See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: THE NAME FRAUD !!
Source:
.apfn
URL Source: http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-04-05/discussion.cgi.92.html
Published: Apr 4, 2005
Author: Gordon Warren Epperly
Post Date: 2009-03-06 08:06:43 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 2390
Comments: 22
Very long but very informative !! "Our" entire "legal" system and "government" are UN-constitutional !!! Memorandum of Law on the Name by Gordon Warren Epperly Many people are involved in diligent research concerning the use of all capital letters for proper names, e.g., JOHN PAUL JONES as a substitute for John Paul Jones in all court documents, driver's licenses, bank accounts, birth certificates, etc.. Is the use of all capital letters to designate a name some special English grammar rule or style? Is it a contemporary American style of English? Is the use of this form of capitalization recognized by educational authorities? Is this an official judicial or U.S. government rule and/or style of grammar? Why do attorneys, court clerks, prosecutors judges, insurance companies, banks, credit card companies, utility companies, etc. always use all capital letters when writing a proper name? What English grammar experts say One of the foremost authorities on American English grammar, style, composition, and rules is The Chicago Manual of Style. The latest (14th) Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, is internationally known and respected as a major contribution to maintaining and improving the standards of written or printed text. Since we can find no reference in their manual concerning the use of all capitalized letters with a proper name or any other usage, we wrote to the editors and asked this question: "Is it acceptable, or is there any rule of English grammar, to allow a proper name to be written in all capital letters? For example, if my name was John Paul Jones, can it be written as JOHN PAUL JONES? Is there any rule covering this?" The Editorial Staff of the University of Chicago answered: "Writing names in all caps is not conventional; it is not Chicago style to put anything in all caps. For instance, even if 'GONE WITH THE WIND' appears on the title page all in caps, we would properly render it 'Gone with the Wind' in a bibliography. The only reason we can think of to do so is if you are quoting some material where it is important to the narrative to preserve the casing of the letters. “We're not sure in what context you would like your proper name to appear in all caps, but it is likely to be seen as a bit odd." Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences. If, for instance, one attempts to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State of a State, if the exact title of the corporation — down to every jot and tittle — is not exactly the same each and every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State will refuse to file the papers. This is because each time the name of the corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation identifies an entirely different legal person. It is therefore an eminently valid, and possibly crucial, question as to why governments, governmental courts, and agencies purporting to exist (in some undefined, unproved manner) within the jurisdiction of “this state” insist on always capitalizing every letter in a proper name. Mary Newton Bruder, Ph.D., also known as The Grammar Lady, who established the Grammar Hotline in the late 1980's for the "Coalition of Adult Literacy," was asked the following question: "Why do federal and state government agencies and departments, judicial and administrative courts, insurance companies, etc., spell a person's proper name in all capital letters? For example, if my name is John Paul Jones, is it proper at any time to write my name as JOHN PAUL JONES?" Dr. Bruder's reply was short and to the point: "It must be some kind of internal style. There is no grammar rule about it." It seemed that these particular grammatical experts had no idea why proper names were written in all caps, so we began to assemble an extensive collection of reference books authored by various publishers, governments, and legal authorities to find the answer. What English grammar reference books say Manual on Usage & Style One of the reference books obtained was the "Manual on Usage & Style," Eighth Edition, ISBN I-878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. Section D, CAPITALIZATION, paragraph D: 1:1 states: "Always capitalize proper nouns... [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce)." Paragraph D: 3:2 of Section D states: "Capitalize People, State, and any other terms used to refer to the government as a litigant (e.g., the People's case, the State's argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant Manson)." Either no attorney, judge, or law clerk in Texas has ever read the recognized law style manual that purports to pertain to them, or the act is a deliberate violation of the rules for undisclosed reasons. In either ignorance (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”) or violation (one violating the law he enforces on others is acting under title of nobility and abrogating the principle of equality under the law) of law, they continue to write "Plaintiff,” "Defendant," "THE STATE OF TEXAS" and proper names of parties in all capital letters on every court document. The Elements of Style Another well-recognized reference book is "The Elements of Style," Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn & Bacon in 1999. Within this renowned English grammar and style reference book, is found only one reference to capitalization, located within the Glossary at "proper noun," page 94, where it states: "The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized." There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name. The American Heritage Book of English Usage The American Heritage Book of English Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, published in 1996, at Chapter 9, E-Mail, Conventions and Quirks, Informality, states: "To give a message special emphasis, an E-mailer may write entirely in capital letters, a device E-mailers refer to as screaming. Some of these visual conventions have emerged as away of getting around the constraints on data transmission that now limit many networks". Here is a reference source, within contemporary — modern — English, that states it is of an informal manner to write every word of — specifically — an electronic message, a.k.a. e-mail, in capital letters. They say it's "screaming" to do so. By standard definition, we presume that is the same as shouting or yelling. Are all judges, as well as their court clerks and attorneys, shouting at us when they corrupt our proper names in this manner? (If so, what happened to the decorum of a court if everyone is yelling?) Is the insurance company screaming at us for paying the increased premium on our Policy? This is doubtful as to any standard generalization, even though specific individual instances may indicate this to be true. It is safe to conclude, however, that it would also be informal to write a proper name in the same way. Does this also imply that those in the legal profession are writing our Christian names informally on court documents? Are not attorneys and the courts supposed to be specific, formally writing all legal documents to the "letter of the law?" If the law is at once both precise and not precise, what is its significance, credibility, and force and effect? New Oxford Dictionary of English "The New Oxford Dictionary of English" is published by the Oxford University Press. Besides being considered the foremost authority on the British English language, this dictionary is also designed to reflect the way language is used today through example sentences and phrases. We submit the following definitions from the 1998 edition: Proper noun (also proper name). Noun. A name used for an individual person, place, ororganization, spelled with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam. Name. Noun 1 A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known,addressed, or referred to: my name is Parsons, John Parsons. Kalkwasser is the German name for limewater. Verb 2 Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man has been named as John Mackintosh. Phrases. 3 In the name of. Bearing or using the name of aspecified person or organization: a driving license in the name of William Sanders. From the "Newbury House Dictionary of American English," published by Monroe Allen Publishers, Inc., (1999): name n. I [C] a word by which a person, place, or thing is known: Her name is Diane Daniel. We can find absolutely no example in any recognized reference book that specifies or allows the use of all capitalized names, proper or common. There is no doubt that a proper name, to be grammatically correct, must be written with only the first letter capitalized, with the remainder of the word in a name spelled with lower case letters. US Government Style Manual Is the spelling and usage of a proper name defined officially by US Government? Yes. The United States Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing. Chapter 3, "Capitalization," at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names: "Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon." At Chapter 17, "Courtwork, the rules of capitalization," as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated: "17.1. Courtwork differs in style from other work only as set forth in this section; otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding sections will be followed." After reading §17 in entirety, I found no other references that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization. At § 17.9, this same official US Government manual states: "In the titles of cases the first letter of all principal words are capitalized, but not such terms as defendant and appellee." This wholly agrees with Texas Law Review's Manual on "Usage & Style" as referenced above. Examples shown in § 17.12 are also consistent with the aforementioned §17.9 specification: that is, all proper names are to be spelled with capital first letters; the balance of each spelled with lower case letters. Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (NASA) has publish one of the most concise US Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication SP49;7084, "Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization." A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors, was compiled and written by the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At Chapter 4, "Capitalization," they state in 4.1 "Introduction:" "First we should define terms used when discussing capitalization: • All caps means that every letter in an expression is capital, LIKE THIS. • Caps & lc means that the principal words of an expression are capitalized, Like This. • Caps and small caps refer to a particular font of type containing small capital letters instead of lowercase letters.Elements in a document such as headings, titles, and captions may be capitalized in either sentence style or headline style: • Sentence style calls for capitalization of the first letter, and proper nouns of course.• Headline style calls for capitalization of all principal words (also called caps & lc). Modern publishers tend toward a down style of capitalization, that is, toward use of fewer capitals, rather than an up style." Here we see that in headlines, titles, captions, and in sentences, there is no authorized usage of all caps. At 4.4.1. "Capitalization With Acronyms," we find the first authoritative use for all caps: "Acronyms are always formed with capital letters. Acronyms are often coined for a particular program or study and therefore require definition. The letters of the acronym are not capitalized in the definition unless the acronym stands for a proper name: Wrong - The best electronic publishing systems combine What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) features... Correct - The best electronic publishing systems combine what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) features... But Langley is involved with the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program.” This cites, by example, that using all caps is allowable in an acronym. "Acronyms" are