2. Laughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F.Supp.2d 201, No. 3:09CV1762(MRK), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (June 11, 2010)(Judgment against the following amateur rights theories: “Redemption Theory”, “DIVIDED PERSONALITY Theory”, “Straw” Theory, “Flesh and Blood Person” Theory” » Theory, “Birth Certificate Theory”, Theory of “social security numbers”, Theory of “capital letters” theory, use of the theory of the “straw man” of each citizen as “guarantee for the national debt of the country” ” theory, Theory of “UCC deposit declarations”, theory of “UCC financing declarations”, theory of “sovereign citizen”, theory “imaginary account number to some kind of direct cash account” and summarizing as follows: “The saviors believe that the person can draw on flesh and blood against the funds won by the straw man” and dismiss the case). But here`s my question: Andrew says that some laws require certain provisions to be written in capital letters. Can anyone cite such laws for me? Proof that names are artificial persons can be found in the legal definition of the word NAME. Black`s Law Dictionary (6th edition) defines the name of the word with exactly these words: “The designation of a single person or a company or a company”. The word corporation is defined in the same legal dictionary as follows: “An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a State.” Based on the definitions in this paragraph, a NAME in the law may be a company that is an artificial person. 3. Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13-cv-760 (MAD/DEP), United States District Court, ND New York, (23.
July 2014)(Judgment against the following amateur legal theories: the “DIVIDED PERSONALITY” theory, the “straw man” theory, the “redemption” theory, the “capital letters” theory and the conclusion that these amateur legal theories “have not only been rejected by the courts, but also recognized as frivolous and a waste of judicial resources” and the assertion that these amateur legal theories “have no conceivable validity under U.S. law,” are “legally frivolous,” are “completely frivolous,” and “manifestly ridiculous.” Yes, I am not qualified to answer specific legal questions. Since all the actions you take are ultimately your responsibility for the consequences, I would advise you to make sure that you have confidence in your actions before taking such actions. UPPERCASE NAMES are not real, living and breathable people, but symbols of things (FICTION, non-beings). From a legal point of view, names are artificial persons who are corporations. In other words, your official name represents the name of the company used by the government to identify you. Where does it say that a company must be written with capital letters? 8. United States v.
Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602, No. CRIM AMD 04-0029, United States District Court, D. Maryland (December 19, 2005) (judgment against the following amateur legal theories: “capital” theory, “flesh-and-blood man with a soul” theory, and “no jurisdiction” theory and the defendant`s amateur legal theories are “manifestly wit 5. United States v. Hoodenpyle, Criminal Proceeding No. 09-cr-00013-MSK, United States District Court, D. Colorado (30. June 2009) (judgment against the following amateur legal theories: “capital letters” theory, “no jurisdiction” theory and the conclusion that these amateur legal theories “have been repeatedly rejected by ALL courts to take them into account” and to qualify these amateur legal theories as “completely frivolous”) (emphasis is on ours). Former lawyer for civil proceedings.
Content-related legal strategist. Your legal UPPERCASE NAME is the name the government uses to identify you. Most of us have been conditioned to think that our legal names are actually who we are. In reality, our legal names are not what we are, because each of us is a man or a woman with a body of flesh and blood. 1. Ferguson El v. State, Civil Action No. 3:10CV577, United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division (18. August 2011) (verdict against the following amateur legal theories: “redemptionist” theory, “divided personality theory”, “gold standard” theory and explanation that redeemers believe that the government “promised the straw man of its citizens as security for the country`s national debt” and states that “the saviors claim that the government has power only over the straw man and not over the living person” against the “flesh” theory and blood of persons”, the theory of “birth certificates”, the theory of “capital letters” and summarizes it as follows: “In short, .
[the defendant] attempts to avoid the consequences of his criminal conviction by suggesting that IT EXISTS AS TWO SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES” and states that such amateur legal theories are “legally dubious” and have “absolutely no legal basis”). Huh? I do not understand why you are asking that question in response to my question. If we look at the meaning of our names in capital letters and imply that it means that we are companies, it makes sense to look at the source of the meaning of capital letters in relation to companies. Otherwise, the involvement will collapse. Is there a rule that company names must be in capital letters? Ron, where does it say that a human name (aka a proper noun) is written with all capital letters? which names seem wrong: IBM JOHN DOE: Xerox Jane Doe………….. 7. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, No. 09-1190, 09-1224, 09-1225, 091226, 09-1227, 09-1251, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (argued March 28, 2011, decided August 18, 2011) (Judgment against the defendant`s characterization as “a secured party creditor … Third party intervener” and against his characterization of himself as a “sovereign person born of flesh and blood and creditor of a secured party” and against the theory of “individual sovereignty”, the theory of “immunity from prosecution” and the theory of “capital letters” and the assertion that such amateur legal theories have been “repeatedly rejected”, and “the `Shop Worn` argument that a defendant is sovereign and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals,” and state that such amateur legal theories have “no conceivable validity in U.S. law” and that they “should be rejected”). This article on the use of all capital in contracts – it comes from Legal Frontier, Andrew Mitton`s blog – reminded me of a question I sometimes asked myself.
CAPITAL, political economy, trade. In political economy, it is the part of a country`s production that can be directly supplied either to support the human species or to facilitate production. (2) In commercial transactions, as they apply to individuals, these are the objects, whether money or other assets, that a merchant, merchant or other person experiences in a business or brings into the parent shares of a partnership.