What is the legal definition of a Person?
Man or Fiction?
Do you know what you are? Are you a ‘person’? Are you sure?
So you think you are a ‘person’, eh? According to Black’s Law dictionary, ‘a humanbeing is not a person because he is a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him. Specifically, the person is the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition: PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.WOW heavy. So not every human being is a person, as was the case in Old England when there were slaves’. You see, you as a human being have certain inalienable human rights. Your person has certain inalienable civil rights. Believe it or not, you are not the one paying taxes, your person is. Its not you that votes, your person does. You don’t get a ticket, your person does. The best way to imagine it is to imagine a human being wearing Pants with his ‘Wallet’ with his ‘Id’ in his pocket. The human being is a ‘man’ or ‘human being’ or a ‘natural person’. ‘The ‘Wallet & ID’s’ represents the ‘legal persons’ or ‘corporations’. The two together is referred to as ‘individual’. (Indivisible duo).If you can understand that so far, you can understand the next as well. You have many’persons’.You can see these person in the form of all the different corporation Identification you have such as 1 Birth Certificate, 2 Drivers License, 3 Social Insurance Number, 4 Medical Id,etc. Now look closely at your name on All those ID’s and notice how it is all in capital letters JOHN DOE This in legal mumbo jumbo is called: Capitis JOHN DOE: Capitis Diminutio Maxima: Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968 The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.John DOE: Capitis Diminutio Media: Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968 A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.John Doe: Capitis Diminutio Minima: Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968 The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed.It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld.Rom.Law, 144.They all have the same name, but have different personalities or functions. See, a personis not determined solely by the name, but by the rights and duties ascribed to that person. When you get a traffic ticket, it is almost as if they are creating a person right there solely to deal with that issue. Once dealt with, the person is no longer bound by it. Say you go to vote and on the way you get a ticket. Can the person who got the ticket vote? Can you show them the ticket and use that to secure your right to vote? No you cannot. The two entities, although having the same name, have different sets of rights and duties, and therefore are in fact differentpersons or at least different facets of one. Now ask yourself, where does it say that you have to have a ‘person’? &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. So??? Are you obliged to have one? In fact You were deceived into associating yourself to that person at a very young age.It was actually when your parents created the person throught registering it and then through there own ignorance of the law abandoned your person by not claiming it back within alloted time usually 48 hrs and then the government then claim it as there chattel property and imposed rights and duty upon it for life… Or so they hope… So If you do have one a ‘person’, can you give it up? A ‘person’ is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society. So Why have they gone to such trouble to hide from us the fact that they act upon our persons? The reason is simple as you can see from above; they need us to be dumb and ignorant for their deception to work. Without ignorance, all the deception in the world won’t help them hold onto their power. The person exists not so they can have power over us, but so we can escape the power they claim if it gets too onerous. If all they can act upon is our person, and we can disassociate from that thing anytime we want, we can be in control. If we are never aware it is there, we are slaves.
Maxims of Law
Maxims of LawMAXIM. An established principle or proposition. Aprinciple of law universally admitted, as being just andconsonant With reason.2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part ofthe general customs or common law of the land; and are of thesame strength as acts of parliament, when the judges havedetermined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges andnot the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maximsof the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may beapplied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, isgenerally the only difficulty. The true method of making theapplication is to ascertain bow the maxim arose, and to considerwhether the case to which it is applied is of the same character,or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common laware dangerous. 2 Inst. 210. The following are some of the moreimportant maxims.
A l’impossible nul n’est tenu: No one is bound to do what isimpossible. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 601.
Debile fundamentum, fallit opus: Where there is a weak foundation,the work falls. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2068.Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva: The power whichis derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.
Est autem vis legem simulans: Violence may also put on the maskof law.
Ex malificio non oritur contractus: A contract cannot arise out ofan act radically wrong and illegal. Broom’s Max. 851.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus: False in one thing, false ineverything. 1 Sumn. 356.
Jura sanguinis nullo jure civili dirimi possunt: The right of bloodand kindred cannot be destroyed by any civil law. Dig. 50, 17, 9;Bacon’s Max. Reg. 11.
Lata culpa dolo aequiparatur: Gross negligence is equal to fraud.Lex semper dabit remedium. The law always gives a remedy. 3Bouv. Inst. n. 2411.
Nomina si nescis perit cognitio rerum: If you know not the namesof things, the knowledge of things themselves perishes. Co. Litt.86.
Nomina sunt notae rerum: Names are the notes of things. 11 Co.20.
Non est arctius vinculum inter homines quam jusjurandum: There isno stronger link among men than an oath. Jenk. Cent. 126.
Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum: You are not to do evilthat good may come of it. 11 Co. 74.
Qui bene interrogat, bene docet: He who questions well, learns well.3 Buls. 227.
Qui bene distinguit, bene docet: He who distinguishes well, learnswell. 2 Co. Inst. 470.
Qui tacet consentire videtur: He who is silent appears to consent.Jenk. Cent. 32.
Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vel fraudem petatur, malumet injustum efficitur: What is otherwise good and just, if sought byforce or fraud, becomes bad and unjust. 3 Co. 78.
Quod per me non possum, nec per alium: What I cannot do inperson, I cannot do by proxy. 4 Co. 24.
When the foundation fails, all fails.
The power derived cannot be greater than the source it is derivedfrom’
What I cannot do myself I cannot do byproxy’
“Let he who be decieved be decieved”
WHAT IS MINE CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT MY CONSENTTHINGS TAKEN BY PIRATES OR ROBBERS DO NOT CHANGE THEIR OWNERSHIP
Words we should all know the Legal definitions too:
ApplicationTo beg, plead, petition, implore, entreat or request.http://www.allwords.com/word-application.html(emphasis added)
Submission(Always voluntary) To agree to another’s will or to leave to another’s discretion. Form of surrender. Implies lawful right to fighthttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/submit(emphasis added)
The Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 says nothing interesting about “application”. (“The act of making a request for something”, and other similarly useless statements.) Nor does it have a definition for “apply”. Lets take a look at the etymology of the word. (Etymology: “1398, from Gk. etymologia, from etymon “true sense” (neut. of etymos “true,” related to eteos “true”) + logos “word.”)
Application (etymology)1493, from O.Fr. application, from L. applicationem (nom. applicatio) “a joining to, an attaching oneself to,” noun of action from applicare (see apply).
Apply (etymology)c.1374, from O.Fr. aplier, from L. applicare “to attach to, to devote oneself to,” from ad- “to” + plicare “fold” see ply (v.)). The etymological sense is “to bring things in contact with one another.” Applied (opposed to abstract or theoretical) is from 1656.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary has a much more telling definition for this word.
SUBMISSION (Bouvier’s Law)A yielding to authority. A citizen is bound to submit to the laws; a child to his parents; a servant to his master. A victor may enforce, the submission of his enemy.
2. When a captor has taken a prize, and the vanquished have submitted to his authority, the property, as between the belligerents, has been transferred. When there is complete possession on one side, and submission upon the other, the capture is complete. 1 Gallis. R. 532.
And the etymology:
submission (etymology)1411, “act of referring to a third party for judgment or decision,” from O.Fr. submission, from L. submissionem (nom. submissio) “a lowering, sinking, yielding,” from submissus, pp. of submittere “lower, reduce, yield” (see submit). Sense of “humble obedience” is first recorded 1449. Mod.Fr. submission has been replaced by doublet soumission. Submissive “inclined to submit” is recorded from 1586.
submit (etymology)c.1374, “to place (oneself) under the control of another,” from L. submittere “to yield, lower, let down, put under, reduce,” from sub “under” + mittere “let go, send.” Sense of “refer to another for consideration” first recorded 1560.
abstention. 1. The act of withholding or keeping back (something or oneself); esp., the withholding of a vote. 2. A federal court’s relinquishment of jurisdiction when necessary to avoid needless conflict with a state’s administration of its own affairs. 3. The legal principle underlying such a relinquishment of jurisdiction. Cf. COMITY; OUR FEDERALISM. [Cases: Federal Courts 41-65. C.J.S. Bankruptcy §§ 16, 40.]
burford abstention. A federal court’s refusal to review a state court’s decision in cases involving a complex regulatory scheme and sensitive areas of state concern. Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098 (1943).
Colorado River abstention. A federal court’s decision to abstain while relevant and parallel state-court proceedings are underway. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236 (1976).
equitable abstention. A federal court’s refraining from interfering with a state administrative agency’s decision on a local matter when the aggrieved party has adequate relief in the state courts.
permissive abstention. Abstention that a bankruptcy court can, but need not, exercise in a dispute that relates to the bankruptcy estate but that can be litigated, or is being litigated, in another forum. • In deciding whether to abstain, the bankruptcy court must consider (1) the degree to which state law governs the case, (2) the appropriateness of the procedure to be followed in the other forum, (3) the remoteness of the dispute to the issues in the bankruptcy case, and (4) the presence of nondebtor parties in the dispute. 28 USCA § 1334(c)(1). [Cases: Federal Courts 47.5.]Pullman abstention. A federal court’s decision to abstain so that state courts will have an opportunity to settle an underlying state-law question whose resolution may avert the need to decide a federal constitutional question. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643 (1941). [Cases: Federal Courts 43, 46.]
Thibodaux abstention (tib–doh). A federal court’s decision to abstain so that state courts can decide difficult issues of public importance that, if decided by the federal court, could result in unnecessary friction between state and federal authorities. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 79 S.Ct. 1070 (1959). [Cases: Federal Courts 41, 43.]
Younger abstention. 1. A federal court’s decision not to interfere with an ongoing state criminal proceeding by issuing an injunction or granting declaratory relief, unless the prosecution has been brought in bad faith or merely as harassment. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971). — Also termed equitable-restraint doctrine. [Cases: Federal Courts 49, 51, 54.] 2. By extension, a federal court’s decision not to interfere with a state-court civil proceeding used to enforce the criminal law, as to abate an obscene nuisance. See OUR FEDERALISM.
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8 (8th ed. 2004)
acquiescence (ak-wee-es-nts). 1. A person’s tacit or passive acceptance; implied consent to an act.
commercial acquiescence. Patents. Action or inaction by a patentee’s competitor that reflects the competitor’s belief that the patent is valid. • A patent owner may use another person’s actions or inactions, such as taking a license or attempting to design around a patent, as circumstantial evidence of the nonobviousness of a patented invention or of a patent’s validity or enforceability. [Cases: Patents 36.1(1). C.J.S. Patents §§ 98-99.]
2. Int’l law. Passivity and inaction on foreign claims that, according to customary international law, usu. call for protest to assert, preserve, or safeguard rights. • The result is that binding legal effect is given to silence and inaction. Acquiescence, as a principle of substantive law, is grounded in the concepts of good faith and equity.
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 25 (8th ed. 2004)
adjudication (-joo-di-kay-shn), n. 1. The legal process of resolving a dispute; the process of judicially deciding a case. 2. JUDGMENT.
former adjudication. See FORMER ADJUDICATION.3. Scots law. The Court of Session’s transfer of heritable property to a creditor as security for or in satisfaction of a debt, or its vesting title in an entitled claimant.
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 45 (8th ed. 2004)
consent, n. 1. Agreement, approval, or permission as to some act or purpose, esp. given voluntarily by a competent person; legally effective assent. • Consent is an affirmative defense to assault, battery, and related torts, as well as such torts as defamation, invasion of privacy, conversion, and trespass. Consent may be a defense to a crime if the victim has the capacity to consent and if the consent negates an element of the crime or thwarts the harm that the law seeks to prevent. See Model Penal Code § 2.11.
Quote”The consent [to a contract] is none the less ‘genuine’ and ‘real,’ even though it be induced by fraud, mistake, or duress. Consent may be induced by a mistaken hope of gain or a mistaken estimate of value or by the lie of a third person, and yet there is a contract and we do not doubt the ‘reality of the consent.’ Fraud, mistake, and duress are merely collateral operative facts that co-exist with the expressions of consent and have a very important effect upon the resulting legal relations.” William R. Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 199 n.1 (Arthur L. Corbin ed., 3d Am. ed. 1919).blank consent. See BLANK CONSENT.express consent. Consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated.implied consent. 1. Consent inferred from one’s conduct rather than from one’s direct expression. — Also termed implied permission. 2. Consent imputed as a result of circumstances that arise, as when a surgeon removing a gallbladder discovers and removes colon cancer.informed consent. 1. A person’s agreement to allow something to happen, made with full knowledge of the risks involved and the alternatives. • For the legal profession, informed consent is defined in Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.0(e). 2. A patient’s knowing choice about a medical treatment or procedure, made after a physician or other healthcare provider discloses whatever information a reasonably prudent provider in the medical community would give to a patient regarding the risks involved in the proposed treatment or procedure. — Also termed knowing consent. [Cases: Health 906.]knowing consent. See informed consent.voluntary consent. Consent that is given freely and that has not been coerced.2. Parliamentary law. ADOPTION (5). — consent, vb. — consensual, adj.general consent. 1. Adoption without objection, regardless of whether every voter affirmatively approves. 2. See unanimous consent (1).unanimous consent. 1. Adoption with every voter’s approval. 2. See general consent (1). • The terms “general consent” and “unanimous consent” have distinct but interchangeable meanings. Some parliamentary manuals treat them as synonymous; others distinguish them; and still others distinguish them, but in exactly the opposite way.Quote
“Motions that appear to have no opposition because they are relatively unimportant, uncontroversial, or because approval is obvious, permit the chair to say, ‘The motion, without objection, is adopted’ (or agreed to), without putting the motion to a formal vote. General consent implies that no one cared enough to oppose the motion or proposition. Unanimous consent implies that everyone was in agreement. If there is even one objection, the request is denied and the question must be put to a vote for adoption.” Floyd M. Riddick & Miriam H. Butcher, Riddick’s Rules of Procedure 97 (1985).Quote” ‘Unanimous consent’ does not necessarily imply that every member is in favor of the proposed action; it may only mean that the opposition, feeling that it is useless to oppose or discuss the matter, simply acquiesces.” Henry M. Robert, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised § 4, at 52 (10th ed. 2001).
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1347 (8th ed. 2004)
liability, n. 1. The quality or state of being legally obligated or accountable; legal responsibility to another or to society, enforceable by civil remedy or criminal punishment <liability for injuries caused by negligence>. — Also termed legal liability; responsibility; subjection. 2. (often pl.) A financial or pecuniary obligation; DEBT <tax liability> <assets and liabilities>.Quote”The term ‘liability’ is one of at least double signification. In one sense it is the synonym of duty, the correlative of right; in this sense it is the opposite of privilege or liberty. If a duty rests upon a party, society is now commanding performance by him and threatening penalties. In a second sense, the term ‘liability’ is the correlative of power and the opposite of immunity. In this case society is not yet commanding performance, but it will so command if the possessor of the power does some operative act. If one has a power, the other has a liability. It would be wise to adopt the second sense exclusively. Accurate legal thinking is difficult when the fundamental terms have shifting senses.” William R. Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 9 (Arthur L. Corbin ed., 3d Am. ed. 1919).Quote
“Liability or responsibility is the bond of necessity that exists between the wrongdoer and the remedy of the wrong. This vinculum juris is not one of mere duty or obligation; it pertains not to the sphere of ought but to that of must.” John Salmond, Jurisprudence 364 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947).absolute liability. See strict liability.accomplice liability. Criminal responsibility of one who acts with another before, during, or (in some jurisdictions) after a crime. See 18 USCA § 2. [Cases: Criminal Law 59. C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 127, 998.]accrued liability. A debt or obligation that is properly chargeable in a given accounting period but that is not yet paid.alternative liability. Liability arising from the tortious acts of two or more parties — when the plaintiff proves that one of the defendants has caused harm but cannot prove which one caused it — resulting in a shifting of the burden of proof to each defendant. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433B(3) (1965). [Cases: Products Liability 23; Torts 21. C.J.S. Products Liability §§ 40, 42; Torts §§ 36-38.]civil liability. 1. Liability imposed under the civil, as opposed to the criminal, law. 2. The state of being legally obligated for civil damages.contingent liability. A liability that will occur only if a specific event happens; a liability that depends on the occurrence of a future and uncertain event. • In financial statements, contingent liabilities are usu. stated in footnotes.current liability. A business liability that will be paid or otherwise discharged with current assets or by creating other current liabilities within the next year (or operating cycle). — Also termed short-term debt.derivative liability. Liability for a wrong that a person other than the one wronged has a right to redress. • Examples include liability to a widow in a wrongful-death action and liability to a corporation in a shareholder’s derivative suit.enterprise liability. 1. Liability imposed on each member of an industry responsible for manufacturing a harmful or defective product, allotted by each manufacturer’s market share of the industry. — Also termed industry-wide liability. See market-share liability. [Cases: Products Liability 23.1, 24. C.J.S. Products Liability § 41.] 2. Criminal liability imposed on a business (such as a corporation or partnership) for certain offenses, such as public-welfare offenses or offenses for which the legislature specifically intended to impose criminal sanctions. See Model Penal Code § 2.07. See public-welfare offense under OFFENSE (1).fault liability. Liability based on some degree of blameworthiness. — Also termed fault-based liability. Cf. strict liability.industry-wide liability. See enterprise liability.joint and several liability. Liability that may be apportioned either among two or more parties or to only one or a few select members of the group, at the adversary’s discretion. • Thus, each liable party is individually responsible for the entire obligation, but a paying party may have a right of contribution and indemnity from nonpaying parties. See solidary liability. [Cases: Contracts 181; Negligence 484; Torts 22. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 366, 371; Negligence §§ 154-156; Torts §§ 39-44.]joint liability. Liability shared by two or more parties. [Cases: Negligence 484; Torts 22. C.J.S. Negligence §§ 154-156; Torts §§ 39-44.]liability in solido. See solidary liability.liability without fault. See strict liability.limited liability. Liability restricted by law or contract; esp., the liability of a company’s owners for nothing more than the capital they have invested in the business. [Cases: Corporations 215. C.J.S. Corporations §§ 414, 417, 425, 427.]market-share liability. Liability that is imposed, usu. severally, on each member of an industry, based on each member’s share of the market or respective percentage of the product that is placed on the market. • This theory of liability usu. applies only in the situation in which a plaintiff cannot trace the harmful exposure to a particular product, as when several products contain a fungible substance. For example, it is sometimes applied to a claim that the plaintiff was harmed by exposure to asbestos. See enterprise liability. [Cases: Products Liability 23.1, 24. C.J.S. Products Liability § 41.]official liability. Liability of an officer or receiver for a breach of contract or a tort committed during the officer’s or receiver’s tenure, but not involving any personal liability.penal liability. Liability arising from a proceeding intended at least partly to penalize a wrongdoer. Cf. remedial liability.personal liability. Liability for which one is personally accountable and for which a wronged party can seek satisfaction out of the wrongdoer’s personal assets.premises liability. See PREMISES LIABILITY.primary liability. Liability for which one is directly responsible, as opposed to secondary liability.products liability. See PRODUCTS LIABILITY.remedial liability. Liability arising from a proceeding whose object contains no penal element. • The two types of proceedings giving rise to this liability are specific enforcement and restitution. Cf. penal liability.secondary liability. Liability that does not arise unless the primarily liable party fails to honor its obligation.several liability. Liability that is separate and distinct from another’s liability, so that the plaintiff may bring a separate action against one defendant without joining the other liable parties. [Cases: Negligence 484; Torts 22. C.J.S. Negligence §§ 154-156; Torts §§ 39-44.]shareholder’s liability. 1. The statutory, added, or double liability of a shareholder for a corporation’s debts, despite full payment for the stock. 2. The liability of a shareholder for any unpaid stock listed as fully owned on the stock certificate, usu. occurring either when the shareholder agrees to pay full par value for the stock and obtains the certificate before the stock is paid for, or when partially paid-for stock is intentionally issued by a corporation as fully paid, the consideration for it being entirely fictitious. — Also termed stockholder’s liability. [Cases: Corporations 215, 227. C.J.S. Corporations §§ 414, 417, 425, 427.]solidary liability (sol–dair-ee). Civil law. The liability of any one debtor among two or more joint debtors to pay the entire debt if the creditor so chooses. La. Civ. Code art. 1794. • This is equivalent to joint and several liability in the common law. — Also termed liability in solido. See joint and several liability. [Cases: Negligence 484; Torts 22. C.J.S. Negligence §§ 154-156; Torts §§ 39-44.]statutory liability. Liability that is created by a statute (or regulation) as opposed to common law.stockholder’s liability. See shareholder’s liability.strict liability. Liability that does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm, but that is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe. • Strict liability most often applies either to ultrahazardous activities or in products-liability cases. — Also termed absolute liability; liability without fault. Cf. fault liability; OUTCOME RESPONSIBILITY. [Cases: Negligence 301-307; Products Liability 5. C.J.S. Negligence §§ 170-179; Products Liability §§ 7-8.]tortious liability. Liability that arises from the breach of a duty that (1) is fixed primarily by the law, (2) is owed to persons generally, and (3) when breached, is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.vicarious liability (vI-kair-ee-s). Liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties. See RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR. [Cases: Master and Servant 300, 315; Negligence 483. C.J.S. Employer-Employee Relationship §§ 181-184, 188-193, 203, 231-235, 242, 244-246, 248, 251-252, 254-255; Negligence §§ 152-153.]Quote
“The vicarious liability of an employer for torts committed by employees should not be confused with the liability an employer has for his own torts. An employer whose employee commits a tort may be liable in his own right for negligence in hiring or supervising the employee. If in my business I hire a truck driver who has a record of drunk driving and on whom one day I detect the smell of bourbon, I (along with my employee) may be held liable for negligence if his driving causes injury. But that is not ‘vicarious’ liability — I am held liable for my own negligence in hiring that employee or letting him drive after I know he has been drinking.” Kenneth S. Abraham, The Forms and Functions of Tort Law 166 (2002).
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 932 (8th ed. 2004)
debt. 1. Liability on a claim; a specific sum of money due by agreement or otherwise <the debt amounted to $2,500>. 2. The aggregate of all existing claims against a person, entity, or state <the bank denied the loan application after analyzing the applicant’s outstanding debt>. 3. A nonmonetary thing that one person owes another, such as goods or services <her debt was to supply him with 20 international first-class tickets on the airline of his choice>. 4. A common-law writ by which a court adjudicates claims involving fixed sums of money <he brought suit in debt>. — Also termed (in sense 4) writ of debt. [Cases: Debt, Action of 1. C.J.S. Debt, Action Of §§ 1-2, 7-11.]
Quote”The action of debt lies where a party claims the recovery of a debt; that is, a liquidated or certain sum of money due him. The action is based upon contract, but the contract may be implied, either in fact or in law, as well as express; and it may be either a simple contract or a specialty. The most common instances of its use are for debts: (a) Upon unilateral contracts express or implied in fact. (b) Upon quasi-contractual obligations having the force and effect of simple contracts. (c) Upon bonds and covenants under seal. (d) Upon judgments or obligations of record. (e) Upon obligations imposed by statute.” Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading § 52, at 132 (Henry Winthrop Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923).active debt. Civil law. A debt due to another person.ancestral debt. An ancestor’s debt that an heir can be compelled to pay.antecedent debt. 1. Contracts. An old debt that may serve as consideration for a new promise if the statute of limitations has run on the old debt. See PREEXISTING-DUTY RULE. [Cases: Contracts 67. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 121-122.] 2. Bankruptcy. A debtor’s prepetition obligation that existed before a debtor’s transfer of an interest in property. • For a transfer to be preferential, it must be for or on account of an antecedent debt. See PREFERENTIAL TRANSFER. [Cases: Bankruptcy 2612. C.J.S. Bankruptcy §§ 142-143.]bad debt. A debt that is uncollectible and that may be deductible for tax purposes. [Cases: Internal Revenue 3420. C.J.S. Internal Revenue § 275.]bonded debt. A debt secured by a bond; a business or government debt represented by issued bonds.community debt. A debt that is chargeable to the community of husband and wife. See COMMUNITY PROPERTY. [Cases: Husband and Wife 268.]consumer debt. A debt incurred by someone primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose. [Cases: Bankruptcy 2185, 2254, 2618. C.J.S. Bankruptcy §§ 55, 150, 348.]Quote
“What are ‘consumer’ debts? Section 101(8) defines a consumer debt as follows: ‘consumer debt means debt incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose.’ The touchstone is the debtor’s use of the money. The nature of the collateral, the business of the creditor and the form of the loan are all irrelevant. A loan of $25,000 from a Credit Union to pay for a child’s education is a consumer debt, but the same loan used to finance the opening of an accounting business is not a consumer debt. This is so irrespective of the nature of the collateral put up for the debt.” David G. Epstein et al., Bankruptcy § 7-45, at 579 (1993).contingent debt. A debt that is not presently fixed but that may become fixed in the future with the occurrence of some event.convertible debt. A debt whose security may be changed by a creditor into another form of security.debt by simple contract. See simple-contract debt.debt by special contract. See special-contract debt.debt by specialty contract. See special-contract debt.debt of record. A debt evidenced by a court record, such as a judgment.desperate debt. 1. Uncollectible debt. 2. A debt taken on by one who is either insolvent or on the verge of insolvency.exigible debt. A liquidated and demandable debt; a matured claim.fixed debt. Generally, a permanent form of debt commonly evidenced by a bond or debenture; long-term debt. — Also termed fixed liability.floating debt. Short-term debt that is continuously renewed to finance the ongoing operations of a business or government.fraudulent debt. A debt created by fraudulent practices.funded debt. 1. A state or municipal debt to be paid out of an accumulation of money or by future taxation. [Cases: Municipal Corporations 951. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1704-1705.] 2. Secured long-term corporate debt meant to replace short-term, floating, or unsecured debt.general debt. A governmental body’s debt that is legally payable from general revenues and is backed by the full faith and credit of the governmental body. [Cases: Municipal Corporations 894. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1634, 1934.]hypothecary debt. A lien on an estate.individual debt. (usu. pl.) Debt personally owed by a partner, rather than by the partnership. [Cases: Partnership 144. C.J.S. Partnership § 159.]installment debt. A debt that is to be repaid in a series of payments at regular times over a specified period.judgment debt. A debt that is evidenced by a legal judgment or brought about by a successful lawsuit against the debtor.legal debt. A debt recoverable in a court of law.liquidated debt. A debt whose amount has been determined by agreement of the parties or by operation of law.liquid debt. A debt that is due immediately and unconditionally.long-term debt. Generally, a debt that will not come due within the next year.mutual debts. Cross-debts of the same kind and quality between two persons. Cf. SETOFF (2).national debt. See NATIONAL DEBT.nondischargeable debt. A debt (such as one for delinquent taxes) that is not released through bankruptcy. [Cases: Bankruptcy 3341-3362. C.J.S. Bankruptcy §§ 316-336, 344, 348.]passive debt. A debt that, by agreement between the debtor and creditor, is interest-free.preferential debt. A debt that is legally payable before others, such as an employee’s wages.privileged debt. A debt that has priority over other debts if a debtor becomes insolvent; a secured debt.public debt. A debt owed by a municipal, state, or national government. [Cases: Municipal Corporations 869. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 1609.]pure debt. See pure obligation under OBLIGATION.secured debt. A debt backed by collateral.short-term debt. Collectively, all debts and other liabilities that are payable within one year. — Also termed current liability.simple-contract debt. A debt that is either oral or written but is not of record and not under seal. — Also termed debt by simple contract.special-contract debt. A debt due, or acknowledged to be due, by an instrument under seal, such as a deed of covenant or sale, a lease reserving rent, or a bond. — Also termed debt by special contract; debt by specialty contract; specialty debt.Quote
“Any contract in short whereby a determinate sum of money becomes due to any person, and is not paid but remains in action merely, is a contract of debt. And, taken in this light, it comprehends a great variety of acquisition; being usually divided into debts of record, debts by special, and debts by simple contract.” 2 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 464 (1766).subordinate debt. A debt that is junior or inferior to other types or classes of debt.unliquidated debt. A debt that has not been reduced to a specific amount, and about which there may be a dispute.
Unsecured debt. A debt not supported by collateral or other security.
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 432 (8th ed. 2004)
signature. 1. A person’s name or mark written by that person or at the person’s direction. — Also termed sign manual. [Cases: Signatures 1-5. C.J.S. Signatures §§ 1-16.] 2. Commercial law. Any name, mark, or writing used with the intention of authenticating a document. UCC §§ 1-201(b)(37), 3-401(b). — Also termed legal signature. [Cases: Sales 29. C.J.S. Sales § 76.]Quote”The signature to a memorandum may be any symbol made or adopted with an intention, actual or apparent, to authenticate the writing as that of the signer.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 134 (1979).digital signature. A secure, digital code attached to an electronically transmitted message that uniquely identifies and authenticates the sender. • A digital signature consists of a “hashed” number combined with a number assigned to a document (a private-encryption key). Generating a signature requires the use of private- and public-key-encryption software, and is often activated by a simple command or act, such as clicking on a “place order” icon on a retailer’s website. Digital signatures are esp. important for electronic commerce and are a key component of many electronic message-authentication schemes. Several states have passed legislation recognizing the legality of digital signatures. See E-COMMERCE; KEY ENCRYPTION. [Cases: Signatures 2. C.J.S. Signatures § 14.]electronic signature. An electronic symbol, sound, or process that is either attached to or logically associated with a document (such as a contract or other record) and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the document. • Types of electronic signatures include a typed name at the end of an e-mail, a digital image of a handwritten signature, and the click of an “I accept” button on an e-commerce site. The term electronic signature does not suggest or require the use of encryption, authentication, or identification measures. A document’s integrity (unaltered content), authenticity (sender’s identity), and confidentiality (of the signer’s identity or document’s contents) are not ensured merely because an electronic signature is provided for. [Cases: Signatures 3. C.J.S. Signatures § 12.]facsimile signature. 1. A signature that has been prepared and reproduced by mechanical or photographic means. 2. A signature on a document that has been transmitted by a fascimile machine. See FAX.private signature. Civil law. A signature made on a document (such as a will) that has not been witnessed or notarized. [Cases: Wills 149. C.J.S. Wills § 338.]unauthorized signature. A signature made without actual, implied, or apparent authority. • It includes a forgery. UCC § 1-201(b)(41). [Cases: Banks and Banking 147; Bills and Notes 54, 279. Banks and Banking §§ 415-416; Bills and Notes; Letters of Credit §§ 26-30, 150-151.]
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1415 (8th ed. 2004)
act, n. 1. Something done or performed, esp. voluntarily; a deed. — Also termed action.Quote” ‘[A]ct’ or ‘action’ means a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary ….” Model Penal Code § 1.13.2. The process of doing or performing; an occurrence that results from a person’s will being exerted on the external world; ACTION (2). — Also termed positive act; act of commission.Quote”The term act is one of ambiguous import, being used in various senses of different degrees of generality. When it is said, however, that an act is one of the essential conditions of liability, we use the term in the widest sense of which it is capable. We mean by it any event which is subject to the control of the human will. Such a definition is, indeed, not ultimate, but it is sufficient for the purpose of the law.” John Salmond, Jurisprudence 367 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947).Quote
“The word ‘act’ is used throughout the Restatement of this Subject to denote an external manifestation of the actor’s will and does not include any of its results, even the most direct, immediate, and intended.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 2 (1965).abstract juridical act. Civil law. A juridical act whose validity may be independent of the existence or lawfulness of the underlying cause. • In some systems, examples include negotiable instruments, debt remission, debt acknowledgment, and the novation of an obligation. See juridical act.act in pais (in pay). [Law French] An act performed out of court, such as a deed made between two parties on the land being transferred. See IN PAIS.act in the law. An act that is intended to create, transfer, or extinguish a right and that is effective in law for that purpose; the exercise of a legal power. — Also termed juristic act; act of the party; legal act.act of hostility. See ACT OF HOSTILITY.act of law. See act of the law.act of omission. See negative act.act of the law. The creation, extinction, or transfer of a right by the operation of the law itself, without any consent on the part of the persons concerned. — Also termed legal act; act of law. Cf. LEGAL ACT.act of the party. See act in the law.administrative act. An act made in a management capacity; esp., an act made outside the actor’s usual field (as when a judge supervises court personnel). • An administrative act is often subject to a greater risk of liability than an act within the actor’s usual field. See IMMUNITY (1).bilateral act. An act that involves the consenting wills of two or more distinct parties, as with a contract, a conveyance, a mortgage, or a lease; AGREEMENT (1).cexternal act. An act involving bodily activity, such as speaking.intentional act. An act resulting from the actor’s will directed to that end. • An act is intentional when it is foreseen and desired by the doer, and this foresight and desire resulted in the act through the operation of the will.internal act. An act of the mind, such as thinking.judicial act. An act involving the exercise of judicial power. — Also termed act of court.Quote
“The distinction between a judicial and a legislative act is well defined. The one determines what the law is, and what the rights of parties are, with reference to transactions already had; the other prescribes what the law shall be in future cases arising under it.” Union Pacific R.R. v. United States, 99 U.S. 700, 721 (1878) (Field, J., dissenting).jural act (joor-l). An act taken in the context of or in furtherance of a society’s legal system. — Also termed jural activity.quote”In order to identify an act as a jural act, it must be the kind of act that would be engaged in by someone who is enforcing a law, determining an infraction of the law, making or changing a law, or settling a dispute.” Martin P. Golding, Philosophy of Law 23 (1975).juridical act. Civil law. A lawful volitional act intended to have legal consequences. Cf. abstract juridical act.juristic act. See act in the law.legal act. See LEGAL ACT.ministerial act. An act performed without the independent exercise of discretion or judgment.• If the act is mandatory, it is also termed a ministerial duty. See ministerial duty under DUTY (2).negative act. The failure to do something that is legally required; a nonoccurrence that involves the breach of a legal duty to take positive action. • This takes the form of either a forbearance or an omission. — Also termed act of omission.negligent act. An act that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another.predicate act. See PREDICATE ACT.quasi-judicial act. See QUASI-JUDICIAL ACT.tortious act. An act that subjects the actor to liability under the principles of tort law.unilateral act. An act in which there is only one party whose will operates, as in a testamentary disposition, the exercise of a power of appointment, or the voidance of a voidable contract.unintentional act. An act not resulting from the actor’s will toward what actually takes place.verbal act. 1. An act performed through the medium of words, either spoken or written. 2. Evidence. A statement offered to prove the words themselves because of their legal effect (e.g., the terms of a will). • For this purpose, the statement is not considered hearsay.3. The formal product of a legislature or other deliberative body; esp., STATUTE. • For the various types of acts, see the subentries under STATUTE.Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 26 (8th ed. 2004)
notary public (noh-t-ree), n. A person authorized by a state to administer oaths, certify documents, attest to the authenticity of signatures, and perform official acts in commercial matters, such as protesting negotiable instruments. — Often shortened to notary. [Cases: Notaries 1. C.J.S. Notaries § 2.] — Abbr. n.p. Pl. notaries public. — notarize, vb. — notarial, adj.
Quote”A notary public is an officer long known to the civil law, and designated as registrarius, actuarius, or scrivarius.” John Proffatt, A Treatise on the Law Relating to the Office and Duties of Notaries Public § 1, at 1 (John F. Tyler & John J. Stephens eds., 2d ed. 1892).
“The notary public, or notary, is an official known in nearly all civilized countries. The office is of ancient origin. In Rome, during the republic, it existed, the title being tabelliones forenses, or personae publicae; and there are records of the appointment of notaries by the Frankish kings and the Popes as early as the ninth century. They were chiefly employed in drawing up legal documents; as scribes or scriveners they took minutes and made short drafts of writings, either of a public or a private nature. In modern times their more characteristic duty is to attest the genuineness of any deeds or writings, in order to render the same available as evidence of the facts therein contained.” Benjamin F. Rex, The Notaries’ Manual § 1, at 1-2 (J.H. McMillan ed., 6th ed. 1913).
“In jurisdictions where the civilian law prevails, such as in the countries of continental Europe, a notary public is a public official who serves as a public witness of facts transacted by private parties … and also serves as impartial legal advisor for the parties involved…. In colonial Louisiana, the notary public had the same rank and dignity as his continental civilian ancestor…. Although notaries still constitute a protected profession in present-day Louisiana, holding office for life provided they renew their bonds periodically in compliance with the governing statute, the importance of their function has diminished over the years to the point that it has been said that a Louisiana notary is no longer a truly civilian notary. Indeed, the trained lawyer is nowadays the Louisiana, and American, counterpart of the continental civilian notary.” Saul Litvinoff, 5 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: The Law of Obligations 296-97 (2d ed. 2001).
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1087 (8th ed. 2004)
A Freeman-on-the-Land, Freeman upon the land, Soveriegn Human Being, Soveriegn Canadian, Awake, ONENiSMplus other recognised and similar alternatives to the person.
Could (in light of our Society – Community) be collectively referred to as :Free-Thinkers”or”think free’ers” One who peacefully and lawfully exists free of all statutory obligations and restrictions.One who has withdrawn consent to be governed.One who has withdrawn consent to be represented.
One who believes everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, Property and the Persuit of Happiness, so long as they do not impose upon these same rights of others.
“DO NO HARM”. I don’t think anyone can objects to this being the most basic and simple definition in one phrase that cover all Crime, Fraud, Violence,Rioting,etc.etc.etc. It says it all!!! “DO NO HARM”. Every other Stupid long winded Statute Acts Laws Charter Magna’s Papal Bullsare all just that longtwinded fowl smelling hot air for *** HARM ***
One who believes, one should not harm others or their property (as above) or conduct fraud in their contracts.
One who follows Golden Rules like “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”.
One who understands Karma and Karma’s like “What Goes Around Comes Around
One who understands that there is know other human between you and your GOD on this planet that hold’s any power or any kind of authority over One’s self or any other human being’s.Oh!!! Except GOD So in the absence of an signed Affidavit with the wet ink signature of GOD on it giving someone else authority over you.
Freeman can mean: An individual not tied to land under the Medieval feudal system, unlike a villein or serffrom Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia
FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556:Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
FREEMAN. This word has had various meanings at different stages of history. In the Roman law, it denoted one who was either born free or emancipated, and was t h e opposite of “slave.” In feudal law, it designated an allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudal tenant. (And so in Pennsylvania colonial law. Fry’s Election Case, 71 Pa. 308, 10 Am. Rep. 698.) In old English law, the word described a freeholder or tenant by free services; one who was not a villein. In modern legal phraseology, it is the appellation of a member of a city or borough having the right of suffrage, or a member of any municipal corporation invested with full civic rights. A person in the possession and enjoyment of all the civil and political rights accorded to the people under a free government.A LAW DICTIONARY, BY HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M.A. second edition
FREEMAN, primarily one who is free, as opposed to a slave or serf (see Feudalism; Slavery). The term is more specifically applied to one who possesses the freedom of a city, borough or company. Before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, each English borough admitted freemen according to its own peculiar custom and by-laws. The rights and privileges of a freeman, though varying in different boroughs, generally included the right to vote at a parliamentary election of the borough, and exemption from all tolls and dues. The act of 1835 respected existing usages, and every person who was then an admitted freeman remained one, retaining at the same time all his former rights and privileges. The admission of freemen is now regulated by the Municipal Corporations Act 1882. By section 201 of that act the term “freeman” includes any person of the class whose rights and interests were reserved by the act of 1835 under the name either of freemen or of burgesses. By section 202 no person can be admitted a freeman by gift or by purchase; that is, only birth, servitude or marriage are qualifications. The Honorary Freedom of Boroughs Act 1885, however, makes an exception, as by that act the council of every borough may from time to time admit persons of distinction to be honorary freemen of the borough. The town clerk of every borough keeps a list, which is called “the freeman’s roll,” and when any person claims to be admitted a freeman in respect of birth, servitude or marriage, the mayor examines the claim, and if it is established the claimant’s name is enrolled by the town clerk.A person may become a freeman or freewoman of one of the London livery companies by (1) apprenticeship or servitude; (2) patrimony; (3) redemption; (4) gift. This last is purely honorary. The most usual form of acquiring freedom was by serving apprenticeship to a freeman, free both of a company and of the city of London. By an act of common council of 1836 apprenticeship was permitted to freemen of the city who had not taken up the freedom of a company. By an act of common council of 1889 the term of service was reduced from seven years to four years. Freedom by patrimony is always granted to children of a person who has been duly admitted to the freedom. Freedom by redemption or purchase requires the payment of certain entrance fees, which vary with the standing of the coln-, pany. In the Grocers’ Company freedom by redemption does not exist, and in such companies as still have a trade, e.g. the Apothecaries and Stationers, it is limited to members of the trade.See W. C. Hazlitt, The Livery Companies of the City of London (1892).1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica
freemanFREE’MAN, n. [free and man.]1. One who enjoys liberty, or who is not subject to the will of another; one not a slave or vassal.2. One who enjoys or is entitled to a franchise or peculiar privilege; as the freemen of a city or state.Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
Freeman.1. A person not in slavery or serfdom.2. One who possesses the rights or privileges of a citizen.Answers.com
freeÂ·man [ freeman ] (plural freeÂ·men [ free’men ])1. man given freedom of place: a man who has been formally given citizenship of a place, together with various special privileges, as an honor. ‘a freeman of the city’2. man not enslaved: a man who is not a slave or serfEncartaÂ® World English Dictionary, North American Edition
freemanâ€¢ noun 1. a person who has been given the freedom of a city or borough.2. historical a person who is not a slave or serf.Compact Oxford English Dictionary
freeman1. A person not in slavery or serfdom.2. One who possesses the rights or privileges of a citizenThe American HeritageÂ® Dictionary of the English Language
Freeman n. 1. City in Missouri (USA), population 480; zip code 64746. 2. City in South Dakota (USA), population 1293; zip code 57029. :lol:freeman n. freemen <‘frEm&n> A person who is not a serf or a slave; [ETYM: AS. freÃ³man; freÃ³ free + mann man.]UltraLingua English Dictionary
freemanmale of legal age with the right to vote, own land and practice a trade.free man of colorblack man who was free from birth or later in life.Genealogy.com Glossary
FreemanOrigin: as. Freoman; freofree _ mann man.1. One who enjoys liberty, or who is not subject to the will of another; one not a slave or vassal.2. A member of a corporation, company, or city, possessing certain privileges; a member of a borough, town, or state, who has the right to vote at elections. See Liveryman. Both having been made freemen on the same day. (Addison)Biological Sciences Dictionary, biology on-line.com.org
FREEMAN – in general, a white male over 21 years of age holding full rights of citizenship who is free to ply a trade, own land, and to vote :shock:Genealogical Terms Commonly Used in Genealogical Research, familyresearch.com
USURPATION. Torts. The unlawful assumption of the use of property which beÂlongs to another; an interruption or the disÂturbing a man in his right and possession. Tomlins.
In public law. The unlawful seizure or assumption of sovereign power; the assumpÂtion of government or supreme power by force or illegally, in derogation of the constiÂtution and of the rights of the lawful ruler.â€”Usurpation of advowson. An injury which consists in the absolute ouster or dispossession of the patron from the advowson or right of presentation, and which happens when a stranÂger who has no right presents a clerk, and the latter is thereupon admitted and instituted. Brown.â€”Usurpation of franchise or ofÂfice. The unjustly intruding upon or exerÂcising any office, franchise, or liberty belonging to another.
USURPED POWER. In insurance. An invasion from abroad, or an internal rebelÂlion, where armies are drawn up against each other, when the laws are silent, and when the firing of towns becomes unavoidaÂble. These words cannot mean the power of a common mob. 2 Marsh. Ins. 791.
USURPER. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.
USURPATIO. Lat In the civil law. The interruption of a usurpation, by some act on the part of the real owner.
COMMOTION. A “civil commotion” isan insurrection of the people for generalpurposes, though it may not amount to re-hellion where there Is a usurped power. 2Marsh. Ins. 793; Boon v. Insurance Co., 40Conn. 584; Grame v. Assur. Soc, 112 U. S.273, 5 Sup. Ct 150, 28 L. Ed. 716; Spruillv. Insurance Co., 46 N. C. 127.
Nisi feceris. The name of a clause com-monly occurring in the old manorial writs, com-manding that, if the lords failed to do justice,the king’s court or officer should do it. By vir-tue of this clause, the king’s court usurped thejurisdiction of the private, manorial, or localcourts.
FEHMGERICHTE. The name given tocertain secret tribunals which flourished inGermany from the end of the twelfth cen-tury to the middle of the sixteenth, usurpingmany of the functions of the governmentswhich were too weak to maintain law andorder, and inspiring dread in all who camewithin their jurisdiction. Enc. Brit. Sucha court existed in Westphalia (though withgreatly diminished powers) until finally sup-pressed in 1811.
When one man invades the possession of an-other, and by force or surprise turns him outof the occupation of his lands, this is termed a”disseisin,” being a deprivation of that actualseisin or corporal possession of the freeholdwhich the tenant Defore enjoyed. In otherwords, a disseisin is said to be when one entersintending to usurp the possession, and to oustanother from the freehold. To constitute anentry a disseisin, there must be an Ouster ofthe freehold, either by taking the profits or byclaiming the inheritance. Brown.
“A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control in the state, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the state, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplantÂed or displaced the government “de jure”. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.”
DE FACTO. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of afÂfairs which exists actually and must be acÂcepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightÂful, legitimate, just or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without respect to lawful title; while an ofÂficer, king, or governor de jure Is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent Comm. 36.But the term Is also frequently used indeÂpendently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade.As to de facto “Corporation,” “Court,” “Domicile,” “Government,” and “Officer,” see those titles.
GovernÂment de facto. A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and conÂtrol in the state, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not estabÂlished according to the constitution of the state, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or suÂpremacy, but which has nevertheless supplantÂed or displaced the government de jure. A govÂernment deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presentÂly habitual obedience from the bulk of the comÂmunity. Aust. Jur. 324. There are several deÂgrees of what is called “de facto government.” Such a government, in its highest degree, asÂsumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorÂities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a govÂernment is that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penÂalties of treason; and, under certain limitaÂtions, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will, in general, be respectÂed by the government de jure when restored.But there is another description of governÂment, called also by publicists a “government de facto,” but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a “government of paramount force.” Its distinguishing characteristics are (1) that its existence is maintained by active miliÂtary power, within the territories, and against the rightful authority, of an established and lawful government; and (2) that, while it exÂists, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil ihat-ters by private citizens who, by acts of obediÂence, rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrong-doers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differÂing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authorÂity, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 8, 9, 19 Li. Ed. 361. The term “de facto,” as descripÂtive of a government, has no well-fixed and defÂinite sense. It is, perhaps, most correctly used as signifying a government completely, though only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful or regular government, occupying its capitol, and exercising its power, and which is ultimately overthrown, and the authority of the government de jure re-established. Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 703, 2 Am. Rep. 625. A government de facto is a government that unÂlawfully gets the possession and control of the rightful legal government, and maintains itself there, by force and arms, against the will of such legal government, and claims to exercise the powers thereof. Chisholm v. Coleraan, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677. And see further Smith v. Stewart, 21 Da. Ann. 67, 99 Am. Dec. 709; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176, 24 L. Ed. 716; Keppel v. Railroad Co., 14 Fed. Cas. 357
Officer de facto. As distinguish-ed from an officer de jure, this is the designa-tion of one who is in the actual possession andadministration of the office, under some colora-ble or apparent authority, although his title tothe same, whether by election or appointment,is in reality invalid or at least formally ques-tioned. See Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 6 Sup. Ct. 1121, 30 L. Ed. 78; Statev. Carroll. 38 Conn. 449, 9 Am. Rep. 409; Tren-ton v. McDaniel, 52 N. C. 107; Barlow v. Stan-ford, 82 111. 298; Brown v. Lunt , 37 Me. 423;Gregg Tp. v. Jamison, 55 Pa. 468; Pierce v.Edington, 38 Ark. 150; Plymouth v. Painter,17 Conn. 585, 44 Am. Dec. 574; Prescott v.Hayes, 42 N. H. 56; Jewell v. Gilbert, 64 N.H. 12, 5 Atl. 80, 10 Am. St. Rep. 357; Griffinv. Cunningham, 20 Grat . (Va.) 31 ; Ex parteStrang, 21 Ohio St. 610.
Judge de facto. One who holds and exercises the office of a judge under color of lawful authority and by a title valid on its face, though he has not full right to the office, as where he was appointed under an unconstituÂtional statute, or by an usurper of the appointÂing power, or has net taken the oath of office. State v. Miller, 111 Mo. 542, 20 S. W. 243; Walcott v. Wells, 21 Nev. 47, 24 Pac. 367, 9 D. R, A. 59, 37 Am. St. Rep. 478; Dredla v. Baache, 60 Neb. 655, 83 N. W. 916; Caldwell v. Barrett, 71 Ark. 310, 74 S. W. 748
De facto court. One established, organized, and exercising its judicial functions under auÂthority of a statute apparently valid, though such statute may be in fact unconstitutional and may be afterwards so adjudged; or a court established and acting under the authoriÂty of a de facto government. 1 Bl. Judgm. Â§ 173; Burt v. Railroad Co., 31 Minn. 472, 18 N. W. 285.
Corporation de facto. One existing un-der color of law and in pursuance of an ef-fort made in good faith to organize a cor-poration under the statute; an associationof men claiming to be a legally incorporatedcompany, and exercising the powers andfunctions of a corporation, but without ac-tual lawful authority to do so. Foster v.Hare, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 177, 62 S. W. 541;Attorney General v. Stevens, 1 N. J. Eg.. 378,22 Am. Dec. 526; Manufacturing Co. v. Scho-field, 28 Ind. App. 95, 62 N. E. 106; CedarRapids Water Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa,234, 91 N. W. 1081; Johnson v. Okerstrom,70 Minn. 303, 73 N. W. 147; Tulare Irrig.Dist v. Shepard, 185 U. S. 1, 22 Sup. Ot. 531,46 L. Ed. 773; In re Gibbs’ Estate, 157 Pa.59, 27 Atl. 383, 22 L. R. A. 276; Pape v.Bank, 20 Kan. 440, 27 Am. Rep. 183.
De facto contract. One which has purÂported to pass the property from the owner to another. Bank v. Logan, 74 N. Y. 575; EdÂmunds v. Transp. Co., 135 Mass. 283.
EX FACTO. From or in consequence ofa fact or action; actually. Usually appliedto an unlawful or tortious act as the founda-tion of a title, etc. Sometimes used as equiv-alent to “de facto.” Bract, fol. 172.
PERINDE VALERE. A dispensationgranted to a clerk, who, being defective incapacity for a benefice or other ecclesiasticalfunction, is de facto admitted to it. Cowell.|ie: the clerks who sign defacto orders and warrants/summons for the quasi-judge who doesn’t want to take liability|
CITIZEN Here is the particularly deceptive definition of citizen from Blacks 2nd. Says that a citizen is a member of a jural society, only able to enjoy rights (civil rights) that exist under it’s constitution (not full God-given freedoms) and that the jural society must protect the rights of the citizens, but doesn’t specify that the rights themselves cannot be changed. This fits perfectly with Russ Porisky’s Intro to Your Human Rights lecture where his slide says clearly that the permissible presumptions of parliament state than parliament can pass legislation at any time to allow any other statute to infringe upon the rights of citizens. Most deceptive in this definition is the use of the term “the right to exercise privileges” in place of “rights”. As well as the term “full civil rights” to give the impression that this equals full God-given freedoms.
So basically, citizens don’t have protected rights. But when one thinks about it, it should be this way. People who work for government are the citizens. Not The People. Citizens should not have rights. Only privileges. This is how we box the government in. Government is supposed to work for The People to protect life, liberty and property. So government workers only have privileges in their capacity as a government employee, privileges granted by The People to run the country. So what can we do with members of government who are misbehaving? Remove their privilege to work in government, and they have no right as a government employee to do anything about it.
The system itself seems to be set up perfectly in theory. The problems seems to be only that the BAR (British Accredited Registry) associations have hijacked the Law Societies that make up lawful governments, and have reversed everything so that we are now acting as employees of government through our social insurance numbers and our ‘person’. Therefore, acting through our ‘person’, we only have privileges, not protected rights.
CITIZEN. In general . A member ofa free city or jural society, (civitas,) possess-ing all the rights and privileges which canbe enjoyed by any person under its consti-tution and government , and subject to thecorresponding duties.
In American law. One who, under theconstitution and laws of the United States,or of a particular state, and by virtue ofbirth or naturalization within the jurisdic-tion, is a member of the political community,owing allegiance and being entitled to theenjoyment of full civil rights. U. S. v.Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588;White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 259; Amy v.Smith, 1 Litt . <Ky.) 331; State v. CountyCourt , 90 Mo. 593, 2 S. W. 788; Minor v.Happersett , 21 Wall . 162, 22 L. Ed. 627; U.S. v. Morris (D. C.) 125 Fed 325.
The term “citizen” has come to us derivedfrom antiquity. It appears to have been usedin the Roman government to designate a per-son who had the freedom of the city, and theright to exercise all political and civil privi-leges of the government. There was also, atRome, a partial citizenship, including civil, butnot political, rights. Complete citizenship em-braced both. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 451.All persons born or naturalized in theUnited States, and subject to the jurisdic-tion thereof, are citizens of the UnitedStates and of the state wherein they reside.Amend. XIV, Const. U. S.
There is in our political system a governmentof each of the several states, and a governmentof the United States. Each is distinct from theothers, and has citizens of its own, who owe itallegiance, and whose rights, within its juris-diction, it must protect. The same person maybe at the same time a citizen of the UnitedStates and a citizen of a state; but his rightsof citizenship under one of these governmentswill be different from those he has under theother. The government of the United States,although it is, within the scope of its powers,supreme and beyond the states, can neithergrant nor secure to its citizens rights or privi-leges which are not expressly or by implicationplaced under its jurisdiction. All that cannotbe so granted or secured are left to the exclu-sive protection of the states. U. S. v. Cruik-shank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.
“Citizen” and “inhabitant” are not synony-mous. One may be a citizen of a state withoutbeing an inhabitant , or an inhabitant withoutbeing a citizen. Quinby v. Duncan, 4 Har .(Del) 383.
“Citizen” is sometimes used as synonymousith “resident;” as- in a statute authorizingfunds to be distributed among the religious so-eties of a township, proportionably to the num-er of their members who are citizens of thetownship. State v. Trustees, 11 Ohio, 24.I n English law. An inhabitant of a city.
Rolle, 138. The representative of a city,parliament . 1 Bl. Comm. 174. It will beperceived that , in the English usage, theword adheres closely to Its original meaning,as shown by its derivation, (civis, a free in-habitant of a city.) When it is designed todesignate an inhabitant of the country, orone amenable to the laws of the nation,”subject” is the word there employed.CITIZENSHIP. The status of being acitizen, (q. v.)
Parliamentc.1290, from O.Fr. parlement (11c.), originally “speaking, talk,” from parler “to speak” (see parley); spelling altered c.1400 to conform with M.L. parliamentum. Anglo-L. parliamentum is attested from 1216. Parliamentarian originally (1644) was a designation of one of the sides in the Eng. Civil War; meaning “one versed in parliamentary procedure” dates from 1834.
Parley (n.)”conference,” especially with an enemy, 1449, from M.Fr. parle, from fem. pp. of O.Fr. parler “to speak,” from L.L. parabolare “to speak (in parables),” from parabola “speech, discourse,” from L. parabola “comparison” (see parable). The verb is 14c., probably a separate borrowing of O.Fr. parler.
Breach of the Peace
Breach of the Peace. The criminal offense of creating a public disturbance or engaging in disorderly conduct, particularly by making an unnecessary or distracting noise. — Also termed breach of peace; disturbing the peace; disturbance of the peace; public disturbance. See disorderly conduct under CONDUCT. [Cases: Breach of the Peace 1-14. C.J.S. Breach of the Peace §§ 2-13; Domestic Abuse and Violence §§ 3, 6.]
Quote”A breach of the peace takes place when either an assault is committed on an individual or public alarm and excitement is caused. Mere annoyance or insult is not enough: thus at common law a householder could not give a man into custody for violently and persistently ringing his door-bell. It is the particular duty of a magistrate or police officer to preserve the peace unbroken; hence if he has reasonable cause to believe that a breach of the peace is imminent he may be justified in committing an assault or effecting an arrest.” R.F.V. Heuston, Salmond on the Law of Torts 131 (17th ed. 1977).
“The beginning of our criminal justice … was concerned very largely with the problem of keeping the peace. Because of this fact all early indictments included some such phrase as ‘against the peace of the King’; and until recently statutory provisions for simplification, indictments in this country were thought to be incomplete without some such conclusion as ‘against the peace and dignity of the state.’ As a result of this history all indictable offenses are sometimes regarded as deeds which violate the public peace, and hence in a loose sense the term ‘breach of the peace’ is regarded as a synonym for crime.” Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 477 (3d ed. 1982).
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 201 (8th ed. 2004)
RIGHTCite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 324 (8th ed. 2004)Right
right, n. 1. That which is proper under law, morality, or ethics <know right from wrong>. 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle <the right of liberty>. 3. A power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person by law <the right to dispose of one’s estate>. 4. A legally enforceable claim that another will do or will not do a given act; a recognized and protected interest the violation of which is a wrong <a breach of duty that infringes one’s right>. 5. (often pl.) The interest, claim, or ownership that one has in tangible or intangible property <a debtor’s rights in collateral> <publishing rights>. 6. The privilege of corporate shareholders to purchase newly issued securities in amounts proportionate to their holdings. 7. The negotiable certificate granting such a privilege to a corporate shareholder.
Quote”Right is a correlative to duty; where there is no duty there can be no right. But the converse is not necessarily true. There may be duties without rights. In order for a duty to create a right, it must be a duty to act or forbear. Thus, among those duties which have rights corresponding to them do not come the duties, if such there be, which call for an inward state of mind, as distinguished from external acts or forbearances. It is only to acts and forbearances that others have a right. It may be our duty to love our neighbor, but he has no right to our love.” John Chipman Gray, The Nature and Sources of the Law 8-9 (2d ed. 1921).Quote
“[T]he word ‘right’ is one of the most deceptive of pitfalls; it is so easy to slip from a qualified meaning in the premise to an unqualified one in the conclusion. Most rights are qualified.” American Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 256 U.S. 350, 358, 41 S.Ct. 499, 500 (1921) (Holmes, J.).Quote
“[In Hohfeldian terminology,] A is said to have a right that B shall do an act when, if B does not do the act, A can initiate legal proceedings that will result in coercing B. In such a situation B is said to have a duty to do the act. Right and duty are therefore correlatives, since in this sense there can never be a duty without a right.” E. Allen Farnsworth, Contracts § 3.4, at 114 n.3 (3d ed. 1999).absolute right. 1. A right that belongs to every human being, such as the right of personal liberty; a natural right. 2. An unqualified right; specif., a right that cannot be denied or curtailed except under specific conditions <freedom of thought is an absolute right>. • For example, a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily nonsuit a case before it is finally submitted; after final submission, the court has discretion to grant or deny a voluntary nonsuit. Cf. relative right.accessory right. A supplementary right that has been added to the main right that is vested in the same owner. • For example, the right in a security is accessory to the right that is secured; a servitude is accessory to the ownership of the land for whose benefit the servitude exists. Cf. principal right.accrued right. A matured right; a right that is ripe for enforcement (as through litigation).acquired right. A right that a person does not naturally enjoy, but that is instead procured, such as the right to own property.civil right. See CIVIL RIGHT.conditional right. A right that depends on an uncertain event; a right that may or may not exist. • For example, parents have the conditional right to punish their child, the condition being that the punishment must be reasonable.conjugal rights. See CONJUGAL RIGHTS.equitable right. A right cognizable within a court of equity. • If a legal right and an equitable right conflict, the legal right ordinarily prevails over and destroys the equitable right even if the legal right arose after the equitable right. With the merger of law and equity in federal and most state courts, the procedural differences between legal and equitable rights have been largely abolished. Cf. legal right. [Cases: Equity 3. C.J.S. Equity §§ 7, 11-16, 36-37.]expectant right. A right that depends on the continued existence of present conditions until some future event occurs; a contingent right.fundamental right. See FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.imperfect right. A right that is recognized by the law but is not enforceable. • Examples include time-barred claims and claims exceeding the local limits of a court’s jurisdiction.Quote
“[T]here are certain rights, sometimes called imperfect rights, which the law recognizes but will not enforce directly. Thus a statute-barred debt cannot be recovered in a court of law, but for certain purposes the existence of the debt has legal significance. If the debtor pays the money, he cannot later sue to recover it as money paid without consideration; and the imperfect right has the faculty of becoming perfect if the debtor makes an acknowledgment of the debt from which there can be inferred a promise to pay.” George Whitecross Paton, A Textbook of Jurisprudence 286 (G.W. Paton & David P. Derham eds., 4th ed. 1972).imprescriptible right. A right that cannot be lost to prescription.inalienable right. A right that cannot be transferred or surrendered; esp., a natural right such as the right to own property. — Also termed inherent right.incorporeal right. A right to intangible, rather than tangible, property. • A right to a legal action (a chose in action) is an incorporeal right. See CHOSE IN ACTION.inherent right. See inalienable right.legal right. 1. A right created or recognized by law. 2. A right historically recognized by common-law courts. Cf. equitable right. 3. The capacity of asserting a legally recognized claim against one with a correlative duty to act.natural right. A right that is conceived as part of natural law and that is therefore thought to exist independently of rights created by government or society, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. See NATURAL LAW.negative right. A right entitling a person to have another refrain from doing an act that might harm the person entitled.patent right. A right secured by a patent. [Cases: Patents 1. C.J.S. Patents §§ 1-5, 10-12, 15.]perfect right. A right that is recognized by the law and is fully enforceable.peripheral right. A right that surrounds or springs from another right.personal right. 1. A right that forms part of a person’s legal status or personal condition, as opposed to the person’s estate. 2. See right in personam.political right. The right to participate in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right to vote or the right to hold public office. — Also termed political liberty. [Cases: Constitutional Law 82(8); Elections 1; Officers and Public Employees 18. C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 461-462, 612, 614-619, 624-626; Elections §§ 1(1, 10), 2; Officers and Public Employees §§ 21-22.]positive right. A right entitling a person to have another do some act for the benefit of the person entitled.precarious right. A right enjoyed at the pleasure of another; a right that can be revoked at any time.primary right. A right prescribed by the substantive law, such as a right not to be defamed or assaulted. • The enforcement of a primary right is termed specific enforcement.principal right. A right to which has been added a supplementary right in the same owner. Cf. accessory right.private right. A personal right, as opposed to a right of the public or the state. Cf. public right.procedural right. A right that derives from legal or administrative procedure; a right that helps in the protection or enforcement of a substantive right. Cf. substantive right.property right. A right to specific property, whether tangible or intangible. [Cases: Constitutional Law 277. C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 982.]proprietary right. A right that is part of a person’s estate, assets, or property, as opposed to a right arising from the person’s legal status.public right. A right belonging to all citizens and usu. vested in and exercised by a public office or political entity. Cf. private right.real right. 1. Civil law. A right that is connected with a thing rather than a person. • Real rights include ownership, use, habitation, usufruct, predial servitude, pledge, and real mortgage.Quote
“The term ‘real rights’ (jura in re) is an abstraction unknown to classical Roman law. The classical jurists were preoccupied with the availability of remedies rather than the existence of substantive rights, and did not have a generic term to include all ‘rights’ which civilian scholars of following generations classified as ‘real.’ The expression (‘real rights’) was first coined by medieval writers elaborating on the Digest in an effort to explain ancient procedural forms of action in terms of substantive rights.” A.N. Yiannopoulos, Real Rights in Louisiana and Comparative Law, 23 La. L. Rev. 161, 163 (1963).2. JUS IN RE. 3. See right in rem.relative right. A right that arises from and depends on someone else’s right, as distinguished from an absolute right. Cf. absolute right.remedial right. The secondary right to have a remedy that arises when a primary right is broken.restitutory right. A right to restitution.right in personam (in pr-soh-nm). An interest protected solely against specific individuals. — Also termed personal right; jus in personam. See IN PERSONAM.right in rem (in rem). A right exercisable against the world at large. — Also termed real right; jus in rem. See IN REM.Quote
“A right in rem need not relate to a tangible res. Thus a right that one’s reputation should not be unjustifiably attacked is today described as a right in rem, since it is a right that avails against persons generally. This shows how far the conception has developed from the Roman notion of actio in rem, for one who sues to protect his reputation is not asking for judgment for a specific res. It should also be noticed that on breach of a right in rem, a right in personam arises against the aggressor.” George Whitecross Paton, A Textbook of Jurisprudence 300 (G.W. Paton & David P. Derham eds., 4th ed. 1972).secondary right. A right prescribed by procedural law to enforce a substantive right, such as the right to damages for a breach of contract. • The enforcement of a secondary right is variously termed secondary enforcement, remedial enforcement, or sanctional enforcement. — Also termed remedial right; sanctioning right.substantial right. An essential right that potentially affects the outcome of a lawsuit and is capable of legal enforcement and protection, as distinguished from a mere technical or procedural right.substantive right (sb-stn-tiv). A right that can be protected or enforced by law; a right of substance rather than form. Cf. procedural right.vested right. A right that so completely and definitely belongs to a person that it cannot be impaired or taken away without the person’s consent. [Cases: Constitutional Law 92-112. C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 228-276.]
RIGHT. As a noun, and taken In an abstract sense, the term means justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In this signification it answers to one meaning of the Latin “jus,” and serves to indicate law in the abstract, considered as the foundation of all rights, or the complex of underlying moral principles which impart the character of justice to all positive law, or give it an ethical content.
As a noun, and taken in a concrete sense, a right signifies a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another. “Rights” are defined generally as “powers of free action.” And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law.[/i] But leaving the abstract moral sphere, and giving to the term a juristic content, a “right” is well defined as “a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of others.”[/i] HolL Jur. 69.
The noun substantive “a right” signifies that which jurists denominate a “faculty;” that which resides in a determinate person, by virtue of a given law, and which avails against a person (or answers to a duty lying on a person) other than the person in whom it resides. And the noun substantive “rights” is the plural of the noun substantive “a right.” But the expression “right,” when it is used as an adjective, is equivalent to the adjective “just,” as the adverb “rightly” is equivalent to the adverb “justly.” And, when used as the abstract name corresponding to the adjective “right,” the noun substantive “right” is synonymous with the noun substantive “justice.” Aust. Jur. Â§ 264, note.
In a narrower signification, the word denotes an interest or title in an object of property ; a just and legal claim to hold, use, or enjoy it, or to convey or donate it, as he may please. See Co. Litt. 345a.
The term “right,” in civil society, is defined to mean that which a man is entitled to have, or to do, or to receive from others within the limits prescribed by law. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356. That which one person ought to have or receive from another, it being withheld from him, or not in his possession. In this sense, “right” has the force of “claim,” and is properly expressed by the Latin “jus.” Lord Coke considers this to be the proper signification of the word, especially in writs and pleadings, where an estate is turned to a right; as by discontinuance, disseisin, etc. Co. Litt. 345*.
Classification. Rights may be described as perfect or imperfect, according as their action or scope is clear, settled, and determinate, or is vague and unfixed.
Rights are either in personam or in rem. A right in personam is one which imposes an obligation on a definite person. A right in rem is one which imposes an obligation on persons generally; i. e., either on all the world or on all the world except certain determinate persons. Thus, if I am entitled to exclude all persons from a given piece of land, I have a right in rem in respect of that land; and, if there are one or more persons, A., B., and C, whom I am not entitled to exclude from it, my right is still a right in rem. Sweet.
Rights may also be described as either primary or secondary. Primary rights are those which can be created without reference to rights already existing. Secondary rights can only arise for the purpose of protecting or enforcing primary rights. They are either preventive (protective) or remedial (reparative.) Sweet.
Preventive or protective secondary rights exist in order to prevent the infringement or loss of primary rights. They are judicial when they require the assistance of a court of law for their enforcement, and extrajudicial when they are capable of being exercised by the party himself. Remedial or reparative secondary rights are also either judicial or extrajudicial. They may further be divided into (1) rights of restitution or restoration, which entitle the person injured to be replaced in his original position; (2) rights of enforcement which entitle the person injured to the performance of an act by the person bound; and (3) rights of satisfaction or compensation. Id.
With respect to the ownership of external objects of property, rights may be classed as absolute and qualified. An absolute right gives to the person in whom it inheres the uncontrolled dominion over the object at all times and for all purposes. A qualified right gives the possessor a right to the object for certain purposes or under certain circumstances only. Such is the right of a bailee to recover the article bailed when it has been unlawfully taken from him by a stranger.
Rights are also either legal or equitable. The former is the case where the person seeking to enforce the right for his own benefit has the legal title and a remedy at law. The latter are such as are enforceable only in equity; as, at the suit of cestui que trust.
In constitutional law. There is also a classification of rights, with respect to the constitution of civil society. Thus, according to Blackstone, “the rights of persons, considered in their natural capacities, are of two sorts,â€”absolute and relative; absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons; relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other.” 1 Bl. Comm. 123. And see In re Jacobs, 33 Hun (N. Y.) 374; Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 29 Am. Rep. 356; Johnson v. Johnson, 32 Ala. 637; People v. Berberrich, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 224.
Rights are also classified in constitutional law as natural, civil, and political, to which there is sometimes added the class of “personal rights.”
Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and depend upon civilized society; or they are those which are plainly assured by natural law (Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519, 44 Am. Dec. 217); or those which, by fair deduction from the present physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him. 1 Woolsey, Polit Science, p. 26. Such are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation. See Black, Const. Law (3d Ed.) 523.
Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by the laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. See Wlnnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N. W. 681. Or, as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. Iowa v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 37 Fed. 498, 3 L. R. A. 554; State v. Powers, 51 N. J. Law, 432, 17 Atl. 969; Bowles v. Habermann, 95 N. Y. 247; People v. Washington, 36 Cal. 658; Fletcher v. Tuttle, 151 111. 41, 37 N. E. 683, 25 L. R. A. 143, 42 Am. St Rep. 220; Hronek v. People, 134 111. 139, 24 N. E. 861, 8 L. R. A. 837, 23 Am. St Rep. 652.
Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to hold public office, and the right of petition. See Black Const Law (3d Ed.) 524; Wlnnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, W N. W. 681.
Personal rights is a term of rather vague import, but generally it may be said to mean the right of personal security, comprising those of life, limb, body, health, reputation, and the right of personal liberty.
As an adjective, the term “right” means just, morally correct, consonant with ethical principles or rules of positive law. It is the opposite of wrong, unjust illegal.
“Right” is used in law, as well as in ethics, as opposed to “wrong.” Thus, a person may acquire a title by wrong.
In old English law. The term denoted an accusation or charge of crime. Fitzh. Nat Brev. 66 F. See, also, Droit; Jus; Recht.
Other compound and descriptive terms. â€”Base right. â€¢ In Scotch law, a subordinate right; the right of a subvassal in the lands held by him. Bell.â€”Bill of rights. See Bill, 6.â€”Common right. See Common.â€” Declaration of rights.
See Bill of Bights,under Bill.â€”Marital rights. See Marital.â€”Mere right. In the law of real estate, the mere right of property in land; the right of a proprietor, but without possession or even the right of possession; the abstract right of property.â€”Patent right. See Patent.â€” Petition of right. See Petition.â€”Private rights. Those rights which appertain to a particular individual or individuals, and relate either to the person, or to personal or real property. 1 Chit Gen. Pr. 3.â€”Real right. In Scotch law. That which entitles him who is vested with it to possess the subject as his own, and, if in the possession of another, to demand from him its actual possession. Real rights affect the subject itself; personal are founded in obligation. Erskine, Inst. 3, 1, 2.â€”Right heir. See Heir.â€”Riparian rights. See Riparian.â€”Vested rights. See VESTEn.And see also the following titles.
RIGHT CLOSE, WRIT OF. An abolished writ which lay for tenants in ancient demesne, and others of a similar nature, to try the right of their lands and tenements in the court of the lord exclusively. 1 Steph. Comm. 224.
RIGHT IN ACTION. This is a phrase frequently used in place of chose in action, and having an identical meaning.
RIGHT IN COURT. See Rectus hÂ» Curia.
RIGHT OF ACTION. The right to bring suit; a legal right to maintain an action, growing out of a given transaction or state of facts and based thereon. Hibbard v. Clark, 56 N. H. 155, 22 Am. Rep. 442; Webster v. County Com’rs, 63 Me. 29.By the old writers, “right of action” is commonly used to denote that a person has lost a right of entry, and has nothing but a right of action left Co. Litt 3636.
RIGHT OF DISCUSSION. In Scotch law. The right which the cautioner (surety) has to insist that the creditor shall do his best to compel the performance of the contract by the principal debtor, before he shall be called upon. 1 Bell, Comm. 347.
RIGHT OF DIVISION. In Scotch law. The right which each of several cautioners (sureties) has to refuse to answer for more than his own share of the debt To entitle the cautioner to this right the other cautioners must be solvent and there must be no words in the bond to exclude it. 1 Bell, Comm. 347.
RIGHT OF ENTRY. A right of entry is the right of taking or resuming possession of land by entering on it in a peaceable manner.
RIGHT OF HABITATION. In Louisiana. The right to occupy another man’s house as a dwelling, without paying rent or other compensation. Civ. Code La. art 623.
RIGHT OF POSSESSION. The right to possession which may reside in one man, while another has the actual possession, being the right to enter and turn out such actual occupant; e. g., the right of a disseisee. An apparent right of possession is one which may be defeated by a better; an actual right of possession, one which will stand the test against all opponents. 2 Bl. Comm. 196.
RIGHT OF PROPERTY. The mere right of property in land; the abstract right which remains to the owner after he has lost the right of possession, and to recover which the writ of right was given. United with possession, and the right of possession, this right constitutes a complete title to lands, tenements, and hereditaments. 2 BL Comm. 19T.
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION. The right to disincumber property or to free it from a claim or lien; specifically, the right (granted by statute only) to free property from the incumbrance of a foreclosure or other judicial sale, or to recover the title passing thereby, by paying what is due, with interest, costs, etc. Not to be confounded with the “equity of redemption,” which exists independently of statute but must be exercised before sale. See Mayer v. Farmers’ Bank, 44 Iowa, 216; Millett v. Mullen, 95 Me. 400, 49 Atl. 871; Case v. Spelter Co., 62 Kan. 69, 61 Pac. 406.
RIGHT OF RELIEF. In Scotch law. The right of a cautioner (surety) to demand reimbursement from the principal debtor when he has been compelled to pay the debt. 1 Bell, Comm. 347.
RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION AND PERFORMANCE. By the acts 3 & 4 Wm.IV. c. 15, and 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, the author of a play, opera, or musical composition, or his assignee, has the sole right of representing or causing it to be represented in public at any place in the British dominions during the same period as the copyright in the work exists. The right is distinct from the copyright, and requires to be separately registered. Sweet.
RIGHT OF SEARCH. In international law. The right of one vessel, on the high seas, to stop a vessel of another nationality and examine her papers and (in some cases) her cargo. Thus, In time of war, a vessel of either belligerent has the right to search a neutral ship, encountered at sea, to ascertain whether the latter is carrying contraband goods.
RIGHT OF WAY. The right of passage or of way is a servitude imposed by law or by convention, and by virtue of which one has a right to pass on foot, or horseback, orin a vehicle, to drive beasts of burden oi carts, through the estate of another. When this servitude results from the law, the exercise of it is confined to the wants of the person who has it. When it is the result of a contract, its extent and the mode of using it is regulated by the contract. Civ. Cod* La. art 722.”Right of way,” in its strict meaning, is the right of passage over another man’s ground; and in its legal and generally accepted meaning, in reference to a railway, it is a mere easement in the lands of others, obtained by lawful condemnation to public use or by purchase. ii would be using the term in an unusual sense, by applying it to an absolute purchase of the fee-simple of lands to be used for a railway oi any other kind of a way. Williams v. Western Union Ry. Co., 50 Wis. 76, 5 N. W. 482. And see Kripp v. Curtis, 71 Cal. 62, 11 Pac. 879; Johnson v. Lewis, 47 Ark. 66, 2 S. W. 329; Bodfish v. Bodfish, 105 Mass. 317; New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 17L 19 Sup. Ct 128, 43 L. Ed. 407; Stuyvesant v. Woodruff, 21 N. J. Law, 136, 57 Am. Dec. 156.
RIGHT PATENT. An obsolete writ which was brought for lands and tenements, and not for an advowson, or common, and lay only for an estate In fee-simple, and not for him who had a lesser estate; as tenant in tail, tenant in frank marriage, or tenant for life. Fitzh. Nat Brev. 1.
RIGHT TO BEGIN. On the hearing or trial of a cause, or the argument of a demurrer, petition, etc, the right to begin Is the right of first addressing the court or jury. The right to begin is frequently of importance, as the counsel who begins has also the right of replying or having the last word after the counsel on the opposite side has addressed the court or jury. Sweet
RIGHT TO REDEEM. The term “right of redemption,” or “right to redeem,” is familiarly used to describe the estate of tbe debtor when under mortgage, to be sold at auction, in contradistinction to an absolute estate, to be set off by appraisement It would be more consonant to the legal character of this interest to call it the “debtor’s estate subject to mortgage.” White v. Whitney, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 86.
RIGHT, WRIT OF. A procedure for the recovery of real property after not more than sixty years’ adverse possession; the highest writ in the law, sometimes called, to distinguish it from others of the droitural class, the “writ of right proper.” Abolished by 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 27. 3 Steph. Comm. 392.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS. Rights which concern and are annexed to the persons of men. 1 Bl. Comm. 122.
RIGHTS OF THINGS. Such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person. 1 BL Comm. 122.
RIGHTS, PETITION OF. See Petition
.person. 1. A human being. — Also termed natural person.
absent person. Louisiana law. A person who has no representative in the state and whose whereabouts are not known and cannot be ascertained by diligent effort. La. Civ. Code art. 47.
adult disabled person. A child over the age of 18 for whom a parent continues to have a duty of support.
associated person. See ASSOCIATED PERSON.disabled person. A person who has a mental or physical impairment. See DISABILITY.disappeared person. See DISAPPEARED PERSON.interested person. A person having a property right in or claim against a thing, such as a trust or decedent’s estate. • The meaning may expand to include an entity, such as a business that is a creditor of a decedent. — Abbr. IP.
person in loco parentis (in loh-koh p-ren-tis). A person who acts in place of a parent, either temporarily (as a schoolteacher does) or indefinitely (as a stepparent does); a person who has assumed the obligations of a parent without formally adopting the child. See IN LOCO PARENTIS. [Cases: Parent and Child 15. C.J.S. Parent and Child §§ 345-350, 357-358.]person in need of supervision. See child in need of supervision under CHILD. — Abbr. PINS.
person of incidence. The person against whom a right is enforceable; a person who owes a legal duty. • The meaning may expand to include an entity, such as an insurance company.
person of inherence (in-heer-nts). The person in whom a legal right is vested; the owner of a right. • The meaning may expand to include an entity.
person of interest. A person who is the subject of a police investigation but who has not been identified by investigators as being suspected of committing the crime itself.person not deceased. A person who is either living or not yet born.
person of opposite sex sharing living quarters. See POSSLQ.
person with ordinary skill in the art. See PERSON WITH ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART.
private person. 1. A person who does not hold public office or serve in the military. 2. Civil law. An entity such as a corporation or partnership that is governed by private law.
protected person. 1. A person for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made. [Cases: Guardian and Ward 9.5, 17; Mental Health 104. C.J.S. Insane Persons § 111.] 2. Int’l law. A person who is protected by a rule of international law; esp., one who is in the hands of an occupying force during a conflict. • Protected persons are entitled to a standard of treatment (including a prohibition on coercion and corporal punishment) by the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949). 3. English law. An inhabitant of a protectorate of the United Kingdom. • Though not a British subject, such a person is given diplomatic protection by the Crown.
2. The living body of a human being <contraband found on the smuggler’s person>. 3. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. • In this sense, the term includes partnerships and other associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated.
Quote”So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition.” John Salmond, Jurisprudence 318 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947).
artificial person. An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. • An entity is a person for purposes of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses but is not a citizen for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses in Article IV, § 2, and in the Fourteenth Amendment. — Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; juridical person; legal person; moral person. Cf. LEGAL ENTITY. [Cases: Corporations 1.1(2). C.J.S. Corporations § 2.]
control person. See CONTROL PERSON.
Fictitious Person. See artificial person.
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.
Letter of Intent
letter of intent. A written statement detailing the preliminary understanding of parties who plan to enter into a contract or some other agreement; a noncommittal writing preliminary to a contract. • A letter of intent is not meant to be binding and does not hinder the parties from bargaining with a third party. Businesspeople typically mean not to be bound by a letter of intent, and courts ordinarily do not enforce one; but courts occasionally find that a commitment has been made. — Abbr. LOI. — Also termed memorandum of intent; memorandum of understanding; term sheet; commitment letter. Cf. precontract under CONTRACT. [Cases: Contracts 25. C.J.S. Contracts § 60.]
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 924 (8th ed. 2004)
notice, n. 1. Legal notification required by law or agreement, or imparted by operation of law as a result of some fact (such as the recording of an instrument); definite legal cognizance, actual or constructive, of an existing right or title <under the lease, the tenant must give the landlord written notice 30 days before vacating the premises>. • A person has notice of a fact or condition if that person (1) has actual knowledge of it; (2) has received information about it; (3) has reason to know about it; (4) knows about a related fact; or (5) is considered as having been able to ascertain it by checking an official filing or recording. [Cases: Constitutional Law 251.6, 309; Notice 1. C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 968, 1154, 1165-1166, 1168-1169; Notice §§ 2-3, 9.] 2. The condition of being so notified, whether or not actual awareness exists <all prospective buyers were on notice of the judgment lien>. Cf. KNOWLEDGE. 3. A written or printed announcement <the notice of sale was posted on the courthouse bulletin board>. [Cases: Sales 235; Vendor and Purchaser 225. C.J.S. Sales § 233; Vendor and Purchaser §§ 486-487, 491.]actual notice. Notice given directly to, or received personally by, a party. — Also termed express notice. [Cases: Notice 1.5. C.J.S. Notice § 4.]adequate notice. See due notice.commercial-law notice. Under the UCC, notice of a fact arising either as a result of actual knowledge or notification of the fact, or as a result of circumstances under which a person would have reason to know of the fact. UCC § 1-201(25) (2d ed. 1995). [Cases: Sales 235. C.J.S. Sales § 233.]constructive notice. Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of, such as a registered deed or a pending lawsuit; notice presumed by law to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person. — Also termed legal notice. [Cases: Notice 4; Vendor and Purchaser 229. C.J.S. Notice § 7; Vendor and Purchaser § 488.]direct notice. Actual notice of a fact that is brought directly to a party’s attention. — Also termed positive notice.due notice. Sufficient and proper notice that is intended to and likely to reach a particular person or the public; notice that is legally adequate given the particular circumstance. — Also termed adequate notice; legal notice.express notice. Actual knowledge or notice given to a party directly, not arising from any inference, duty, or inquiry. See actual notice. [Cases: Notice 2. C.J.S. Notice §§ 4-5.]fair notice. 1. Sufficient notice apprising a litigant of the opposing party’s claim. 2. The requirement that a pleading adequately apprise the opposing party of a claim. • A pleading must be drafted so that an opposing attorney of reasonable competence would be able to ascertain the nature and basic issues of the controversy and the evidence probably relevant to those issues. 3. FAIR WARNING. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 673; Pleading 48. C.J.S. Pleading §§ 116-124, 132-133.]immediate notice. 1. Notice given as soon as possible. 2. More commonly, and esp. on notice of an insurance claim, notice that is reasonable under the circumstances. [Cases: Insurance 3154.]implied notice. Notice that is inferred from facts that a person had a means of knowing and that is thus imputed to that person; actual notice of facts or circumstances that, if properly followed up, would have led to a knowledge of the particular fact in question. — Also termed indirect notice; presumptive notice. [Cases: Notice 3. C.J.S. Notice § 6.]imputed notice. Information attributed to a person whose agent, having received actual notice of the information, has a duty to disclose it to that person. • For example, notice of a hearing may be imputed to a witness because it was actually disclosed to that witness’s attorney of record. [Cases: Principal and Agent 177(1). C.J.S. Agency §§ 433-435, 442-444, 446.]indirect notice. See implied notice.inquiry notice. Notice attributed to a person when the information would lead an ordinarily prudent person to investigate the matter further; esp., the time at which the victim of an alleged securities fraud became aware of facts that would have prompted a reasonable person to investigate. [Cases: Notice 6; Vendor and Purchaser 229. C.J.S. Notice §§ 12-14; Vendor and Purchaser § 488.]judicial notice. See JUDICIAL NOTICE.legal notice. 1. See constructive notice. 2. See due notice.notice by publication. See public notice.personal notice. Oral or written notice, according to the circumstances, given directly to the affected person.positive notice. See direct notice.presumptive notice. See implied notice.public notice. Notice given to the public or persons affected, usu. by publishing in a newspaper of general circulation. • This notice is usu. required, for example, in matters of public concern. — Also termed notice by publication. [Cases: Notice 11. C.J.S. Notice §§ 16, 32.]reasonable notice. Notice that is fairly to be expected or required under the particular circumstances.record notice. Constructive notice of the contents of an instrument, such as a deed or mortgage, that has been properly recorded. [Cases: Vendor and Purchaser 231. C.J.S. Vendor and Purchaser § 496.]short notice. Notice that is inadequate or not timely under the circumstances.4. Intellectual property. A formal sign attached to an item that embodies or reproduces an intellectual-property right. • Notice of patent is made by placing the word “patent” (or its abbreviation, “pat.”) and the item’s patent number on an item made by a patentee or licensee. There are three statutory notice forms for U.S. trademark and servicemark registration. The most common is the symbol with the letter R (®) but “Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.” or “Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office” affords the same legal protection. A copyright notice also takes several forms. The first part may be the symbol with the letter C in a circle (©), or the word “Copr.” or “Copyright.” It must be followed by the copyright owner’s name and the year that the work was first published. Informal signs, such as “Brand,” “TM,” “Trademark,” “SM,” and “Service Mark,” adjacent to words or other symbols considered to be protectable marks are not legal notices of exclusive rights. 5. Parliamentary law. A meeting’s published call. See call of a meeting under CALL (1). 6. Parliamentary law. A formal statement that certain business may come before a meeting, usu. made at an earlier meeting or published with the call of the meeting that will consider the business, and made as a prerequisite to the business’s consideration. See call of a meeting under CALL (1). — Also termed previous notice.
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1090 (8th ed. 2004)
employee. A person who works in the service of another person (the employer) under an express or implied contract of hire, under which the employer has the right to control the details of work performance. — Also spelled employe. Cf. AGENT (1); INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. [Cases: Master and Servant 1. C.J.S. Apprentices §§ 2, 11; Employer-Employee Relationship §§ 2-3, 6-12.]borrowed employee. An employee whose services are, with the employee’s consent, lent to another employer who temporarily assumes control over the employee’s work. • Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the borrowing employer is vicariously liable for the employee’s acts. But the employer may also be entitled to assert immunity under workers’-compensation laws. — Also termed borrowed servant; loaned employee; loaned servant; employee pro hac vice; special employee. See RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR. [Cases: Master and Servant 301(4); Workers’ Compensation 202. C.J.S. Employer-Employee Relationship §§ 197-200; Workmen’s Compensation § 122.]probationary employee. A recently hired employee whose ability and performance are being evaluated during a trial period of employment.statutory employee. Workers’ compensation. An employee who is covered, or required to be covered, by the employer’s workers’-compensation insurance and who therefore has no independent tort claim against the employer for unintentional injuries suffered on the job. See statutory employer under EMPLOYER. [Cases: Workers’ Compensation 187. C.J.S. Workmen’s Compensation §§ 121, 132.]
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 564 (8th ed. 2004)
violation, n. 1. An infraction or breach of the law; a transgression. See INFRACTION. 2. The act of breaking or dishonoring the law; the contravention of a right or duty. 3. Rape; ravishment. 4. Under the Model Penal Code, a public-welfare offense. • In this sense, a violation is not a crime. See Model Penal Code § 1.04(5). — violate, vb. — violative (vI–lay-tiv), adj. — violator, n.Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1600 (8th ed. 2004)
infraction, n. A violation, usu. of a rule or local ordinance and usu. not punishable by incarceration. See VIOLATION (1). — infract, vb.
civil infraction. An act or omission that, though not a crime, is prohibited by law and is punishable. • In some states, many traffic violations are classified as civil infractions.Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 796 (8th ed. 2004)
Model Penal Code. A proposed criminal code drafted by the American Law Institute and used as the basis for criminal-law revision by many states. — Abbr. MPC.
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1025 (8th ed. 2004)
public-welfare offense. A minor offense that does not involve moral delinquency and is prohibited only to secure the effective regulation of conduct in the interest of the community. • An example is driving a car with one brake-light missing. — Also termed regulatory offense; contravention.
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1110 (8th ed. 2004)
Ballantine’s Dictionary of Law :
Human being – see monster
Monster – human being by birth, but in somepart resembling a lower animal. A monsterhas no inheritable blood and cannot be heir toany land.
Human laws – man’s laws, with man as the author,as distinguished from divine laws,with God the author.
Oxford Dictionary 1901:Human – belonging or relative to man asdistinguished from God or super humanbeings, pertaining to the sphere or faculties of manwith implication of limitation or inferiority; mundaneand secular, often opposed to divine.
Random House Dictionary:Human – secular- of or pertaining to worldly thingsor to things not regarded as sacred:temporal; not related to or concerned with religion:opposed to sacred: concerned with non-religioussubjects; not belonging to a religious order; one ofthe secular clergy, of or pertaining to this world.Secular humanism – any set of beliefs whichpromotes human values without specificallusion to religious doctrine, secular spirit ortendency, especially a system of political or socialphilosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith orreligious worship; the view that public education andother matters of civil policy should be conductedwithout the influence of religious beliefs.
c.1250, from M.Fr. humain “of or belonging to man,” from L. humanus, probably related to homo (gen. hominis) “man,” and to humus “earth,” on notion of “earthly beings,” as opposed to the gods (cf. Heb. adam “man,” from adamah “ground”). Cognate with O.Lith. zmuo (acc. zmuni) “man, male person.” Displaced its O.E. cognate guma (from P.Gmc. *guman-) which survives only in disguise in bridegroom. First record of humankind is from 1645. Humanoid (1918) is a hybrid of L. humanus and Gk. -oeides “like,” from eidos “form, shape” (see -oid).humane Look up humane at Dictionary.comc.1450, variant of human, used interchangeably with it until early 18c., when it began to be a distinct word with sense of “having qualities befitting human beings.” But inhuman still can be the opposite of humane. The Royal Humane Society (founded 1774) was originally to rescue drowning persons.humanism Look up humanism at Dictionary.comalong with humanist used in a variety of philosophical and theological senses 16c.-18c., especially ones imitating L. humanitas “education befitting a cultivated man.” Main modern sense traces to c.1860; as a pragmatic system of thought, defined 1907 by co-founder F.C.S. Schiller as: “The perception that the philosophical problem concerns human beings striving to comprehend a world of human experience by the resources of human minds.” Humanist is from Fr. humaniste, from It. umanista, coined by It. poet Lodovicio Ariosto (1474-1533) “student of human affairs or human nature.”humanityc.1384, from O.Fr. humanitÃ©, from L. humanitatem (nom. humanitas) “human nature, humanity,” from humanus (see human). Originally in Eng. “kindness, graciousness;” sense of “human race” first recorded c.1450. Humanities (L. literÃ¦ humaniores) were those branches of literature (ancient classics, rhetoric, poetry) which tended to humanize or refine. Humanitarian (1819) originally was “one who affirms the humanity of Christ (but denies His divinity);” first used 1844 in modern sense of “one who advocates or practices human action;” usually disparaging at first, with a suggestion of excess.
American Jural Society http://tinyurl.com/5btnj9
What kind of Beings Are We?If we put all of this information together,a natural person, which is the subject of thestatutory law, is a “human”, a being of worldlyand inferior attributes and questionable morality,detached from that which is sacred or divine,opposed to and rejecting that which includesfaith in any form of religious worship or spiritualbeliefs. In other words, he is a godless beingwithout moral standards. This might be a veryapplicable description for those who liveaccording to the ethics which are typical ofâ€˜Babylonâ€™ [society], but the sons of God, whoconduct their lives in accordance with theChristian ideals upon which this nation wasfounded, are specifically excluded from such aforeign jurisdiction.The natural person or â€˜humanâ€™, as defined in law,obviously needs to be controlled by such statutesas those found in Roman Civil Law. Men willidentify themselves into this category of being,based upon the way they talk, and act, and howthey live. We have all been educated in thegovernment school system to think of ourselvesas humans, rather than the mortal children ofGod, as taught in the scriptures….
“Human” Kennith Burke’s definition of http://www.cla.purdue.edu/dblakesley/burke/human/index.html
First published in abbreviated form in The Rhetoric of Religion (1961), and then expanded in later versions in The Hudson Review (Winter, 1963-64), Language as Symbolic Action (1966), and a 1989 CCCCs presentation, Kenneth Burke’s “Definition of Human” encapsulates many of the key tenets of Dramatism, his theory and philosophy of language. In its final form, the definition reads:
“Being bodies that learn language thereby becoming wordlingshumans are the symbol-making, symbol-using, symbol-misusing animalinventor of the negative separated from our natural conditionby instruments of our own making goaded by the spirit of hierarchyacquiring foreknowledge of death and rotten with perfection.”(qtd. in Coe 332-333).
—–HuWikipediaHu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuHu (also hu) is a third person singular “non gender-specific pronoun”, short for “that human”. Its variants include “hus”, “hux”, “hume”, and “huself”.
Hu or hu may also refer to:
* Hu (mythology), the deification of the first word, in the Egyptian mythology of the Ennead* Huh (god), the deification of eternity in the Egyptian mythology of the Ogdoad* Hu (Sufism), a name for God.* HU (chant), a love song to god pronounced like the long drawn-out word ‘hue’. Used but not limited to a new-age religion called Eckankar.
* Hu is a breed of sheep
Hu http://www.unwords.com/unword/hu.html1. (pron.) A 3rd person gender-neutral pronoun. Its brevity and morphological structure (one open syllable: a consonant + a vowel) make it similar to other 3rd person pronouns — a typical, easily recognizable member of this class: he – she – hu.
Origins: A clipping from “human” (like “flu” from “influenza”). The derivative forms of “hu”: reflexive “huself,” possessive “hus,” and objective “hu”. Thus the five forms of the 3rd person pronouns make up the following table:
gender nom gen (adj) posses acc refl
male he his his him himselffem she her hers her herselfneut hu hus hus hu huself
HU: “…(etimology of the word ‘human’ deriving from Sanskrit (If I remember right) associated with God and the sun, also a mantra which is the core focus of the religion of Eckankar: “the religion of the light and sound of God”)…” Source?http://tinyurl.com/5exycx
Hu: Bronze hu, late Zhou dynasty (c. 600â€“256/255 ; in â€¦type of ancient Chinese bronze vessel used to contain wine or water. Encyclopedia Brittanica.http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Hu&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0
Hu-man: “There is another kind of animal, which in contemporary society is not recognized as an animal: ‘the intellectual animal called man, who is falsely called a hu-man being’. He arises from pulpits with such titles as: ‘pastor’, ‘priest’, and ‘preacher’. And there are emotional animals called man, who also are falsely called hu-man beings. There are also instinctual animals, who are called man, and also falsely called hu-man beings. A real man has no sin, and does not sin, because he is born of God. (1 John 3:9) Only the man who is balanced in the 3 centers, awakened, who has developed intuition, and the siddhis, and devoted himself to understanding, those who come to terms with the fact that all religion is not simply exoteric, but also esoteric in nature, these ones become true humans, true men. True men can understand the word of God because they’ve lived it. Not the animals who look like men, but in reality are Pinnochio…”http://idu.16.forumer.com/a/boycott-of-ata0_post1575.html
After you put Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 where your signature is going to be. ” your signature” is the last you thing you put on the document. When you pick up your pen from the signed contract it is consummated, you have given up your right to change the contract.
When you use “without prejudice UCC 1-207” in connection with your signature, you are saying, “I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.”
If you are confronted with explaining what the “UCC 1-207″ does here is your answer.
When you are going to sign a contract ( drivers license, lease, buying a automobile, snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, devoice decree, or any other document).
BEFORE you sign!!! you have the right to draw a fine line through anything that is not to your liking. It can be a number, a letter, a word or a group of words. At this time you can add any thing you want in the contract. Any changes you have made sign your name close to it and date it. A contract is to have all of the contract in full disclosure at the time of signing. If not the UCC 1-207 will stop you from giving up your rights on the contract you are about to sign and void out any part of the contract that you have not had the opportunity to view.
Parties to a Suit in Equity :
The person who seeks a remedy in chancery by suit, commonly called a plaintiff, and the person against whom the remedy is sought, usually denominated the defendant, are the parties to a suit in equity.
2. It is of the utmost importance, that there should be proper parties; and therefore no rules connected with the science of equity pleading, are so necessary to be attentively considered and observed, as those which relate to the persons who are to be made parties. to a suit, for when a mistake in this respect is discovered at the hearing of the cause, it may sometimes be attended with defeat, and will, at least, be followed by delay and expense. 3 John. Ch. R. 555; 1 Hopk. Ch. R. 566; 10 Wheat. R. 152.
3. A brief sketch will be here given by considering, 1. Who may be plain-tiffs. 2. who may be made defendants. 3. The number of the parties.
4. – §1. Of the plaintiff. Under this head will be considered who may sue in equity: and,
5. – 1. The government, or as the style is in England, the crown) may sue in a court of equity, not only in suits strictly on behalf of the government, for its own peculiar rights and interest, but also on behalf of the rights and interest of those, who partake of its prerogatives, or claim its peculiar protection. Mitf. Eq. Plead. by Jeremy, 4, 21-24; Coop. Eq. 21, 101. Such suits are usually brought by the attorney general.
6.- 2. As a general rule all persons, whether natural or artificial, as corporations, may sue in equity; the exceptions are persons who are not sui juris, as a person not of full age, a feme covert, an idiot, or lunatic.
7. The incapacities to sue are either absolute, or partial.
8. The absolute, disable the party to sue during their continuance; the partial, disable the party to sue by himself alone, without the aid of another. In the United States, the principal ab solute incapacity, is alienage. The alien, to be disabled to sue in equity, must be an alien enemy, for an alien friend may sue in chancery. Mitf. Equity, PI, 129; Coop. Equity Pl. 27. But still the subject matter of the suit may. disable an alien to sue. Coop. Eq. Pl. 25; Co. Lit. 129 b. An alien sovereign or an alien corporation may maintain a suit in equity in this country. 2 Bligh’s Rep. 1, N. S.; 1 Dow. Rep.. 179, N. S.; 1 Sim. R. 94; 2 Gall. R. 105; 8 Wheat. Rep. 464; 4 John. Ch. Rep. 370. In case if a foreign sovereign, he must have been recognized by the government of this country before he can sue. Story’s Eq. pl. §55; 3 Wheat. Rep. 324; Cop. Eq. Pl. 119
9. Partial incapacity to sue exists in the case of infants, of married women, of idiots and lunatics, or other persons who are incapable, or are by law specially disabled to sue in their own names; as for example, in Pennsylvania, and some other states, habitual drunkards, who are under guardianship. 10.-1. An infant cannot, by himself, exhibit a bill, not only on account of his want of discretion, but because of his inability to bind himself for costs. Mitf. Eq. Pl. 25. And when an infant sues, he must sue by his next friend. Coop, Eq. 27; 1 Sm. Chan. Pl. 54. But as the next friend may sometimes bring a bill. from improper motives, the court will, upon a proper application, direct the master to make inquiry on this subject, and if there be reason to believe it be not brought for the benefit of the infant, the proceedings will be stayed. 3 P. Wms. 140; Mitf. Eq. Pl. 27; Coop. Eq. Pl. 28.
11. – 2. A feme covert must, generally, join with her husband; but when he has abjured the realm, been transported for felony, or when he is civilly dead, she may sue as a feme sole. And when she has a separate claim, she may even sue her husband, with the assistance of a next friend of her own selection. Story’s Eq. Pl. §61; Story’s Eq. Jur. §1368; Fonbl. Eq. b. 1, c. 2, §6, note p. And the husband may himself sue the wife.
12. – 3. Idiots and lunatics are generally under the guardianship of persons who are authorized to bring a suit in the idiot’s name, by their guardian or committee.
13. – §2. Of the defendant. 1. In general, those persons who may sue in equity, may be sued. Persons sui juris may defend themselves, but those under an absolute or partial inability, can make defence only in a particular manner. A bill may be exhibited against all bodies politic or corporate, against all persons not laboring under any diability, and all persons subject to such incapacity, as infants, married women, and lunatics, or habitual drankards.
14. – 2. The government or the state, like the king in England, cannot be sued. Story, Eq. Pl. §69.
15. – 3. Bodies politic or corporate, like persons sui juris, defend a suit by themselves.
16. – 4. Infants institute a suit, as has been seen, by next friend, but they must defend a suit by guardian appointed by the court, who is usually the nearest relation, not concerned in interest, in the matter in question. Mitf. Eq. Pl. 103; Coop. Eq. Pl. 20, 109; 9 Ves. 357; 10 Ves. 159; 11 Ves. 563; 1 Madd. R. 290; Vide Guardian, n. 6.
17. – 5. Idiots and lunatics defend by their committees, who, in ordinary circumstances, are appointed guardians ad litem, for that purpose, as a matter of course. Mitf. Eq. Pl. 103; Coop. Eq. Pl. 30, 32; Story’s Eq. Pl. SS70; Shelf on Lun. 425.; and vide 2 John. Ch. R. 242, where, Chancellor Kent held, that the idiot need not be made a party as defendant to a bill for the payment of his debts, but his committee only. When the idiot or lunatic has no committee, or the latter has an interest adverse to that of the lunatic or idiot, a guardian ad litem will be appointed Mitf. Eq. Pl. 103;; Story’s Eq. Pl. §70.
18. – 6. In general, a married woman, when she is sued, must be joined with her husband, and their answer must also be joint. But there axe exceptions to this rule in both its requirements.
19. – 1. A married woman may be made a defendant, and answer as a feme sole, in some instances, as when her husband is plaintiff in the suit, and sues her as defendant, and from the like necessity, when the husband is an exile or has abjured the realm, or has been transported under a criminal sentence, or is an alien enemy. She may be sued and answer as a feme sole. Mitf. Eq. Pl. 104, 105; Coop. Eq. Pl. 30.
20. – 2. When her husband is joined, or ought to be joined, she cannot make a separate defence, without a special order of court. The following are instances where such orders will made. When a married woman claims as defendant in opposition to her husband, or lives separate from him, or disapproves of the defence he wishes her to make, she may obtain an order of court for liberty to answer, and defend the suit separately. And when the husband is abroad, the plaintiff may obtain, an order that she shall answer separately; and, if a woman obstinately refuses to join a defence with her husband, the latter may obtain an order to compel her to make a separate answer. Mitf. Eq: Pl.: 104; Coop. Eq. Pl. 30; Story’s Eq 71.
21. – 3. As to the number of parties. It is a general rule that every person who is at all interested in the subject-matter of the suit, must be made a party. It is, the constant aim of a court of equity, to do complete justice by deciding upon and settling the rights of all persons interested in the subject of the suit, to make the performance of the order of the court perfectly safe to those who are compelled to obey it, and, to prevent future litigation. For this purpose, all persons materially interested in the subject ought to be parties to the suit, plaintiffs or defendants, however numerous they may be, so that a complete decree may be made binding on those parties. Mitford’s Eq. Pl. 144; 1 John. Ch. R. 349; 9 John. R. 442; 2 Paige’s C. R. 278; 2 Bibb, 184; 3 Cowen’s R. 637; 4 Cowen’s R. 682 9 Cowen’s R. 321; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 179; 3 Swans. R. 139. When a great number of individuals are interested as in the instance of creditors seeking an account of the estate of their deceased debtor for payment of their demands, a few suing on behalf of the rest may substantiate the suit, and the other creditors may come in under the decree. 2 Ves. 312, 313. In such case the bill should expressly show that it is fifed as well on the behalf of other members as those who are really made the complainants; and the parties must not assume a corporate, name, for if they assume the style of a corporation, the bill cannot be sustained. 6 Ves. jr. 773; Coop. Eq. Pl. 40; 1 John. Ch. R. 349; 13 Ves. jr. 397 16 Ves. jr. 321; 2 Ves. sen. 312 S. & S. 18; Id. 184. In some cases, however, when all the persons interested are, not made parties, yet, if there be such privily between the plaintiffs and defendants, that a complete decree may be made, the want of parties is not a cause of demurrer. Mitf. El q. Pl. 145. Vide Calvert on Parties to Suits in Equity; Edwards on Parties to Bills in Chancery; Bouv Inst. Index, h. t.
