just waiting for us to see it. But few ever dared to even admit that it was there, let alone actually gaze upon it. It is the commission of a crime, whether intentional or not. Since no man or woman has any kind of a right to commit a crime of any amount, kind or nature against another, all that we need to do is expose the fact that such an action is being done, and it falls away from us. This is because no man or woman has an actual obligation to suffer under the crimes of another. If there is such an obligation, then it would be self negating, and not be a crime at all! It would just be the natural order of things for us to commit what are heinous acts upon others, and everyone would have no choice but to endure and suffer under those acts. But committing crimes upon others is NOT the natural order of life and the living of it, crimes are actions which harm others in some way, and some are far worse than others, but a crime of any magnitude is still a crime, and no matter how small some may think a certain crime is, no one has any duty to let it remain and hurt them to any degree. Crime is universally thought of as a bad thing, not a virtue to aspire to.
    This concept of exposing crimes in order to deflect them away from us is not really new. But it was done in such meager amounts, that it was akin to not ever knowing about it at all. This idea has been acknowledged to exist in the legal system, but because the society at large has been dumbed down so much and not taught how to think logically and rationally, it just stayed in the background. Not really hidden in any shadows, per se, it was only that no one paid enough attention to see it, sort of like an animal that is camouflaged and blending in with the rest of the environment. Very few had a sharp enough eye to spot it!!
    How do we expose crimes that are being committed against us by various actors both in and out of the legal system? We merely ask these actors if they are willing to go on an official record that they are NOT committing any amount or kind of crime against us! And then if they are shown to have been lying about it, that would then compound the seriousness of their other crimes! And once they have been exposed as a criminal, ALL of their pretended power and authority over us wanes, like the morning sun burning off a light fog. If there is some amount or type of crime that we are obligated to suffer under, where can we find the man or woman who decided such a thing, and where is its measure to make sure that we get only the prescribed amount in each case, no more and no less? Where are the records to be found which describe in detail what we need to know about that? Or is it that we are not supposed to know those things, because it would spoil the criminal activities of others?
    When the road pirates of various uniforms and colors move in to commit crimes against us, who wields the power to stop them in their tracks? WE DO!! We have all of the power and authority we could ever need or want to have to stop them, and it comes from us being educated about their criminal nature and intents. Just because their paychecks depend upon them committing crimes against us, is no excuse to let them continue to do so! ALL of them need to be fired at once for malfeasance in office and sent to jails to pay for their crimes against humanity on a grand scale! The same goes for the other usurpers of the power of the People, such as lawyers, fake judges, court clerks, etc. There is no one other than ourselves who will slam the jail doors closed on these robbers and murderers, and we are not well organized enough yet to do such a thing, but what we can do, is this; educate others with this knowledge, and then just refuse to do any business with their criminal organizations until they all go bankrupt!! No one ever cried when a plague died out because it killed off too many of its hosts to spread any further, so too no one should lament the demise of the 100% corrupted legal system and its actors, as it has done the exact same thing! It has killed off too many of the hosts it needs to rob, cheat and steal from in order to survive. Its success was its own undoing!
    When a sleazy member of the BAR tells a fake judge that if he makes a fair and honorable decision, as in the case of U.S. v. Robert C. Braun, “half of the prison doors in America will fly open”, you know that we have passed the time for the legal system to be dismantled and thrown away a long time ago, and the actors and enablers of that system need to be made the new inmates for their crimes committed against humanity. If this is not a logical conclusion, then what is? That these criminals should just be allowed to roam free, ready to commit even more crimes against us? WE are the final arbiter of what is just and what is unjust, not some petty and vile man or woman in a black robe who is no better than thee or me, or anyone else when it comes to deciding the fate of those who were wronged in a totally corrupted scam we call the legal system. Who can say with a straight face that they have enough insight into the heart and mind of another to know what is just and what is not?
    When these fake judges are paid by the State in which they operate their criminal enterprises and their wages come from the ones that they “find” guilty, how can they possibly be unbiased? Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice, and a fake judge taking a bribe in a case over which he or she is presiding does not give the appearance of justice! Isn’t one third of a judgment going into a retirement account a bribe? If it is not, then what is it? Calling a theft of something an “unapproved taking” doesn’t lessen the severity of the act. Calling a bribe a job reward does not make it any less of a bribe.
    A VERY important aspect of the legal system, and one which can help us immensely in spreading this good news, is that a notice to a principal is notice to their agents, and a notice to the agents is a notice to their principals. If any man or woman acts in bad faith in the execution of the duties of their job, then they are guilty of a crime! And the way to remove any fake “good faith” argument that they may want to make, is to put them on Notice that their criminal activities are now known about and will not be tolerated! They already know, or at the least should know, that what they are doing is wrong, now we just need to put the icing on the cake and seal their fate!
    None who sell various bogus papers and theories to others on how to beat the legal system with even more paperwork, can prove one word of the above wrong in any way. All that they do is tilt lances at windmills, make specious arguments, and enrich themselves off of the ignorance of those they sell their faulty wares to.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *