-Caveat Lector-
Jon Roland wrote:
The Beating of "Citizen joe 6pk" by the Gestapo
12/23/99
> He repeated his question and as I began repeating my answer, I reached to
pull out my copy of the Constitution. The booklet went flying from my hand
as he drove my head into the corner of the post, followed quickly by a chop
to my windpipe.<
Nothing says "moron" like reaching in your pocket when there is a cop there.
For all the cop knows you are going for a gun,
especially since you refuse to answer if you have one.
> My female captor asked me for a nickname or alias. I have a Christian name
I responded and started telling her the Capital and small letter spelling.
She said I'm not listening to this crap and I am not going to release you
w/o one she demanded. So after reviewing my lack of option, I stated my
sister calls me "Bubby". <
She got the crap part right. Thanks again to Becraft on this one.
"According to a book written by Berkheimer, a "nom de guerre" is a war name
symbolized by a given
name being written in capital letters. The argument contends that because of
events in 1933, we have been
made "enemies" and government indicates our status as enemies by the nom de
guerre. If this is true, then
why have the styles of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court
since its establishment been in
caps? This argument has gotten lots of people in trouble. For example, Mike
Kemp of the Gadsden Militia
defended himself on state criminal charges with this argument and he was
thrown into jail. I have not even
seen a decent brief on this issue which was predicated upon cases you can
find in an ordinary law library.
In any event, several courts have rejected this argument:
1. Jaeger v. Dubuque County, 880 F.Supp. 640 (N.D.Iowa 1995)
2. United States v. Heard, 952 F.Supp. 329 (N.D.W.Va. 1996)
3. Boyce v. C.I.R., 72 T.C.M. � 1996-439 ("an objection to the spelling of
petitioners' names in capital
letters because they are not 'fictitious entities'" was rejected)
4. United States v. Washington, 947 F.Supp. 87, 92 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)("Finally,
the defendant contends
that the Indictment must be dismissed because 'Kurt Washington,' spelled out
in capital letters, is a
fictitious name used by the Government to tax him improperly as a business,
and that the correct spelling
and presentation of his name is 'Kurt Washington.' This contention is
baseless")
5. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)
6. In re Gdowik, 228 B.R. 481, 482 (S.D.Fla. 1997)(claim that "the use of
his name JOHN E GDOWIK
is an 'illegal misnomer' and use of said name violates the right to his
lawful status" was rejected)
7. Russell v. United States, 969 F.Supp. 24, 25 (W.D. Mich.
1997)("Petitioner ... claims because his
name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the
summons"; this argument held
frivolous)
8. United States v. Lindbloom, 97-2 U.S.T.C. � 50650 (W.D. Wash. 1997)("In
this submission, Mr.
Lindbloom states that he and his wife are not proper defendants to this
action because their names are not
spelled with all capital letters as indicated in the civil caption." The
CAPS argument and the "refused for
fraud" contention were rejected)
9. Rosenheck & Co., Inc. v. United States, 79 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2715 (N.D.
Ok. 1997)("Kostich has
made the disingenuous argument the IRS documents at issue here fail to
properly identify him as the
taxpayer. Defendant Kostich contends his �Christian name' is Walter Edward,
Kostich, Junior and since
the IRS documents do not contain his �Christian name,' he is not the person
named in the Notice of Levy.
The Court expressly finds Defendant WALTER EDWARD KOSTICH JR. is the person
identified in the
Notice of Levy, irrespective of the commas, capitalization of letters, or
other alleged irregularities Kostich
identifies as improper. Similarly, the Court's finding applies to the filed
pleadings in this matter")
10. United States v. Weatherley, 12 F.Supp.2d 469 (E.D.Pa. 1998)
11. United States v. Frech, 149 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 1998)("Defendants'
assertion that the capitalization
of their names in court documents constitutes constructive fraud, thereby
depriving the district court of
jurisdiction and venue, is without any basis in law or fact").
The nom de guerre position is one rabidly advocated by Wrong Way Law. It is
all based upon hype and
emotions; the speakers who advocate this argument know how to push the
emotional "hot buttons" at
patriot pep rallies. I have reviewed the "best" briefs regarding this issue
and they are all trash. Yet I
continue to see people call themselves "John, of smith," etc., and I just
simply conclude that such parties
have attended a Wrong Way Law seminar and have accepted a pack of lies.