Source : Bouvier 1856
estoppel (e-stop-l), n. 1. A bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true. [Cases: Estoppel 52-59. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 2-4, 58-64, 66-81, 83-89, 120-121, 153-155, 157, 159-160, 167.] 2. A bar that prevents the relitigation of issues. 3. An affirmative defense alleging good-faith reliance on a misleading representation and an injury or detrimental change in position resulting from that reliance. Cf. WAIVER (1). [Cases: Estoppel 83-87. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 90-95.] — estop, vb.
Quote” ‘Estoppe,’ says Lord Coke, ‘cometh of the French word estoupe, from whence the English word stopped; and it is called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man’s own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.’ [Co. Litt. 352a.] Estoppel may also be defined to be a legal result or ‘conclusion’ arising from an admission which has either been actually made, or which the law presumes to have been made, and which is binding on all persons whom it affects.” Lancelot Feilding Everest, Everest and Strode’s Law of Estoppel 1 (3d ed. 1923).Quote
“In using the term ‘estoppel,’ one is of course aware of its kaleidoscopic varieties. One reads of estoppel by conduct, by deed, by laches, by misrepresentation, by negligence, by silence, and so on. There is also an estoppel by judgment and by verdict; these, however, obviously involve procedure. The first-named varieties have certain aspects in common. But these aspects are not always interpreted by the same rules in all courts. The institution seems to be flexible.” John H. Wigmore, “The Scientific Role of Consideration in Contract,” in Legal Essays in Tribute to Orrin Kip McMurray 641, 643 (1935).administrative collateral estoppel. See COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.assignor estoppel. Patents. Estoppel barring someone who has assigned the rights to a patent from later attacking the patent’s validity. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342, 45 S.Ct. 117 (1924). • The doctrine was narrowed by Diamond Scientific Co. v. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1988), in which the court held that in some circumstances equity may outweigh the public-policy reasons behind the estoppel doctrine. [Cases: Patents 129(2). C.J.S. Patents § 227.]collateral estoppel. See COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.equitable estoppel. 1. A defensive doctrine preventing one party from taking unfair advantage of another when, through false language or conduct, the person to be estopped has induced another person to act in a certain way, with the result that the other person has been injured in some way. • This doctrine is founded on principles of fraud. The five essential elements of this type of estoppel are that (1) there was a false representation or concealment of material facts, (2) the representation was known to be false by the party making it, or the party was negligent in not knowing its falsity, (3) it was believed to be true by the person to whom it was made, (4) the party making the representation intended that it be acted on, or the person acting on it was justified in assuming this intent, and (5) the party asserting estoppel acted on the representation in a way that will result in substantial prejudice unless the claim of estoppel succeeds. — Also termed estoppel by conduct; estoppel in pais. [Cases: Estoppel 52-96. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 2-4, 55-155, 157, 159-160, 165, 167-200.] 2. See promissory estoppel.estoppel by conduct. See equitable estoppel.estoppel by contract. A bar that prevents a person from denying a term, fact, or performance arising from a contract that the person has entered into.estoppel by deed. Estoppel that prevents a party to a deed from denying anything recited in that deed if the party has induced another to accept or act under the deed; esp., estoppel that prevents a grantor of a warranty deed, who does not have title at the time of the conveyance but who later acquires title, from denying that he or she had title at the time of the transfer. — Also termed estoppel by warranty. See AFTER-ACQUIRED-TITLE DOCTRINE. [Cases: Estoppel 12-51. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 3, 10-54, 201-204, 206-208, 210-211.]Quote
“The apparent odiousness of some classes of estoppel, chiefly estoppels by deed, seems to result not so much from the nature of an estoppel, as from the highly technical rules of real property law upon which it operated, and with which it was associated. Estoppels by record, indeed, stand upon a considerably higher footing than estoppels by deed ….” Lancelot Feilding Everest, Everest and Strode’s Law of Estoppel 10 (1923).
estoppel by election. The intentional exercise of a choice between inconsistent alternatives that bars the person making the choice from the benefits of the one not selected.estoppel by inaction. See estoppel by silence.estoppel by judgment. See COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.
estoppel by laches. An equitable doctrine by which some courts deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim. [Cases: Equity 67. C.J.S. Equity §§ 128-132.]
estoppel by misrepresentation. An estoppel that arises when one makes a false statement that induces another person to believe something and that results in that person’s reasonable and detrimental reliance on the belief. [Cases: Estoppel 82-87. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 90-95.]estoppel by negligence. An estoppel arising when a negligent person induces someone to believe certain facts, and then the other person reasonably and detrimentally relies on that belief. [Cases: Estoppel 96. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 68, 114.]estoppel by record. See COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.estoppel by representation. An estoppel that arises when one makes a statement or admission that induces another person to believe something and that results in that person’s reasonable and detrimental reliance on the belief; esp., equitable estoppel. [Cases: Estoppel 82-87. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 90-95.]estoppel by silence. Estoppel that arises when a party is under a duty to speak but fails to do so. — Also termed estoppel by standing by; estoppel by inaction. [Cases: Estoppel 95. C.J.S. Estoppel § 99.]estoppel by standing by. See estoppel by silence.estoppel by verdict. See COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.estoppel by warranty. See estoppel by deed.estoppel in pais. See equitable estoppel.estoppel on the record. See prosecution-history estoppel.file-wrapper estoppel. See prosecution-history estoppel.judicial estoppel. Estoppel that prevents a party from contradicting previous declarations made during the same or an earlier proceeding if the change in position would adversely affect the proceeding or constitute a fraud on the court. — Also termed doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions; doctrine of the conclusiveness of the judgment. [Cases: Estoppel 68. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 138-141, 143-144.]legal estoppel. Estoppel recognized in law (as distinguished from equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais), such as an estoppel resulting from a recital or other statement in a deed or official record, and precluding any denial or assertion concerning a fact. [Cases: Estoppel 1-51. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 3, 5-54, 201-204, 206-208, 210-211.]marking estoppel. Patents. Estoppel that prevents a party from asserting that a product is not covered by a patent if that party has marked the product with a patent number. • This type of estoppel has been questioned in recent years, and has been sharply limited by some courts. [Cases: Patents 222. C.J.S. Patents §§ 394-395.]promissory estoppel. The principle that a promise made without consideration may nonetheless be enforced to prevent injustice if the promisor should have reasonably expected the promisee to rely on the promise and if the promisee did actually rely on the promise to his or her detriment. — Also termed (inaccurately) equitable estoppel. [Cases: Estoppel 85. C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 92-93.]Quote
“The doctrine of promissory estoppel is equitable in origin and nature and arose to provide a remedy through the enforcement of a gratuitous promise. Promissory is distinct from equitable estoppel in that the representation at issue is promissory rather than a representation of fact. ‘Promissory estoppel and estoppel by conduct are two entirely distinct theories. The latter does not require a promise.’ ” Ann Taylor Schwing, California Affirmative Defenses § 34:16, at 35 (2d ed. 1996) (quoting Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Transpacific Transp. Co., 88 Cal. App. 3d 823, 829 (1979)).prosecution-history estoppel. Patents. The doctrine limiting a patentee’s invocation of the doctrine of equivalents by eliminating from the claims those elements that the holder surrendered or abandoned during the prosecution of the patent. — Also termed estoppel on the record; file-wrapper estoppel. See DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS. [Cases: Patents 168(2.1). C.J.S. Patents § 296.]quasi-estoppel. An equitable doctrine preventing one from repudiating an act or assertion if it would harm another who reasonably relied on the act or assertion.technical estoppel. 1. An estoppel arising from a matter of record or from a deed made by the party who is claimed to be estopped. • Estoppels by deed or by record are called “technical” because the rules of estoppel apply with certainty in appropriate cases. 2. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. See estoppel by deed.
Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 589 (8th ed. 2004)
ENJOYMENT. The exercise of a right; the possession and fruition of a right, privilege, or incorporeal hereditament.
â€”Adverse enjoyment. The possession or exercise of an easement, under a claim of right against the owner of the land out of which such easement is derived. 2 Washb. Real Prop. 42; Cox v. Forrest, 60 Md. 79.â€”Enjoyment, quiet, covenant for. See Covenant.
POSSESS. To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control; to have the exclusive detention and control of; also to own or be entitled to. See Fuller v. Fuller, 84 Me. 475, 24 Atl. 946; Brantly v. Kee, 58 N. C. 337.
POSSESSED. This word is applied to the right and enjoyment of a termor, or a person having a term, who is said to be possessed, and not seised. Bac. Tr. 335; Poph. 76; Dyer, 369.
POSSESSIO. Lat In the civil law.That condition of fact under which one can exercise his power over a corporeal thing at his pleasure, to the exclusion of all others. This condition of fact is called “detention,” and It forms the substance of possession in all its varieties. Mackeld. Rom. Law, Â§ 238.
“Possession,” in the sense of “detention,” is the actual exercise of such a power as the owner has a right to exercise. The term “possessio” occurs in the Roman jurists in various senses. There is possessio simply, and possessio oivilis, and possessio naturalis. Possessio denoted, originally, bare detention. But this detention, under certain conditions, becomes a legal state, inasmuch as it leads to ownership, through usuoapio. Accordingly, the word “possessio,” which required no qualification so long as there was no other notion attached to possessio, requires such qualification when detention becomes a legal state. This detention, then, when it has the conditions necessary to usucapio, is called “possessio civilis;” and all other possessio as opposed to civilis is naturalis. Sandars, Just. Inst. 274. Wharton.
In old English law. Possession; seisin. The detention of a corporeal thing by means of a physical act and mental intent, aided by some support of right. Bract fol. 386.
â€”Pedis possessio. A foothold; an actual possession of real property, implying either actual occupancy or enclosure and use. See Lawrence v. Fulton, 19 Cal. 690; Porter v. Kennedy, 1 McMul. (S. C.) 357.â€”Possessio bona fide. Possession in good faith.
â€”Possessio mala fide, possession in bad faith. A possessor bona fide is,one who believes that no other person has a better right to the possession than himself. A possessor mala fide is one who knows that he is not entitled to the possession. Mackeld. Rom. Law, Â§ 243.â€”Possessio bonornm. In the civil law. The possession of goods. More commonly termed “bonorum possessio,” (g. v.)
â€”Possessio civilis. In Roman law. A legal possession, t. e., a possessing accompanied with the intention to be or to thereby become owner; and, as so understood, it was distinguished from “possessio naturalis,” otherwise called “nuda detentio,” which was a possessing without any such intention. Possessio civilis was the basis of usucapio or of longi temporis possessio, and was usually (but not necessarily) adverse possession. Brown.
â€”Possessio fratris. The possession or seisin of a brother; that is, such possession of an estate by a brother as would entitle his sister of the whole blood to succeed him as heir, to the exclusion of a half-brother. Hence, derivatively, that doctrine of the older English law of descent which shut out the half-blood from the succession to estates; a doctrine which was abolished by the descent act, 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c 106 See 1 Steph. Comm. 385; Broom, Max. 532.
â€”Possessio longi temporis. See Usucapio.
â€”Possessio naturalis. See Possessio Civilis. Possessio fratris de feodo simpliei facit sororem esse haeredem. The brother’s possession of an estate in fee-simple makes the sister to be heir. 3 Coke, 41; Broom, Max. 532. Possessio pacifica pour anus 60 facit jus. Peaceable possession for sixty years gives a right. Jenk. Cent. 26.
POSSESSION. The detention and control, or the manual or ideal custody, of anything which may be the subject of property, for one’s use and enjoyment, either as owner or as the proprietor of a qualified right in it, and either held personally or by another who exercises it in one’s place and name. That condition of facts under which one can exercise his power over a corporeal thing at his pleasure to the exclusion of all other persons. See Staton v. Mullis, 92 N. C. 632; Sunol v. Hepburn, 1 Cal. 263; Cox v. Devin-ney, 65 N. J. Law, 389, 47 Atl. 570; Churchill v. Onderdonk, 59 N. Y. 136; Bice v. Frayser (C. C.) 24 Fed, 460; Travers v. McElvain, 181 111. 382, 55 N. E. 135; Emmerson v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 89, 25 S. W. 289; Slater v. Rawson, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 444.
â€”Actual possession. This term, as used in the provisions of Rev. St. N. Y. p. 312, Â§ 1, authorizing proceedings to compel the determination of claims to real property, means a possession in faCt effected by actual entry upon the premises; an actual occupation. Churchill v. Onderdonk, 59 N. Y. 134. It means an actual occupation or possession in fact, as contradistinguished from that constructive one which the legal title draws after it. The word “actual” is used in the statute in opposition to virtual or constructive, and calls for an open, visible occupancy. Cleveland v. Crawford, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 616.
â€”Adverse possession. The actual, open, and notorious possession and enjoyment of real property, or of any estate lying in grant, continued for a certain length of time, held adversely and in denial and opposition to the title of another claimant, or under circumstances which indicate an assertion or color of right or title on the part of the person maintaining it, as against another person who is out of possession. Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 135, 46 N. W. 299; Taylor v. Philippi, 35 W. Va.
554, 14 S. E. 130; Pickett v. Pope, 74 Ala. 122; Martin v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 83 Me. 100, 21 Atl. 740; Dixon v. Cook, 47 Miss. 220.
â€”Chose in possession. A thing (subject of personal property) in actual possession, as distinguished from a “chose in action,” which is not presently in the owner’s possession, but which he has a right to demand, receive, or recover by suit.
â€”Civil possession. In modern civil law and in the law of Louisiana, that possession which exists when a person ceases to reside in a house or on ‘the land which he occupied, or to detain the movable which he possessed, but without intending to abandon the possession. It is the detention of a thing by virtue of a just title and under the conviction of possessing as owner. Civ. Code La. art. 3391 et seq.
â€”Constructive possession. Possession not actual but assumed to exist, where one claims to hold by virtue of some title, without having the actual occupancy, as, where the owner of a tract of land, regularly laid out, is in possession of a part, he is constructively in possession of the whole. Fleming v. Maddox, 30 Iowa, 241.
â€”Derivative possession. The kind of possession of one who is in the lawful occupation or custody of the property, but; not under a claim of title of his own, but under a right derived from another, as, for example, a tenant, bailee, licensee,etc.
â€”Dispossession. The act of ousting or removing one from the possession of property previously held by him, which may be tortious and unlawful, as in the case of a forcible motion, or in pursuance of law, as where a landlord “dispossesses” his tenant at the expiration of the term or for other cause by the aid of judicial process.
â€”Estate in possession. An estate whereby a present interest passes to and resides in the tenant, not depending on any subsequent circumstance or contingency; an estate where the tenant is in actual pernancy or receipt of the rents and profits.
â€”Naked possession. The actual occupation of real estate, but without any apparent or colorable right to hold and continue such possession; spoken of as the lowest and most imperfect degree of title. 2 Bl. Comm. 195; Birdwell v. Burleson, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 31, 72 S. W. 446.
â€”Natural possession. That by which a man detains a thing corporeally, as, by occupying a house, cultivating ground, or retaining a movable in possession; natural possession is also defined to be the corporeal detention of a thing which we possess as belonging to us, without any title to that possession or with a title which is void. Civ. Code La. 1900, arts. 3428, 3430. And see Railroad Co: v. Le Rosen, 52 La. Ann. 192, 26 South. 854; Sunol v. Hepburn, 1 Cal. 262.
â€”Open possession. Possession of real property is said to be “open” when held without concealment or attempt at secrecy, or without being covered up in the name of a third person, or otherwise attempted to be withdrawn from sight, but in such a manner that any person interested can ascertain who is actually in possession by proper observation and inquiry. See Bass v. Pease, 79 111. App. 318.
â€”Peaceable possession. See Peaceable.â€”Possession money. In English law. The man whom the sheriff puts in possession of goods taken under a writ of fieri facias is entitled, while he continues so in possession, to a certain sum of money per diem, which is thence termed “possession money.” The amount is 3s. 6d. per day if he is boarded, or 5s. per day if he is not boarded. Brown.
â€”Possession, writ of. “Where the judgment in an action of ejectment is for the delivery of the land claimed, or its possession, this writ is used to put the plaintiff in possession. It is in the nature of execution.
â€”Quasi possession is to a right what possession is to a thing; it is the exercise or enjoyment of the right, not necessarily the continuous exercise, but such an exercise as shows an intention to exercise it at any time when desired. Sweet.
â€”Scrambling possession. By this term is meant a struggle for possession on the land itself, not such a contest as is waged in the courts, or possession gained by an act of trespass, such as building a fence. Spiers v. Duane, 54 Cal. 177; Lobdell v. Keene, 85 Minn. 90, 88 N. W. 426; Dyer v. Reitz, 14 Mo. App. 45.
â€”Unity of possession. Joint possession of two rights by several titles, as where a lessee of land acquires the title in fee-simple, which extinguishes the lease. The term also describes one of the essential properties of a joint estate, each of the tenants having the entire possession as well of every parcel as of the whole. 2 Bl. Comm. 182.
â€”Vacant possession. An estate which has been abandoned, vacated, or forsaken by the tenant. In the older books, “possession” is sometimes used as the synonym of “seisin;” but, strictly speaking, they are entirely different terms. “The difference between possession and seisin is : Lessee for years Is possessed, and yet the lessor is still seised; and therefore the terms of law are that of chattels a man is possessed, whereas in feoffments, gifts in tail, and leases for life he is described as ‘seised.'” Noy, Max. 64.
“Possession” is used in some of the books In the sense of property. “A possession is an hereditament or chattel.” Finch, Law, b. 2, C.3.
Possession is a good title where no better title appears. 20 Vin. Abr. 278.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. This adage is not to be taken as true to the full extent, so as to mean that the person in possession can only be ousted by one whose title is nine times better than his, but it places in a strong light the legal truth that every claimant must succeed by the strength of his own title, and not by the weakness of his antagonist’s. Wharton.
POSSESSION VAUT TITRE. Fr. In English law, as In most systems of jurisprudence, the fact of possession raises a prima facie title or a presumption of the right of property in the thing possessed. In other words, the possession is as good as the title (about.) Brown.
POSSESSOR. One who possesses; one who has possession.â€”Possessor bona fide. He is a bona fide possessor who possesses as owner by virtue of an act sufficient in terms to transfer property, the defects of which he was ignorant of. He ceases to be a bona fide possessor from the moment these defects are made known to him, or are declared to him by a suit instituted for the recovery of the thing by the owner. Civ. Code La. art 503.
â€”Possessor mala fide. The possessor in bad faith is he who possesses as master, but who assumes this quality, when he well knows that he has no title to the thing, or that his title is vicious and defective. Civ. Code La. art 3452.
POSSESSORY. Relating to possession; founded on possession; contemplating or claiming possession.â€”Possessory action. See next title.
â€”Possessory claim. The title of a pre-emptor of public lands who has filed his declaratory statement but has not paid for the land. Enoch v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co, 6 Wash. 393, 33 Pac. 966.
In Scotch practice. A judgment which entitles a person who has uninterruptedly been in possession for seven years to continue his possession until the question of right be decided in due course of law. Bell.
â€”Possessory lien. One which attaches to such articles of another’s as may be at the time in the possession of the lienor, as, for example, an attorney’s lien on the papers and documents of the client in his possession. Weed Sewing Mach. Co. v. Boutelle, 56 Vt 570, 48 Am. Rep. 821.
POSSESSORY ACTION. An action which has for its immediate object to obtain or recover the actual possession of the subject-matter ; as distinguished from an action which merely seeks to vindicate the plaintiff’s title, or which involves the bare right only; the latter being called a “petitory” action.An action founded on possession. Trespass for injuries to personal property is called a “possessory” action, because it lies only for a plaintiff who, at the moment of the injury complained of, was in actual or constructive, immediate, and exclusive possession. 1 Chit PI. 168, 169.
In admiralty practice. A possessory suit is one which is brought to recover the possession of a vessel, had under a claim of title. The Tilton, 5 Mason, 465, Fed. Cas. No. 14,054; 1 Kent Comm. 371.
In old English law. A real action which had for its object the regaining possession of the freehold, of which the demandant or his ancestors had been unjustly deprived by the present tenant or possessor thereof.In Scotch law. An action for the vindication and recovery of the possession of heritable or movable goods; e. g., the action of molestation. Paters. Comp.In Louisiana. An action by which one claims to be maintained in the possession of an immovable property, or of a right upon or growing out of it, when he has been disturbed, or to be reinstated to that possession, when he has been divested or evicted. Code Proc. La. Â§ 6.
OWNER. The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title of property; proprietor. Garver v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 69 Iowa, 202, 28 N. W. 555; Turner v. Cross, 83 Tex. 218, 18 S. W. 578, 15 L. R, A. 262; Coombs v. People, 198 111. 586, 64 N. E. 1056; Atwater v. Spalding, 86 Minn. 101, 90 N. W. 370, 91 Am. St Rep. 331.
He who has dominion of a thing, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, which he has a right to enjoy and do with as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, unless he be prevented by some agreement or covenant which restrains his right. Bouvier.