words formed from the initial letters of successive parts of a term. They never contain periods and are often not standard, so that definition is required. Could this apply to lawful proper Christian names? If that were true, then JOHN SMITH would have to follow a definition of some sort, which it does not. For example, only if JOHN SMITH were defined as 'John Orley Holistic Nutrition of the Smith Medical Institute To Holistics (JOHN SMITH)' would this apply. The most significant section appears at 4.5., "Administrative Names": "Official designations of political divisions and of other organized bodies are capitalized:• Names of political divisions;• Canada, New York State;• United States Northwest Territories;• Virgin Islands, Ontario Province;• Names of governmental units, US Government Executive Department, US Congress, US Army; • US Navy.” According to this official US Government publication, the States are never to be spelled in all caps such as “NEW YORK STATE.” The proper English grammar — and legal — style is “New York State.” This agrees, once again, with Texas Law. Review's Manual on Usage & Style. The Use of a Legal Fiction The Real Life Dictionary of the Law The authors of "The Real Life Dictionary of the Law," Gerald and Kathleen Hill, are accomplished scholars and writers. Gerald Hill is an experienced attorney, judge, and law instructor. Here is how the term legal fiction is described: "Legal fiction. n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency orto achieve justice. There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.' Oran's Dictionary of the Law From Oran's "Dictionary of the Law," published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of "Fiction" is found: "A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent ‘John Doe’ off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law "Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law" 1996 states: "legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no fractions — Fields V. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658 (1991)." This is the reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The US and State Governments are deliberately using a legal fiction to "address" the lawful, real, flesh-and-blood man or woman. We say Poster Comment: "Why do attorneys, court clerks, prosecutors judges, insurance companies, banks, credit card companies, utility companies, etc. always use all capital letters when writing a proper name?" Assuming you all are a "living flesh and blood human beings" as compared to a bank, insurance company, credit card company, utility company, etc. you CAN NOT deal with the aforementioned "legal fictions". Since a bank is a "Legal fiction" and NOT a "flesh and blood" being, you 'authorise' the strawman, 'all caps' counterfit name of yours at the top of your check by signing at the bottom right of your check. Thus there are two "legal fictions" dealing with each other, the bank and your all caps "strawman name". If you look at the line you sign your name on with a somewhat powerful magnifying glass you will see that it IS NOT A LINE but actually is "micro printing".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#5. To: Itistoolate (#0)
The post ends with an incomplete sentence, the words being "We say" ... what is the rest of the sentence and complete post ???
complete text here: http://freedom-school.com/truth/name_memorandum.htm see also THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, or how we became collateral ( 4um America is in Deep DooDo - The Bankruptcy of the United States www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=96024 ) on the National Debt, the one the 14th Amendment says we are not to question the validity of. freedom-school.com/truth/birth-certificate.htm Memorandum of Law on the Name by Gordon Warren Epperly You probably know, Gordon Warren Epperly has fought the validity of the 14th Amendment, itself: The Amendment that Never Existed: "...This web site is dedicated to bring you the historical truth in regard to the purported ratification of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The evidence herein exposes the 14th Amendment as a fraud and as such, it does not exist. It is not the purpose of this web site to have any public official repeal or rescind the 14th Amendment, for to do so would to acknowledge that the Amendment has a lawful existence. The questions raised in many of the articles herein need to be answered and if no answer can be given, all public officials of the federal and state governments need to acknowledge that the 14th Amendment does not exist. If the 14th Amendment does not exist as asserted, then all court rulings and laws made under the 14th Amendment need to be rescinded. The most recent action taken may be found in the case of Epperly v. Weinstein (U.S. Archivist) (see menu heading "Court Documents" under the subheading "Federal Cases"). Gordon Epperly " http://www.14th-amendment.com/ ".... Conclusion The U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment is being applied by the U.S. Congress and the Federal Courts as a tool of war upon the States and their citizens. Even the Negro population has been made a victim of the 14th Amendment in that they were forcefully taken from their homeland and made citizens of the United States by birth and not the choice of free will. The authors of the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment had calculating motives in that the underlying purpose of the Amendment was to transfer the reserved Powers of the States and the People to the Federal Government. It allowed the Federal Government to create "Corporations" for the purpose of distributing fiat paper money in "discharge" of debts instead of providing lawful currency in the form of silver and gold coins in "payment" of debts (see "Payment" vs. "Discharge" in the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784). In other words, the U.S. Congress granted an elite group of people the "Title of Nobility" to control the money supply of our country, the United States of America, and thus they control the politics and policies of our government. I am not here to pass judgment on