A Memorandum of Law on the Name

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 designatea name some special English grammarrule or style? Is it
a contemporary American.style of English? Is the use of this form of capitalizationrecognized by
educational authorities? Is this an officialjudicial or U.S. governmentrule and/orstyle of grammar?
Why do attorneys, court clerks, prosecutorsjudges, banks, credit card c.ompanies,utility companies,
etc. always use all-capital letters whenwriting a proper name?

What English Grammar Experts Say

One of the foremost authorities on AmericanEnglish grammar, style, composition,and rules is The
Chicago Manual of Style. The latest (14th)Edition, published by the Universityof 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 propername 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 ~nything 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 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 S~cretary of 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 the filing. 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\" always insist on 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:

I See "in this state" in Glossa/y.

Page 1 of 19 A Memorandum of Law on the Name
342
 .
-
' . --'-'-""'-"~'-~''''''''':
.
~:at
q. ~Wj-
> " '~I'
. . .0~m
" '.:!~~ .
"Why do federal and state governmentagenciesand departments,judicial and administrative ". ;t~t~
courts, insurance companies, etc., spell a person's proper name in all capital letters? For . ~£n;q~

example, if my name is John Paul Jones, is it proper at any time to write my name as JOHN .:~[~_
PAUL JONES?" "111*
;:~f!~$'
.~Ist;.t
Dr. Bruder's reply was short and to the point: "It must be some kind of internal style. There is no . ;w~ ::
i~-;I.;j~
grammar rule about it." ~/t-1 ~

It seemed that these particular grammaticalexpertshad 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 authoritiesto find the answer.

What English Grammar Reference ,BooksSay

Manual on Usage & Style

One of the reference books we obtainedwas the Manual on Usage & Style, Eighth Edition, ISBN 1-
878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. Section D, CAPITALIZATION,
paragraphD: 1:1 states: "

"Always capitalize proper nouns... [Propernouns], independentof the context in which they
are used, refer to specific persons,places,or things (e.g.,Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce)."

ParagraphD: 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 r~fer
to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant Manson)."

Either no attorney, judge, or law clerk in Texas has ever read the recognized law style manual that
purports to pertain to them, or the act is a deliberate violation of the rules for undisclosed reasons. In
either ignorance ("ignorance of the law is no excuse") or violation (one violating the law he enforces
on others is acting under title of nobility and abrogating the principle of equality under the law) of
law. they continue to write "Plaintiff, "Defendant", "THE STATE OF TEXAS" and proper names of
parties in all-capital letters on every court document.

The Elements of Style

Another well-recognized reference book is The Elem~nts 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.

A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 2 of 19

343
 .
~
:- Of.:.'
..

" .
The AmericanHeritageBook of English Usage

The American Herita e Book of En !ish Usa e 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 conventionshave emerged as a
way of getting around t'heconstraintson data transmissionthat now limit many networks."

Here is a reference source, within contemporary-modem-English, that states it is of an infonnal

manner to write every word of, specifically, an electronic message, allda e-mail, in capital letters.
"
They say .itis "screaming"to do so. By standarddefinition,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 insurancecompanyscreamingat us for paying the increasedpremium 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
cOLlrtdocuments? Are not attorneys and the courts supposed to be specific, formally writing all legal
documents to the "letter of the law"? If the law is at once both precise and not precise, what is its
significance, credibility, and force and effect?

New Oxford Dictionary of English

Oxford University Press publishes the New Oxford Dictionary of English. Considered the foremost
authority on the British English language, this dictionary is also designed to reflect the way language
is used today through example sentences and phrases. We submit the following definitions from the
1998 edition:

"Proper noun (also proper name). Noun. A name used for an individual person, place, or
organization, spelled with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam."
..

"Name. Noun I 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. Kalhvasser is the qerman
name for limewater. Verb 3 Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man has
been named as John Mackintosh. Phrases. 2 In the name of. Bearing or using the name of a
specified person or organization: a driving license in the name of William Sanders."