â€”Equitable owner. One who is recognized in equity as the owner of property, because the real and beneficial use and title belong to him, although the bare legal title is vested in another, e. g., a trustee for his benefitâ€”General owner. The general owner of a thing is he who has the primary or residuary title to it; as distinguished from a special owner, who has a special interest in the same thing, amounting to a qualified ownership, such, for example, as a bailee’s hen. Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Nat Bank v. Logan, 74 N. Y. 581.â€”Joint owners. Two. or more persons who jointly own and hold title to property, e. g., joint tenants.â€”Legal owner. One who is recognized and held responsible by the law as the owner of property, la a more particular sense, one in whom the legal title to real estate is vested, but who holds it in trust for the benefit of another, the latter being called the “equitable” owner.â€”Part owners. Joint owners; co-owners; those who have shares of ownership in the same thing, particularly a vessel.â€”Reputed owner. He who has the general credit or reputation of being the owner or proprietor of goods is said to be the reputed owner. See Santa Cruz Rock Pav. Co. v. Lyons (Cal.) 43 Pac. 601. This phrase is chiefly used in English bankruptcy practice, where the bankrupt is styled the “reputed owner” of goods lawfully in his possession, though the real owner may be another person. The word “reputed” has a much weaker sense than its derivation would appear to warrant; importing merely a supposition or opinion derived or made up from outward appearances, and often unsupported by fact. The term “reputed owner” is frequently employed in this sense. 2 Steph. Comm. 206.â€”Riparian owner. See Riparian.â€”Special owner. One who has a special interest in an article of property, amounting to a qualified ownership of it such, for example, as a bailee’s lien; as distinguished from the general owner, who has the primary or residuary title to the same thing. Frazier v. State, 18 Tex. App. 44L
OWNERSHIP. The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right In a thing or claim. See Property.
The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others. In this Code, the thing of which there may be ownership is called “property.” Civ. Code Cal. Â§ 654.
Ownership is the right by which a thing belongs to some one in particular, to the exclusion of all other persons. Civ. Code La. art 488.
Ownership is divided into perfect and imperfect. Ownership is perfect when it is perpetual, and when the thing is unincumbered with any real right towards any other person than the owner. On the contrary, ownership is imperfect when it is to terminate at a certain time or on a condition, or if the thing which is the object of it, being an immovable, is charged with any real right towards a third person; as a usufruct, use, or servitude. When an immovable is subject to a usufruct the owner of it is said to possess the naked ownership. Civ. Code La. art. 490; Maestri v. Board of .Assessors, 110 La. 517, 34 South. 658.
REGISTER, evidence. A book containing a record of facts as they occur, kept by public authority; a register of births, marriages and burials.
2. Although not originally intended for the purposes of evidence, public registers are in general admissible to prove the facts to which they relate.
3. In Pennsylvania, the registry of births, &c. made by any religious society in the state, is evidence by act of assembly, but it must be proved as at common law. 6 Binn. R. 416. A copy of the register of births and deaths of the Society of Friends in England, proved before the lord mayor of London by an ex parte affidavit, was allowed to be given in evidence to prove the death of a person; 1 Dall. 2; and a copy of a parish register in Barbadoes, certi-fied to be a true copy by the rector, proved by the oath of a witness, taken before the deputy secretary of the island and notary public, under his hand and seal was held admissible to prove pedigree; the handwriting and office of the secretary being proved. 10 Serg. & Rawle, 383.
4. In North Carolina, a parish register of births, marriages and deaths, kept pursuant to the statute of that state, is evidence of pedigree. 2 Murphey’s R. 47.
5. In Connecticut, a parish register has been received in evidence. 2 Root, R. 99. See 15 John. R. 226. Vide 1 Phil. Ev. 305; 1 Curt. R. 755; 6 Eng. Eccl. R. 452; Cov. on Conv. Ev. 304.
REGISTER, common law. The certificate of registry granted to the person or persons entitled thereto, by the collector of the district, comprehending the port to which any ship or vessel shall belong; more properly, the registry itself. For the form, requisites, &c. of certificate of registry, see Act of Con. Dec. 31, 1792; Story’s Laws U. S. 269 3 Kent, Com. 4th ed. 141._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Only when Man embraces the Power of Love!and NOT the Love of Power!Will he finally see world Peace! j.Hendrix RIP
“Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.”
“(The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.)”Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)
“I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.”
Capitaliztion from Blacks law dictionary:
John Doe:Capitis Diminutio Minima
Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed.
It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld.Rom.Law, 144.
John DOE:Capitis Diminutio Media
Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
JOHN DOE:Capitis Diminutio Maxima
Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Your name represents your person, your status or title in the society, how the name is presented is an indication of the status of the person, the First Letter Only Capitalized is your person with full rights and liberties… “Capitis Diminutio Minima from Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968. The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld.Rom.Law, 144.”
The uppercase name represents Capitis Diminutio Maxima… from “Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968 The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights…”
So what does it mean that all of the government correspondences show your name in uppercase?
Are we slaves in Canada, has the government removed our lawful rights?
The only way possible for this to happen in Canada is if the government claims in representing the interests of the nation they have removed our lawful rights through due process of law, since the Canadian nation was founded upon the principals of freedom and equality, a nation of free men and free institutions with lawful rights and natural liberties, not a nation of classes and slaves in servitude, nor a nation of corporate/private government, which is no longer a free institution. No free men, no free institutions, no nation of Canada, no lawful claim to govern.
Here we must look to the 2 most important acts regarding the governments jurisdiction and the peoples rights. The Bill of Rights (“The Bill”) and the Charter of Rights and freedoms (“The Charter”).
First came The Bill, where it clearly states that the nation of Canada is formed of free men and free institutions, this is the free individuals who are the aggregate of the nation.A nation where the rights recognized and declared in The Bill had existed before that bill and shall continue to exist with out discrimination thereafter.
So have we the people of this nation retained our lawful rights?
Let’s look at the rights spoken of,
The right of the individual to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived there of except by due process of law.
From my understanding of Capitis Diminutio Minima The Bill protects this status, “It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered”, citizens are both born and naturalized, naturalized you must register, born you do not have to register to be what you are by birth right, you maintain all rights at law to due process, title to property, protection of the law, and equality before the law. These are lawful rights not granted by government.
Now we need to look at The Charter, which stands often in front of The Bill when it comes to the governments claim of jurisdiction. Though it does not operate notwithstanding The Bill.
So both still stand as active legislation and govern the same jurisdictional rights?
Yes, and in very different ways.
When the provinces just wouldn’t accept The Bill and Canada was experiencing a Constitutional identity crisis they made The Charter and Trudeau is touted as the greatest PM for having achieved getting the provinces to agree to it.
So what happened to those inalienable rights recognized and declared in The Bill?
Instead of right up front we see them three parts down under legal rights granted by government even worse some we don’t see at all.
What is left of the right to due process of law, equality under the law and protection of the law?
They no longer exist.
Now we get ” Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. No due process, no equality under the law, nor the right to protection of the law, those lawful rights have been suspended and replaced with legal alienable rights. By the definition of Capitis Diminutio Maxima as we saw earlier this indicates the status of slaves, as a slave does not possess the right to title to property, or due process of law and can only have rights granted to him. At birth we are registered and our parents give the province their parental rights and we become children of the provinces.
This is why the provinces didn’t want to sign on to The Bill, they would no longer be able to claim and remove your rights, your legal title and status, fundamentally our nation and all generations of it’s children. In The Bill all individuals statuses were as free men, not so in the Charter.
In The Charter it says “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”
In The Bill it says “The Parliament of Canada affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principals that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person, and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions. Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual value and the rule of law…”It goes on a little more but this still makes the point I want to make, The Bill is the constitution of the nation The Charter is not, it is the charter of Canada, also known as The Government of Canada. That I believe is how both still stand as active legislation.
So we make the distinction,
1. are you a citizen of birth right to the nation of Canada, with all of your natural liberties, are you a free man with the right to due process of law, a real system of law, not an abstract legal concept that changes? Do you have equality under the law? Do you have title to property?If you have the government issued birth certificate the answer is no.
Or 2. are you an naturalized citizen in your own country, removed of your natural rights and liberties, no due process, not protection of the law, no right to de jour governance, no right to property, all privileges and rights granted and removed by government, essentially a slave unknowingly to you? If you have a government issued birth certificate the answer is yes.
or so I believe. What to do about it well I’m gona learn as much as I can, I hope you do too, here’s a start.
Content from external sources:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread346428/pg1As Black’s Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one’s natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method by which the State causes a natural person to “volunteer” himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn’t willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used. The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for “inventory” control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner’s manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory. It is under the Admiralty jurisdiction
Persons http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09079a.htmMan and person were not equivalent terms. A slave was not a person, but a thing; a person was a human being endowed with civil status. In other than human beings personality might exist by a fiction. Status was natural or civil. Natural status existed by reason of natural incidents, such as posthumous or already born (jam nati), sane and insane, male and female, infancy and majority. Civil status had to do with liberty, citizenship, and family. If one had no civil status whatever, he had no personality and was a mere thing. Men were either free or slaves: if free they were either free born or freedmen. Slaves were born such or became slaves either by the law of nations or by civil law. By the law of nations they became slaves by reason of captivity; by civil law, by the status of their parents or in the occasional case where they permitted themselves to be sold in order to participate in the price…
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?
1. 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.
2. What English grammar reference books say
2.1 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.
2.2 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.
2.3 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?
2.4 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).”
“A name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam.”
“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.”
“2. Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man has been named as John Mackintosh.”
“3. In the name of. Bearing or using the name of A specified 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):
“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.
2.5 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:
“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.
2.6 Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization
“The National Aeronautics and Space Administration” (NASA) has published one of the most concise US Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication SP-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 & 1c 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.
2.7 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:
“n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency or to achieve justice.’
“There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.”
2.8 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 tothe property when legal title was uncertain.”
2.9 Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
“Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law” 1996 states:
“something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption.’
“… the legal fiction that a day has no fraction Fields vs. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d658 (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 this is deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps. They are deliberately not following their own recognized authorities.
In the same respect, by identifying their own government entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is also intended to be a legal fiction. As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this memorandum, the use of all caps for writing a proper name is an “internal style” for what is apparently a pre-determined usage and, at this point, unknown jurisdiction.
The main key to a legal fiction is assumption as noted in each definition above.
Conclusion: There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of all caps when writing a proper name. To do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed jurisdiction by unknown people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary presumption not based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the deceit.
3. Assumption of a Legal Fiction
An important issue concerning this entire matter is whether or not a proper name, perverted into an all caps assemblage of letters, can be substituted for a lawful Christian name or any proper name, such as the State of Florida. Is the assertion of all-capital-letter names “legal?” If so, from where does this practice originate and what enforces it?
A legal fiction may be employed when the name of a “person” is not known, and therefore using the fictitious name “John Doe” as a tentative, or interim artifice to surmount the absence of true knowledge until the true name is known. Upon discovering the identity of the fictitious name, the true name replaces it.
In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption of purported fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It is an acceptance with no proof. Simply, to assume is to pretend. Oran’s “Dictionary of the Law” says that the word “assume” means:
1. To take up or take responsibility for; to receive; to undertake. See “assumption.”
2. To pretend.
3. To accept without proof.
These same basic definitions are used by nearly all of the modern law dictionaries. It should be noted that there is a difference between the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the first. Pretending and accepting without proof are of the same understanding and meaning. However, to take responsibility for and receive, or assumption, does not have the same meaning. Oran’s defines “assumption” as:
“Formally transforming someone else’s debt into your own debt.’
“Compare with guaranty.’
“The assumption of a mortgage usually involves taking over the seller’s ‘mortgage debt’ when buying a property (often a house).”
Now, what happens if all the meanings for the word “assume” are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meanings of assume would be: The pretended acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt.
Therefore, if we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.
Use of the legal fiction “JOHN P JONES” in place of the proper name “John Paul Jones” implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, unless the assumption is proven wrong it is considered valid.
An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. (“An unrebutted affidavit, claim, or charge stands as the truth in commerce.”) This is in accord with the Uniform Commercial Code, valid in every State and made a part of the Statutes of each State. A name written in all caps – resembling a proper name but grammatically not a proper name – is being held as a debtor for an assumed debt. Did the parties to the Complaint incur that debt? If so, how and when?
Where is the contract of indebtedness that was signed and the proof of default thereon? What happens if the proper name, i.e. “John Paul Jones,” answers for or assumes the fabricated name, i.e. “JOHN P JONES?” The two become one and the same. This is the crux for the use of the all caps names by the US Government and the States. It is the way that they can bring someone into the “de facto” venue and jurisdiction that they have created. By implication of definition, this also is for the purpose of some manner of assumed debt.
Why won’t they use “The State of Texas” or “John Doe” in their courts or on Driver’s Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind “legal fictions” is found within the definitions as cited above.
4. The Legalities of All-Capital-Letters Names
We could go on for hundreds of pages citing the legal basis behind the creation and use of all-capital-letters names. In a nutshell, fabricated legal persons such as “STATE OF TEXAS” can be used to fabricate additional legal persons. “Fictions” arise from the law, not the law from fictions. Bastard legal persons originate from any judicial/governmental actor that whishes to create them, regardless of whether he/she/it is empowered by law to do so. However, a law can never originate from a fictional foundation that doesn’t exist.
The generic and original US Constitution was validated by treaty between individual nation states (all of which are artificial, corporate entities since they exist in abstract idea and construct). Contained within it is the required due process of law for all the participating nation states of that treaty. Representatives of the people in each nation state agreed upon and signed it. The federal government is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines of Constitutional due process. Any purported law that does not originate from Constitutional due process is a fictional law without validity. Thus, the true test of any American law is its basis of due process according to the organic US Constitution. Was it created according to the lawful process or created outside of lawful process?
5. Executive Orders and Directives
For years many have researched the lawful basis for creating all-caps juristic persons and have concluded that there is no such foundation according to valid laws and due process. But what about those purported “laws” that are not valid and have not originated from constitutional due process? There’s a very simple answer to the creation of such purported laws that are really not laws at all: “Executive Orders” and “Directives.” They are “color of law” without being valid laws of due process. These “Executive Orders” and “Directives” have the appearance of law and look as if they are laws, but according to due process, they are not laws. Rather, they are “laws” based on fictional beginnings and are the inherently defective basis for additional fictional “laws” and other legal fictions. They are “regulated” and “promulgated” by Administrative Code, rules and procedures, not due process. Currently, Executive Orders are enforced through the charade known as the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. Each State has also adopted the same fatally flawed administrative “laws.”
6. Lincoln Establishes Executive Orders
Eighty-five years after the Independence of the United States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or “without day.” This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there are no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum of the States.
Lincoln’s second Executive Order of April 1861 called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority, or lawful due process, of the Constitution. Solely in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the US Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, “Congress” has not met based on lawful due process. The current “Congress” is a legal fiction based on nothing more meritorious than “Yeah, so what are you going to do about it?” Having a monopoly on the currency, “law,” and what passes for “government,” and most of the world’s firepower, the motto of the Powers That Be is: “We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got.”
Legal-fiction “laws,” such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were instituted by Lincoln soon thereafter and became the basis for the current “laws” in the US. Every purported “Act” in effect today is “de facto,” based on colorable fictitious entities created arbitrarily, out of nothing, without verification, lawful foundation, or lawful due process. All of such “laws” are not law, but rules of ruler ship by force/conquest, originating from and existing in military, martial law jurisdiction. Military, martial law jurisdiction:
= jurisdiction of war
= win/lose interactions consisting of eating or being eaten, living or dying
= food chain
= law of necessity
= suspension of all law other than complete freedom to act in any manner to eat, kill, or destroy or avoid being eaten, killed, or destroyed
= no law
= complete absence of all lawful basis to create any valid law.
Contractually, being a victim of those acting on the alleged authority granted by the law of necessity,
= no lawful object, valuable consideration, free consent of all involved parties, absence of fraud, duress, malice, and undue influence
= no bona fide, enforceable contract
= no valid, enforceable nexus
= absolute right to engage in any action of any kind in self-defense
= complete and total right to disregard any alleged jurisdiction and demands from self-admitted outlaws committing naked criminal aggression without any credibility and right to demand allegiance and compliance from anyone.
Every President of the United States since Lincoln has functioned by Executive Orders issued from a military, martial law jurisdiction with the only “law” being the “law of necessity,” i.e. the War Powers. The War Powers are nothing new. Indeed, they have been operational from the instant the first man thought he would “hide from God,” try to cheat ethical and natural law by over reaching, invade the space and territory of others, covet other people’s land or property, steal the fruits of their labors, and attempt to succeed in life by win/lose games. All existing “authority” in the United States today derives exclusively from the War Powers. Truman’s reaffirmation of operational authority under the War Powers begins: “NOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. 415, as amended (section 5(b) of Appendix to Title 50), and section 4 of the act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 2. …” Sic transit rights, substance, truth, justice, peace, and freedom in America, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
7. The Abolition of the English & American Common Law
Here’s an interesting quote from the 1973 session of the US Supreme Court:
“The American law.’
“In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-l9th century was the pre-existing English common law…’
“It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law.”
Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113.
In effect, Lincoln’s second Executive Order abolished the recognized English common law in America and replaced it with “laws” based on a fictional legal foundation, i.e., Executive Orders and Directives executed under “authority” of the War Powers. Most States still have a reference to the common laws within their present day statutes. For example, in the Florida Statutes (1999), Title I. Chapter 2, at ‘ 2.01 “Common law and certain statutes declared in force,” it states:
“The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. History. — s. l, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87.”
Note that the basis of the common law is an approved Act of the people of Florida by Resolution on November 6, 1829, prior to Lincoln’s Civil War. Also note that the subsequent “laws,” as a result of Acts of the Florida Legislature and the United States, now take priority over the common law in Florida. In April 1861, the American and English common law was abolished and replaced with legal fiction “laws,” a.k.a. Statutes, Rules, and Codes based on Executive Order and not the due process specified within the organic Constitution. Existing and functioning under the law of necessity ab initio, they are all non-law and cannot validly assert jurisdiction, authority, or demand for compliance from anyone. They are entirely “rules of ruler ship,” i.e. organized piracy, privilege, plunder, and enslavement, invented and enforced by those who would rule over others by legalized violence in the complete absence of moral authority, adequate knowledge, and natural-law mechanics to accomplish any results other than disruption, conflict, damage, and devastation. The established maxim of law applies:
“Extra territorium just dicenti non paretur impune.’
“One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory cannot be obeyed with impunity.”
[10 Co. 77; Dig. 2. 1. 20; Story, Confl. Laws ‘ 539; Broom, Max. 100, 101]
8. Applying it all to Current “laws”
An established maxim of law states the importance of the name:
“Ad recte docendum oportet, primum inquirere nomina, quia rerum cognitio a nominibusrerum dependet.’
“In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names.”
[Co. Litt. 68]
Title III, “Pleadings and Motions,” Rule 9(a) “Capacity,” Federal/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure, states, in pertinent part:
“When an issue is raised as to the legal existence of a named party, or the party’s capacity to be sued, or the authority of a party to be sued, the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include supporting particulars.”
[Rule 9(a), Federal/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure; Title 28 U.S.C. Appendix (unstatutory; See statutory Title 1 U.S.C. ‘ 204 (Notes) )]
At this juncture, it is clear that the existence of a name written with all caps is a necessity-created legal fiction. This is surely an issue to be raised and the supporting particulars are outlined within this memorandum. Use of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement – correction – for all parties of an action of purported “law.” However, the current “courts” cannot correct this since they are all based on presumed/assumed fictional law and must use artificial, juristic names. Instead, they expect the lawful Christian man or woman to accept the all-caps name and agree by silence to be treated as if he or she were a fictional entity invented and governed by mortal enemies. They must go to unlimited lengths to deceive and coerce this compliance or the underlying criminal farce would be exposed and a world-wide plunder/enslavement racket that has held all of life on this planet in a vice grip for millennia would crumble and liberate every living thing. At this point the would-be rulers of the world would be required to succeed in life by honest, productive labors the way those upon whom they parasitically feed are forced to conduct their lives.
9. Oklahoma Statutes
Since the entire game functions on the basis of people’s failure to properly rebut a rebuttable presumption, the issue then becomes how to properly rebut their presumption that you are knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily agreeing to be treated as if you were the all-caps name. One angle of approach is found in the requirement for proper names to be identified in any legal dispute. This includes a mandate to correct the legal paperwork involved when proper names are provided. In regard to criminal prosecution this is clearly set forth in the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 2885, O. S. 1931, 22 Okla. St. Ann. § 403:
“When a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it must be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, referring to the fact of his being charged by the name mentioned in the indictment or information.”
10. “Legal” Definition
In fact, it would appear that the Oklahoma Statutes are saying that the use of a “fictitious name” in either an indictment or information (prosecutorial) that such use is forgivable upon after the fact correction. Unfortunately, that is not the case when held to “legal” definition.
“A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic [surname]), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]
The use of, by implication, mistake, or otherwise, of fictitious names within any lawful and even “legal” document renders said document/instrument fatally flawed for simple fraud. And, since no Private Citizen can be held accountable for the same crime twice, by guarantee, then if initially one is charged in the wrong name, and that mistaken identity at any stage of the proceeding renders the present proceeding null, void, and dismissed. This renders the above “statute” also null, void, and never written, for this fatal error cannot be corrected and one must, secondly, face the same charges. Mistaken Identity cannot be used as a correctable error merely because one cannot be charged twice for the same cause, even if the first charged was mistaken.
But that is not the limit of “legal” definition of “fictitious” use of names. It is much more serious to use a fictitious name as a “plaintiff”:
“A person appearing in the writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it.’