Further, it is remarkable that
all the people who believe this idea have never checked it out; they just
accept it because some patriot
guru claimed it was correct."
> You must sign them now or you will not be released he demanded. So I
wrote: under duress w/o prejudice UCC 1-207 on all 3 forms and signed my
name. He looked at them and tore them up and made new copies without saying
anything. He put them on the counter and said sign these. Again I protested
that I could not see and signed in the same manner. He looked and said
what's this garbage. I ordered you to sign them, not write all over them. I
said, It's to protect me under Uniform, he interrupted me and barked: go sit
down, now ! <
This is because the UCC is NOT about criminal acts. It is the Uniform
COMMERICAL code, not the uniform CRIMINAL
code. Here's a little ditty from Larry Becraft, star of the tax protesting
"income tax is only on people from Guam" movement.
Larry's got to be one of the most well thought out and researched of them
and while I find flaws all over his work, I can't deny
the guy has done his homework.
"Since the early 90s, there has been a wild theory floating through
thismovement regarding the UCC. The manner and method
by which this argumentgot started (known by me) is irrelevant for present
purposes. Suffice itto say
that very frequently I encounter people who believe thisnonsense; my
response has been to post to my webpage an explanation
ofwhy this argument is erroneous.But these UCC advocates are an insistent
bunch forever
hanging onto the"big lie." These misguided folks argue to others that the
SupremeCourt's decision in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins,
304 U.S. 64 (1938),completely destroyed the common law and apparently set up
the conditionsfor
the adoption of the UCC. This is perhaps the best and quickestexplanation I
can give you for this argument. I am very familiar
withthe statutory and decisional authorities encompassed within thisargument
and this authority
simply does not support the legal argumentthey make. I have read virtually
all of the briefs these people havepublished and to be
frank, none of it makes any sense and it isillogical. Further, the argument
is very fluid, and by
this I mean thatwhenever some flaw is noted to the advocates, they change
their positionin much the same manner as the "we
are Brits" crowd does.In order to understand why the Erie case simply does
not support
theargument of the "UCC-ists" requires a short review of the federalstatutes
governing the operation of the federal courts. Under
theConstitution, federal courts have "diversity jurisdiction,"
meaningcitizens of different states
can litigate in federal courts. Long ago,the 1789 Judiciary Act declared
that in diversity cases, the law to beapplied in such
cases is "state law." But what is "state law"? Is itjust the statutes of a
state? Does this "law of the
state" encompass thecommon law legal principles established by the courts of
the states? Ina case styled Swift v. Tyson, the
Supreme Court interpreted the phrase,"the law of the several states," in the
Judiciary Act to mean
just the"statute law of the state." Thus in diversity cases, the Supreme
Courtheld that the state law which was to be applied was
just its statutorylaw and not the common law legal principles which
manifested themselvesin the
decisions of the courts of that state.The decision in Swift controlled the
application of "state law" indiversity cases for a long time
and it was not until 1938 that a changeoccurred via the decision in the Erie
case. In the Erie
case, theplaintiff, Tompkins, had been walking along a railroad track as he
haddone many times before when an Erie freight train
was passing by.Something sticking out of one of the freight cars hit
Tompkins andinjured him. To
recover for his injuries, Tompkins filed suit in NewYork against the
railroad company, Erie RR (this is called "forumshopping,"
meaning you sue in a place where you can get a good verdict).When this case
came to trial, a
dispute arose regarding what was the lawof Pennsylvania which controlled
this case, Penn. being the place whereTompkins was
injured. Tompkins argued that no Penn. statutes controlledthe case and he
wanted the jury to be
instructed via general "federalcommon law" as required by the decision in
Swift. However, Erie pointedout that the Penn. courts
had developed a common law rule which inessence declared that someone like
Tompkins was a
mere trespasser, thusthe duty owed to Tompkins by Erie was far different
than what Tompkinsasserted. The trial judge in the
case sided with Tompkins and the juryawarded him 30,000 bux. This case thus
squarely brought into
questionthe continued validity of the decision in Swift.Was the Supreme
Courtgoing to continue to interpret the phrase "the law
of the severalstates" in the Judiciary Act as encompassing only state
statutory law,or was the
true meaning of this phrase something different? Did such"state law" also
include the common law decisions of the state