the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, but if it is the will of the people to turn the Constitution of the United States upon its head via an Amendment, so be it! But only if it is done in a lawful manner. The U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment was not ratified in accordance to the provisions of the Constitution for the United States of America and as such, it does not exist. It survives as a matter of fraud and deception. I have done my best to have the question of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment answered by the Judges of our Federal Courts or by Members of the U.S. Congress, but to no avail. On this web site, you will see my collection of Court Cases, Letters, Articles, and other Documents that show the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment has no lawful existence. What has to be done next will be a question you will have to decide. I would like to thank D.J. Connolly for his contribution to this "Introduction." Be sure to visit D.J. Connolly's web page "Two Centuries of Unpunished Usurpation." Gordon Epperly " http://www.14th-amendment.com/introduction.htm
The Missing 13th Amendment Analysis of the Real 13th Amendment =========================================== Esquire A title applied by attorneys to themselves, to officers of the court, to members of the bar, and others of ill repute. No one in the United States is entitled to it by law, and therefore, it confers, no distinction in law. In England, it is a title next above that of a gentleman, and below a knight. Camden records four kinds of esquires, particularly regarded by the heralds: 1. The eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons, in perpetual succession. 2. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons in like perpetual succession. 3. Esquires created by the king's letters patent, or other investiture, and their eldest sons. 4. Esquires by virtue of their office, as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown. NOBILITY. An order of men in several countries to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. The constitution of the United States provides that no state shall " grant any title of nobility; and no person can become a citizen of the United States until he has renounced all titles of nobility." The Federalist, No. 84; 2 Story, Laws U. S. 851. There is not in the constitution today any general prohibition against any citizen whomsoever, whether in public or private life, accepting any foreign title of nobility. An amendment of the constitution in this respect has been recommended by congress, but it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitution. Rawle on the Const. 120; Story, Const. _1346. The Court, in "Horst v. Moses", 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave the following description of a title of nobility: To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms "privilege", "honor", and "emoluments", as they are collectively in the term "title of nobility". The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant. The prohibition of titles of nobility estops the claim of eminent domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of this amendment. Here is the original 13th amendment to the United States Constitution that was ratified in 1819. Then attorneys caused it to disappear in order to establish their claim of superiority with Titles of Nobility over the people. The total ramifications of this earlier 13th Amendment being unlawfully removed are very serious. Article 13, ratified in 1819, reads as follows: If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain and title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility 13th Amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the following years: Colorado ------- 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967, 1868 Connecticut --- 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839 Dakota ---------- 1862, 1863, 1867 Florida ---------- 1823, 1825, 1838 Georgia --------- 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846 Illinois ------------ 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845 Indiana ----------- 1824, 1831, 1838 Iowa --------------- 1839, 1842, 1843 Kansas ----------- 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868 Kentucky -------- 1822 Louisiana -------- 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications] Maine ------------- 1825, 1831 Massachusetts -1823 Michigan -------- 1827, 1833 Mississippi ------ 1823, 1824, 1839 Missouri ---------- 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845* Nebraska --------- 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873 North Carolina - 1819, 1828 Northwestern Territories --- 1833 Ohio --------------- 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848 Pennsylvania --- 1818, 1824, 1831 Rhode Island ---- 1822 Virginia ---------- 1819 (ratification by 13th State) Wyoming -------- 1869, 1876 Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications. www.outlawslegal.com/answers/esquire.htm Secrets of the Federal Reserve and the London Connection www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes: "In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74). w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-13.html SOURCE: www.apfn.org/APFN/13th.htm LOOK AT THESE FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN KNIGHTED! Knighthood Swearing the Oath: Candidate: Knights In The News: It is commonly believed that United States citizens cannot receive from a foreign government noble honors such as a Knighthood. To show that this belief has no basis in law or practice, this is a listing of United States citizens (whether famous or not) who have appeared in the news because they have received Knighthoods. Our sources are newspapers, magazines, and journals. www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm Fed Chief Greenspan to Be Knighted Tuesday, August 6, 2002; 4:48 PM