“It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624.]
Obviously, any action in which both and/or all parties are fictitious is a “fictitious action” and it is “legally” defined as such:
“An action brought for the sole purpose of obtaining the opinion of the court on a point of law, not for the settlement of any actual controversy between the parties.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]
These three “legal” definitions have now led us to one final definition that defines any and all such “fictitious actions”:
“Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit.’
“Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent.’
“Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 624]
It does not take a Rocket Scientist to figure out many of these “ulterior objects”; constitutional abrogation, tyranny, despotism, false personation, embezzlement of the Public Money, banking fraud, commercial fraud, identity theft, neglect of office, malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of office, piracy, privateering, kidnapping, false imprisonment, ransoming, constitutional malpractice, maritime fraud, military fraud, trademark infringement/counterfeiting, anti-Christian acts, securities fraud, communism, fascism, Alien Enemy Program, etc. The list is almost endless.
It appears, thus far, that “legal” definition of these fictitious/legal fiction/imaginary/etc. assumptive/presumptive has far and away been the most damaging references used to the cause and case of the tyrants and despots that are so prevalent.
11. American Jurisprudence
In general, it is essential to identify parties to court actions properly. If the alleged parties to an action are not precisely identified, then who is involved with whom or what, and how? If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d, at “Judgments:”
“‘ 100 Parties – A judgment should identify the parties for and against whom it is rendered, with such certainty that it may be readily enforced, and a judgment which does not do so may be regarded as void for uncertainty. Such identification may be achieved by naming the persons for and against whom the judgment is rendered. Technical deficiencies in the naming of the persons for and against whom judgment is rendered can be corrected if the parties are not prejudiced. A reference in a judgment to a party plainly liable, followed by an omission of that party’s name from the language of the decree, at least gives rise to an ambiguity and calling for an inquiry into the court’s real intention as reflected in the entire record and surrounding circumstances.” [Footnote numbers and cites are omitted.]
12. The present situation in America
A legal person = a legal fiction
One of the terms used predominantly by the present civil governments and courts in America is “legal person.” Just what is a legal person? Some definitions are:
[A] legal person: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and especially the capacity to sue and be sued. [Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (1996)]
Person. I. A human being (a “natural” person). 2. A corporation (an “artificial” person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word “person” includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other “being” entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). [Oran’s “Dictionary of the Law,” West Group (1999)]
Person. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are “persons” in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to “persons” which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. [Duhaime’s Law Dictionary.]
PERSON, noun. per’sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] 8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic. -Blackstone. [Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]
“…a Sovereign is not a “person” [United Mine Workers vs. United States, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)]
“A name is word or words used to distinguish and identify a person.” [Name, 65 C.J.S. ‘ 1, pg. 1]
“Person. It may include [limited to] artificial beings, as corporations …territorial corporations … foreign corporations … relating to taxation and revenue laws … XIV Amendment “persons” … A county … a slave … estate of a decedent … a judge holding court … an infant [Ward of the Court] … officers, partnerships, and women …participants in the forbidden acts [“defendants” & “plaintiffs”] … agents, officers, and members of the board of directors or trustees, or their controlling bodies, of corporations … the legal subject [subject-matter] or substance [rem; res] …” [Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed., pg. 2574]
A corporation incorporated under de jure law, i.e. by bona fide express contract between real beings capable of contracting, is a legal fact. Using the juristic artifice of “presumption,” or “assumption” (a device known as a “legal fiction”), implied contract, constructive trusts, another entirely separate entity can be created using the name of the bona fide corporate legal fact (the name of the corporation) by altering the name of the corporation into some other corrupted format, such as ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS or abbreviated words in the name. The corporation exists in law, but has arbitrarily been assigned another NAME. No such corporation (legal fact), nor any valid law, nor even a valid legal fiction, can be created under the “law of necessity,” i.e. under “no law.” Likewise, the arbitrary use of the legal-fiction artifice of “right of presumption” (over unwary, uninformed, and usually blindly trusting people) can be legitimately exercised under “no law.” Anything whatsoever done under alleged authority of naked criminal aggression, i.e. law of necessity, can be rendered legitimate. Maxims of law describing “necessity” include:
* “Necessity has no law.” [Plowd. 18, and 15 Vin. Abr. 534; 22 id. 540] * “In time of war, laws are silent.” [Cicero]
Non-existent law, the legal condition that universally prevails in the official systems of the world today, means that no lawful basis exists upon which anything can be created, or be made to transpire, upon which basis allegiance and obedience can be legitimately demanded. Acting under the law of necessity, i.e. lawlessness, allows complete and total right of everyone to disregard any and all alleged assertions of any lawful, verifiable, and legitimate jurisdiction over anything or anyone. Anyone acting against anyone under such non-law is self-confessing to be a naked criminal aggressor, and con man who has forfeited all credibility and right to demand allegiance, obedience, or compliance with any jurisdiction he might assert. If you, as a real being, are in real law and it is impossible for an attorney or judge to recognize or access it, you are not (and cannot be made subject to by them) in their jurisdiction. The crucial issue is then how to notice them of your position and standing.
A person created under de jure law, with the person’s identifying name appearing as prescribed by law and according to the rules of English grammar, is a legal fact. A corrupted “alter ego” version of that name, manufactured under the legal fiction of “right of presumption” will have “credibility” only so long as the presumption remains unchallenged. The rule of the world is that anything and everything skates unless you bust it.
13. Legal or Lawful?
It is crucial to define the difference between “legal” and “lawful.” The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word “legal.” Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law (1893):
Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal,” a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See “legal.”
Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual “Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is act full in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. [2 Abbott’s Law Dictionary 24]
Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not have to follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This is why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court Petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., “STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.
Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land – the law of the people – and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 U.S.C. 95.
Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:
Color of law.
“The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right.’
“Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state,is action taken under “color of law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., Pg. 241]
14. Executive Orders rule the land
The current situation is that legalism has usurped and engulfed the law. The administration of legal rules, codes, and statutes now prevail instead of actual law. This takes place on a Federal as well as State level. Government administrates what it has created through its own purported “laws,” which are not lawful, but merely “legal.” They are arbitrary constructs existing only because of the actions of people acting on fictitious (self-created) authority, i.e. no authority; they are authorized and enforced by legal Executive Orders. Executive Orders are not lawful and never have been. As you read the following, be aware of the words “code” and “administration.”
Looking at the United States Census 2000 reveals that the legal authority for this census comes from “Office of Management and Budget” (0MB) Approval No. 0607-0856. The 0MB is a part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible for implementing the national census, which is a division of the “Economics and Statistics Administration” of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The USDOC is a department of the Executive Branch. Obviously, Census 2000 is authorized, carried out, controlled, enforced and implemented by the President – the Executive Branch of the Federal Government – functioning as it has been since 1861, in the lawless realm of necessity (which is now even more degenerate than when it commenced under Lincoln).
In fact, the Executive Office of the President controls the entire nation through various departments and agencies effecting justice, communications, health, energy, transportation, education, defense, treasury, labor, agriculture, mails, and much more, through a myriad of Executive Orders, Proclamations, Policies, and Decisions.
Every US President since Lincoln has claimed his ‘authority’ for these Executive Orders on Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America (1764 to Date):
“The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; … He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
In reality, the Congress is completely by-passed. Since the Senate was convened in April, 1861 by Presidential Executive Order No. 2, (not by lawful constitutional due process), there is no United States Congress. The current “Senate” and “House” are, like everything, “colorable” (“color of Senate”) under the direct authority of the Executive Office of the President. The President legally needs neither the consent nor a vote from the Senate simply because the Senate’s legal authority to meet exists only by Executive Order. Ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, Federal judges, and all officers of the UNITED STATES are appointed by, and under authority of, the Executive Office of the President.
15. The Federal Registry is an Executive function
The first official act of every incoming President is to re-affirm the War Powers. He must do so, or he is devoid of power to function in office. The War Powers are set forth in the Trading With The Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (The Banking Relief Act). In the Amendatory Act, every citizen of the United States was made an enemy of the Government, i.e. the Federal Reserve/IMF, et al, Creditors in bankruptcy who have conquered the country by their great paper-money banking swindle.
For the past 65 years, every Presidential Executive Order has become purported “law” simply by its publication in the Federal Register, which is operated by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). In 1935, the OFR was established by the Federal Register Act. The purported authority for the OFR is found within the United States Code, Title 44, at Chapter 15:
“‘ 1506. Administrative Committee of the Federal Register; establishment and composition; powers and duties
The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register shall consist of the Archivist of the United States or Acting Archivist, who shall be chairman, an officer of the Department of Justice designated by the Attorney General, and the Public Printer or Acting Public Printer. The Director of the Federal Register shall act as secretary of the committee. The committee shall prescribe, with the approval of the President, regulations for carrying out this chapter.”
Notice that the entire Administrative Committee of the Federal Register is comprised of officers of the Federal Government. Who appoints all Federal officers? The President does. This “act” also gives the President the authority to decree all the regulations to carry out the act. By this monopoly the Executive establishes, controls, regulates, and enforces the Federal Government without need for any approval from the Senate or anyone else (other than his undisclosed superiors). He operates without any accountability to the people at all. How can this be considered lawful?
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson couldn’t persuade Congress to agree with his desire to arm United States vessels traversing hostile German waters before the United States entered World War I, so Wilson simply invoked the “policy” through a Presidential Executive Order. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941 forcing 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps while all their property was confiscated. Is it any wonder that the Congress, which the President “legally” controls, did not impeach President William Jefferson Clinton when the evidence for impeachment was overwhelming? On that note, why is it that Attorney-Presidents have used Executive Orders the most? Who, but an attorney, would know and understand legal rules the best. Sadly, they enforce what’s “legal” and ignore what’s lawful. In fact, they have no access to what is lawful since the entirety of their “authority,” which is ethically and existentially specious, derives from the War Powers.
16. How debt is assumed by legal fictions
We now refer back to the matter of assumption, as already discussed, with its relationship to arbitrarily created juristic persons, e.g. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA” or “JOHN P JONES.” Since an assumption, by definition, implies debt, what debt does a legal fiction assume? Now that we have explored the legal – executive – basis of the current Federal and State governments, it’s time to put all this together.
The government use of all caps in place of proper names is absolutely no mistake. It signifies an internal (“legal”) rule and authority. Its foundation is pure artifice and the results have compounded into more deceit in the form of created, promulgated, instituted, administered, and enforced rules, codes, statutes, and policy – i.e. “the laws that appear to be but are not, never were, and never can be.”
“Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden. He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage – a privilege is subject to its condition or conditions.” [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law (1856)]
17. The Birth Certificate
Since the early 1960’s, State governments – themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons signified by all caps – have issued Birth Certificates to “persons” with legal fiction all-caps names. This is not a lawful record of your physical birth, but rather the birth of the juristic, all-caps name. It may appear to be your true name, but since no proper name is ever written in all caps (either lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify who you are. The Birth Certificate is the government’s self-created document of title for its new “property,” i.e. the deed to the juristic-name artificial person whose all-caps name “mirrors” your true name. The Birth Certificate brings the new all-caps name into colorable admiralty/maritime law, the same way a ship (and ship of state) is berthed.
One important area to address, before going any further, is the governmental use of older data storage from the late 1950’s until the early 1980’s. As a “left over” from various teletype-oriented systems, many government data storage methods used all caps for proper names. The IRS was supposedly still complaining about some of their antiquated storage systems as recent as the early 1980’s. At first, this may have been a necessity of the technology at the time, not a deliberate act. Perhaps, when this technology was first being used and implemented into the mainstream of communications, some legal experts saw it as a perfect tool for their perfidious intentions. What better excuse could there be?
However, since local, State, and Federal offices primarily used typewriters during that same time period, and Birth Certificates and other important documents, such as driver’s licenses, were produced with typewriters, it’s very doubtful that this poses much of an excuse to explain all-caps usage for proper names. The only reasonable usage of the older databank all-caps storage systems would have been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in bulk, including payment checks, which the governments did frequently.
Automated computer systems, with daisy-wheel and pin printers used prevalently in the early 1980’s, emulated the IBM electric typewriter Courier or Helvetica fonts in both upper and lower case letters. Shortly thereafter, the introduction of laser and ink-jet printers with multiple fonts became the standard. For the past fifteen years, there is no excuse that the government computers will not accommodate the use of lower case letters unless the older data is still stored in its original form, i.e. all caps, and has not been translated due to the costs of re-entry. But this does not excuse the entry of new data, only “legacy” data. In fact, on many government forms today, proper names are in all caps while other areas of the same computer produced document are in both upper and lower case. One can only conclude that now, more than ever, the use of all caps in substitution the writing a proper name is no mistake.
When a child is born, the hospital sends the original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the “State Bureau of Vital Statistics,” sometimes called the “Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services” (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues a Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the baby’s true name, i.e. JAMES WILBER SMITH.
cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificate, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin ceruficatum. from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3: a document evidencing ownership or debt. [Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998)]
The Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce — the Executive Office — specifically through their own sub-agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, which is responsible to register vital statistics from all the States. The word “registered,” as it is used within commercial or legal based equity law, does not mean that the all-caps name was merely noted in a book for reference purposes. When a Birth Certificate is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce, it means that the all-caps legal person named thereon has become a surety or guarantor, a condition and obligation that is automatically and unwittingly assumed unless you rebut the presumption by effectively noticing them: “It ain’t me.”
registered. Security, bond. — [Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996)]
Security. I a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation. Example: used his property as security for a loan. lb: “surety.” 2: Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership. — Ibid.
Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person undertakes to perform a certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract). … with the condition that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the person … to pay a sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money put up by the person or surety. 1b: One who acts as a surety. 2: An interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt issued by a government body or corporation that is sometimes secured by a lien on property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need. — Ibid.
Surety. The person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a certain action if the principal to a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the original contract. [Duhaime’s Law Dictionary]
1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking.
2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of another.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety includes a guarantor, and the two terms are generally interchangeable.
[Merriam Webster’s “Dictionary of Law” (1996)]
Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of another, but separately, as part of an independently contract with the obligee of the original contract. [Duhaime’s Law Dictionary]
18. Duhaime’s Law Dictionary.
It is not difficult to see that a state-created Birth Certificate, with an all-caps, name is a document evidencing debt the moment it is issued. Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a “purchase money security interest” in the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the saleproceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new “securities.” This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This also means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every “citizen of the United States”/American with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, juristic name of a person.
Dubuque rei potissinia pars prineipium est
The principal part of everything is in the beginning. (“Well begun is half done.”)
Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal, State and local governments via your STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the name of your all-caps person.
Birth Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim “exclusive” title to the legal person created thereby. This is further compounded when one voluntarily obtains a Driver’s License or a Social Security Account Number. The state even owns your personal and private life through your STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps names. You have no rights in birth, marriage, or even death. The state holds title to all legal persons the state creates via Birth Certificates until the rightful owner, i.e. you, reclaims/redeems it by becoming the holder in due course of the instrument.
The main problem is that the mother and father, and then the eighteen-year-old man or woman, voluntarily agreed to this contrived system of plunder and slavery by remaining silent – a legal default, latches, and failing to claim one’s own Rights. The maxim of law becomes crucially operative: “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”
The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no court hearing to determine if those rules are correct. Government rules are self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, such “laws” automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed.
19. The various bankruptcies
The legal person known as the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or gold – gold coin or bullion – with which to back any currency. All private held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America was seized via Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Corporation under the terms of the bankruptcy.
Congress – still convening strictly under Executive Order authority – confirmed the bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5, 1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Public Law 73-10. This 1933 public law states, in part:
“… every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy.”
The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed “Receiver” for the bankrupt U.S. in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, “Legislative History,” page 5967.
Since 1933, the only “assets” used by the UNITED STATES to “pay its debt” to the Fed have been the blood, sweat, and tears of every American unfortunate to be saddled with a Birth Certificate and a Social Security Account Number (the U.S. Government must conceal this fact from the American people at all cost). Their future labor and tax revenues have been “legally” pledged via the new all-caps, juristic-person names appearing on the Birth Certificates, i.e. the securities used as collateral for loans of credit (thin-air belief) to pay daily operational costs, re-organization expenses in bankruptcy, insurance policy premiums required to float the bankrupt government, and interest on the ever-increasing, wholly fraudulent, debt.
20. All Caps Legal Person vs. The Lawful Being
Just who or what is the all-caps person, i.e. “JOHN PAUL JONES,” “JOHN P JONES,” or some other all capital letter corruption thereof? It is the entity the government created to take the place of the real being, i.e. John Paul Jones. The lawful Christian name of birthright has been replaced with a legal corporate name of deceit and fraud. If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being distinguishes himself/herself as a party other than the legal fiction, the two are separated.
A result of the federal bankruptcy was the creation of the “UNITED STATES,” which was made a part of the legal reorganization. The name of each STATE was also converted to its respective, all-caps legal person, e.g. STATE OF DELAWARE. These new legal persons were then used to create more legal persons, such as corporations, with all-capital letters names, as well. Once this was accomplished, the con began to pick up speed. All areas of government and all alleged “courts of law,” are de facto, “color of law and right” institutions. The “CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY” and the “U.S. DISTRICT COURT” can recognize and deal only with other legal persons. This is why a lawful name is never entered in their records. The all-caps legal person is used instead. Jurisdiction in such sham courts covers only other artificial persons.
The proper jurisdiction for a lawful being is a Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue court. Unfortunately, such jurisdiction was “shelved” in 1938 and is no longer available. The only courts today are statutory commercial tribunals collecting tribute (plunder) from the alleged Creditors who think they have conquered the country on their way to ruling the world.
21. Your Strawman is a “GOVERNMENT AGENCY”: See the Evidence From the Government’s Own manual!!
See the “U.S. Government Styles Manual” for the evidence in section on “ABBREVIATIONS AND LETTER SYMBOLS” at:
This section states (emphasis added):
9.8. Except as otherwise designated, points and spaces are omitted after initials used as shortened names of governmental agencies and of other organized bodies. “Other organized bodies” shall be interpreted to mean organized bodies that have become popularly identified with a symbol, such as MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), GM (General Motors), GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corp.), etc. (See “List of Abbreviations.”) Symbols, when they appear in copy, may be used for acts of Congress. Example: ARA (Area Redevelopment Act).
Now do you see the trick?
The “governmental agency” for “John-Jay:Jones” is: “JOHN JAY JONES”.
There is no conspiracy about this — it is just “hidden” in plain sight!!!
Chapter 11 deals with “Italics” and in 11.7 mentions that “Vessels” are in “other than lowercase roman”. An “Vessel” is defined in 18 USC 9 as “… any citizen thereof or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States or any State or Territory or district or possession.” See links below:
Here is some interesting words in Admiralty Law.
When you go to ‘court’ you play with a racket. Courts are just rackets
The judge rules from the bench. Bench in Latin is ‘bank’
Admiralty court is a ‘pretend game’ …You need to file a ‘motion’ in court or your case will not be heard..which means no crime has been committed…
Money=Energy….Battery Cells stores energy
Court is referred to ‘circuit’ court and if you interupt the circuit or current(cy) you get charged.
Man is a cell that stores energy(money)
The courthouse is a place where your money is extracted.
If you get sent to jail you end up in a cell..but you can be released with money.
You have then paid your debt to ‘society’ that is the law society….justice is not served…the only thing that matters is money
If you hire a lawyer you are considered a ward of the court…. an infant or person of unsound mind.
In a river there are currents and on the sides of the river are banksBanks control the current-sea ‘currentcy’
The judge is the referee for the opposing teams in court. He does not care who wins because he gets paid no matter who wins.
The statute of Liberty had to be placed in water because the term liberty is what a sailor get’s when he pulls into port. He is not free.The statute of Liberty does not represent freedom.
When a ship comes to shore it is said that ‘the ship is sitting in its berth when its ‘doc’ked.
The ship has to produce a certificate of manifest because the property on the ship represents money. The captain taken from the word ‘capitol’ ‘re’presents the money by showing the manifest.
The law of the sea is merchant law….mer means sea
All ship’s or vessels are named after women.
Women when pregnant are carrying money… ‘human resource’
When a mother’s water breaks she ‘delivers’ a ‘human resource’ through her ‘berth’ canal.The ‘delivery’ is performed by the ‘doc’tor
Ballantine’s definition for a human being – ‘monster’
here is two charts comparing physical law and legal law
Physical Law/ Legal LawLand/ WaterGold/Silver/ Federal Reserve NotePresent/ ‘re’-presentLawful/ LegalReal/ FictionSubstance/ ReflectionThing/ Thing namedCreditor/ DebtorLender/ BorrowerObject/ SymbolPhysical Body/ Paper CertificateSpiritual being / Human being
the words of admiral-tie law need to be dis-cussedand explainedunderstandingmeans to stand under
self representation means your representing your self to be UNDER the courts juristiction[same as UNDER-standing]
defendant means your allready called guilty [yet this is pre trial how is this?via juristiction we surendered to ir by not knowing what their words mean this is a great topic
it should reveal much when we net work on itcan we cut and paste? or will it all be links who knows
we need some one to lead on this the file is open edit it full disclosure ?not for me to judge😆
_________________men can’t be pefect god alone is perfect
Our leaders are just like we are thus we can go where they been and they realise where we are
propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinkerbut to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.