courts?In the Erie case, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Swift
andheld that the phrase, "law
of the several states," found in theJudiciary Act included not only
statutory law of the state in questionbut also the decisions of
the courts of that state. The Supreme Courtdeclared that there was no
general federal common
law and that the onlycommon law we have in this country is the common law of
the states. Hereis one passage from the Erie
case which explains this:"Third. Except in matters governed by the Federal
Constitution or byacts of
Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of thestate. And
whether the law of the state shall be declared by
itsLegislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not
amatter of federal concern. There is no
federal general common law.Congress has no power to declare substantive
rules of common lawapplicable in a state whether
they be local in their nature or'general,' be they commercial law or a part
of the law of torts. And
noclause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon thefederal
courts."Here, it seems quite obvious that the
Supreme Court is stating that indiversity cases, the federal courts do not
"invent" a general
federalcommon law, but apply common law rules as shown by the courts of
thestate in question. How this case is construed by
the "UCC-ists" asbanishing common law has always befuddled me. Apparently, I
must beutterly
stupid not to see how a decision which declares something veryspecifically
REALLY means the exact opposite of what the
decisionplainly states. I don't think that the problem is with me, however;
Ipersonally think that those
who promote this position regarding thedecision in Erie are deliberately
lying to the patriot community.The decision in Erie also
demonstrates that the "we are Brits"advocates are utterly wrong. When the
Normans conquered
England in 1066,they established feudalism. The common law in essence is the
decisionsof the English courts over a course of
several hundred years which movedEnglish society from the feudalism of 1066
to a society which
hadliberty. When our country established its independence (contrary to
whatthe "we are Brits" crowd argues), all the states
excluding Louisianaadopted the common law because that was our heritage.
Each state
hasdeveloped its own common law principles, although many of these commonlaw
rules are similar. However, the Erie court
noted that Americancommon law is not that of the English today:"'But law in
the sense in which
courts speak of it today does not existwithout some definite authority
behind it. The common law so far as itis enforced in a
State, whether called common law or not, is not thecommon law generally but
the law of that State
existing by the authorityof that State without regard to what it may have
been in England oranywhere else. ..."The above should
prove that those who advocate that the Erie caseabolished the common law are
entirely incorrect.
This argument gotstarted by a few who bastardized what this case plainly
stated; theseUCC "gurus" argued that this case holds
the opposite of what it actuallydoes. From there, people who heard this
argument on the
"seminarcircuit" accepted it without question simply because some patriot
guruproclaimed it. Now, more illogical and crazy
arguments are being piledon top of this one like the Roger Elvick/Dave
Dereimer "redemptionprocess,"
which is a ticket to jail.If you wish to read the Erie case, it is found on
FindLaw
at:<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=304&invol=
64http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=304&invol=64However,
since this case is short, I also
include it at the end of this note.The erroneous construction of the Erie
case has been tragic. The case
dealt solely with the meaning of the words, "the law of the several states,"
in the Judiciary Act. It solely adressed a problem
regarding diversity cases. But regardless of this, the "UCC-ists" proclaimed
that it banished the
common law, set the groundwork for the UCC, and constituted a revolution; in
fact according to them, Erie completely change
the course of the whole nation. Some have even told me that Erie meant that
no case before 1938
could be quoted in court! It should be readily apparent that the "UCC-ists"
not only are completely wrong, but they have been
telling lies; are they "liaryers"?In summary, there are lots of groundless
and baseless legal
argumentswhich float through this movement and the "UCC/Erie RR" argument is
oneof them. Many accept these arguments
without question and actaccordingly. If you don't open a few books and
confirm the accuracy ofany
given argument, you can land in jail. Ask Pete Stern, one of theadvocates of
the UCC argument. While I like Pete, he is now
cooling hisheels in jail. But further, arguments like this UCC nonsense do
notassist us in the battle for
freedom; in fact, lunatic arguments likethis one make us look like fools."
I'm done. Class dismissed.
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
