Why name styles matter

Homeland Security Agrees

Does using a proper name style REALLY matter?

When you get a bill, an ID card, a tax bill, or whatever… they use all caps NAMES, or a modification of your (or their) name, such as using a Middle initial, or a fist and last name only…rarely the full properly syntaxed name. Identity in court MATTERS. It’s called personam jurisdiction.

For example, one of the things that Robb Ryder always points out is that judges, clerks, etc., invariably sign orders, summons, etc. using a middle initial, and that would seem to be in flagrant violation of 6 CFR 37.3 (Title 6 Homeland Security; Chapter 1 
Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary; Part 37 Real ID Driver’s Licenses and Identification Cards; Subpart A-General – look it up).

A Full Legal Name means, “An individual’s first name, middle name(s), and last name or surname, *without use of initials or nicknames.

When the court, government, or corporation come after you, don’t they use all caps, or middle initial or just a first and last name on their documents? When using a fiction name you are in The Matrix folks.  Do you respond as if it is ok or normal? Then YOU volunteered to break the law as well. THIS is one reason we are caught in the game. Make them use PROPER names for both for you AND them.

The Official State Office Known as “Person”

This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. 

If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612F.2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions”. 

“Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

1. The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

2. Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

In Queensland:

ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1954 

32B Gender

In an Act, words indicating a gender include each other gender.

———

3. The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

In Queensland:

ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1954 

32D References to persons generally

(1) In an Act, a reference to a person generally includes a reference to a corporation as well as an individual.

(2) Subsection (1) is not displaced merely because there is an express reference to either an individual or a corporation elsewhere in the Act .Examples of references to a person generally—

  • another
  • anyone
  • no-one
  • one
  • party
  • person
  • someone
  • whoever

Examples of express references to a corporation—

  • body corporate
  • company
  • corporation sole

Examples of express references to an individual—

  • adult
  • child
  • spouse

NOTE-HOWEVER, 

THE-DEFINITIONS-STATUTE-DOES-NOT-LIST-MAN-OR-WOMAN —

THEREFORE-THEY-ARE-EXCLUDED-FROM-ALL-THE-STATUTES !!!

Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned. 

———-Expressio unius est  alterius.
The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. • Also termed 
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius or enumeratio unius est exclusio alterius. [Cases: Contracts
152; Statutes 195. C.J.S. Contracts §§ 307, 318–322, 327, 331; Statutes § 323.]

EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS. Expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Co.Litt. 210a; Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Oki. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. Fazio v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 321 Pa. 7, 182 A. 696, 698; Saslaw v. Weiss, 133 Ohio St. 496, 14 N.E.2d 930, 932. When certain persons or things are specified, in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Little v. Town of Conway, 171 S.C. 27, 170 S.E. 447, 448. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded, People v. One 1941 Ford 8 Stake Truck, Engine No. 99T370053, License No. P.8410, Cal., 159 P.2d 641, 642.  
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1968, Page 692.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/

As at 7 May 2019 – Act 9 of 1899

(Q’ld.) CRIMINAL CODE 1899 – SECT 1

1 Definitions

In this Code—
“person” and
“owner” , and other like terms, when used with reference to property, include corporations of all kinds, and any other associations of persons capable of owning property, and also, when so used, include Her Majesty.  

“person employed in the public service” includes police officers, staff members under the Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Act 2010 and persons employed to execute any process of a court of justice, and also includes the chief executive officer of a rail government entity and persons employed by a rail government entity.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. 

When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. 

It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense. 

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . .

2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . . 

3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . .

in Queensland: 

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1995

4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . .

5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . .

Notice that only “persons” can commit these state legislature created crimes. 

A crime is by definition an offense committed against the “state.” 

If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. 

Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character. So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by state statutes and laws ?

There is only one way. 

You must ask the state for permission to volunteer to become a state person. 

You must volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.


Although this is a ‘state-side (USA) article, Australia and Australian Citizens are registered in Washington D.C.


Also

Men and women ‘readers’ from other states feel free to reply with references to ‘persons’ found in your own state’s legislations etc.

Leave a comment

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