"Tons" of images of original published copies of the 13th Amendment Titles of Nobility at this site: http://www.amendment-13.org/ "...This table presents the data and images of the TONA Research Committee archival discoveries of State and Territorial Publications published between 1816 through 1876 that show the inclusion of the 13th Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. As each year has gone by the Committee has found more publications. If you are interested you can click on each of the underlined publication dates to view the images. [Some remain yet to be scanned.] ....... Of note also, the *** 2nd Amendment [Image of Page 14, Article II] is properly presented as ratified and as shown in all presentations until after the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction, **** without the extra commas after the words "Militia" and "Arms". The only source properly presented today is that for the United States Senate on the United States Government Printing Office site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html http://www.amendment-13.org/publications.html ================== "The images presented below are of The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia, published in accordance with the act of March 12, 1819, and sent to the Department of State as notification of the ratification of the Titles of Nobility and Honor Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution, received by the State Department not later than 29 August 1821, as noted in the image. Title Page showing the inscribed notation "The property of the Department of State U. States. 29. August. 1821" and the notation at the bottom of the page "C. 1." to draw attention to Page A, C.1., "1. BE it enacted by the General Assembly, That there shall be published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth, in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say : The Constitution of the United States and the amendments thereto." [IMAGE Jpg 77kb] Suzanne Nevling, holding VA1819 State Department Copy 1 in the Library of Congress Stacks with Title Page Open [Image Color Jpg 73kb] [Image B/W Jpg 26kb] ........" http://www.amendment-13.org/va1819images.html ================== "Private publications of the Constitution including the 13th Amendment are innumerable, having been printed as guides to the Constitution and the Law for the use of the common man in his education and understanding of the government of the nation, in which the general population was very much interested. http://www.amendment-13.org/privatepubl.html People should save all these images and info, if they can.
"....An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions. "Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562 ====================== re: the disappearance of the amendment ["...Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor. The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815. "] THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
It appears that there are intentional gaps in available information and conscious misdirection in education that assist in keeping the masses stifled. The "NAME FRAUD" (all caps) itself is one of those areas where the gap leaves one in doubt regardless of how much their mind tells them "this cannot be an accident" when it pertains to every "LEGAL" document. Again, there are "Codes", "Rules" (for Rulers), and a myriad of stumbling blocks set up to operate as cloaking agents that simply keep the people from finding the rogues and hanging them by their pencil necks. In my humble opinion, we have an opportunity to obey God's laws and "choose" life, both now and forever, or we can have temporary convenience by choosing "death" and a partnership with the evil doers. The ironic thing to me is that many appear to me to sell their souls for an insufficient price. I am reminded of the scripture that admonishes I wish that you were hot or cold but you were luke warm so I spewed you from my mouth ... so many involved in researching and discussing the conditions we're living in refuse to submit to the truth and just stop participating with the criminals when that is the ONLY WAY TO DESTROY THE CONDITION. Here's another thing that truly baffles me about "so-called" Christians ... Jesus Christ said that "if they hated me they will hate you ... if they persecuted me they will persecute you ... the world loveth its own, etc., and if the possibility of persecution appears even a slight possibilty Christians tremble and shake with fear rather than claim the authority of God and TRUST HIM ... choosing to TRUST the LIARS in GOVERNMENTS of MEN. I've lost the ambition to communicate with hypocrites.
There are no replies to Comment # 15. End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThis is the reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The US and State Governments are deliberately using a legal fiction to "address" the lawful, real, flesh-and-blood man or woman. We say
#8. To: noone222, Itistoolate (#5)
The post ends with an incomplete sentence, the words being "We say" ... what is the rest of the sentence and complete post ???
#9. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#8)
(Edited)
Copy (yes, another one)
loveforamerica.freeyellow.com/13th.html
This amendment was meant to keep citizens of the United States from accepting titles of nobility from foreign powers. The best example of this would be honorary "knighthoods" given by the rulers of England to people around the world who have performed a service for humanity.
www.vaix.net/~captainnemo/plan/
Crown: Upon which sword do you wish to swear your Oath?
Upon the sword of His Imperial Majesty. 
WASHINGTON –– He won't get to call himself "Sir Alan" but Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan – often known as the second most powerful man in the United States – will get another title: knight. Queen Elizabeth II has approved an honorary knighthood for Greenspan's "outstanding contribution to global economic stability," the British Treasury announced Tuesday. A copy of the release was distributed in Washington.
www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm
#10. To: Itistoolate (#9)
#11. To: Itistoolate (#10)
add'l info re: "Esquires"
#15. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#11)
(Edited)
http://www.freedom-school.com/ju...ivera-on-article-iii.html
Replies to Comment # 15.