Newbury House Dictionary of American English

From the Newbury House Dictionary of American English. published by Monroe Allen Publishers,
Inc., 1999:

"name n. I [C] a word by which a'" person, place, or thing is known: Her name is Diane
Daniel."

We can tind 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

Page 3 of 19 A Memorandum of Law on the Name

344
grammaticallycorrect, must be written with only the first letter capitalized,with the remainderof the
word in a name spelled with lower c&seletters.

U.S. GovernmentStyle Manual

Is the spelling and usage of a proper name definedofficially by U.S. government?Yes. The United
States Government Printing Office in their Style Manuah March 1984 edition (the most recent
edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for nil
governmentpublications, includinJ?;court and legalwriting.

Chapter 3, Capitalization,at § 3.2, prescribesrulesfor proper names:

"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples'given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam,
Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon.i.

At Chapter 17. Courtwork, the rules of capitalization, as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further
reiterated:

"17.1. Courtwork differs in style from otherwork only as set forth in this section;otherwise
the style prescribed in the precedingsectionswill be followed."

After reading § 17 in entirety, we 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 U.S. 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. II

This wholly agrees with Texas Law Review's Manual on UsaJ?;e& Style as referenced above.

Examples shown in § ]7.12 are also consistent with the aforementioned § 17.9 specification: that is,
all proper names are to be spelled with capital first letters; the balance of each spelled with lower
case letters.

Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has published one of the most concise
U.S. Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication SP-7084, Grammar. Punctuation,
and CapUalizalion. A Handbook for Technical Writers and EdUors, was compiled and written by the
NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At Chapter 4, Capitalization, they state in
4.] Introduction:

"First we should define terms used when discussing capitalization:

All caps means that every letter in an expression is capital, LIKE THIS.

Caps & lc means that the principal words of an expression are capitalized. Like This.

Caps and small caps refer to a particular font of type containing small capital letters
instead of lowercase letters.

A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 4 of 19

345
.. ;'

"Elements in a document such as headings, titles, and captions may be capitalized in either
sentence style or headline style: .

· Sentencestyle calls for capitalizationof the first letter, and proper nounsof course.

· Headline style calls for capitalizationof all principal words (alsocalled caps & Ie).

"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
:i caps. At 4.4.1. Ca~italizationWith Acronyms,we find the first authqritativeuse for all caps:..~:.
.f:. .
~.. "Acronyms are always formedwith capitalletters. Acronyms are often coined for a particular
program or study and therefore require definition. The letters of the acronym are not
capitalized in the definitionunless the acronymstands for a proper name:

"Wrong The best electronicpublishingsystems 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
t
defined as "John Orley Holistic Nutrition of the Smith Medical Institute To Holistics (JOHN.
:~.~L 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;

"
'~f. .1". .
."'. ":. ~ . Names of governmentalunits U.S. Government ExecUtiveDepartment, U.S.
'-:: ~~.
..~. . Congress, U.S. Army;
rh. '.',
..j....

· U.S.Navy."
,.

'- Page 5 of 19 A Memorandum of Law on the Name

'~1.~;~
.t.
346
0-
.. ..

Accordingto this official U.S. Governmentpublication,the States are never to be spelled in all caps,
such as "NEW YORK STATE." The proper English grammar""':"and legal-style is "New York
State." This agrees, once again, with Texas Law Review'sManual on Usage & Style.

Legal Fiction Doctrine Allows the Courts to Presume/Assume Anything

The Real Life Dictionary'ofthe Law

The authors of The Real Life Dictionary of the Law, Gerald and Kathleen Hill, are accomplished
scholars and writers. Gerald Hill is an experiencedattorney,judge, and law instructor.Here is how
the term legalfiction is describe~:

"Legal fiction. n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience,consistency9r .' .:

".~.....
to achieve justice. There is an old adage: Fictions arise from.the law, and not law from
fictions.'

Oral1'sDictionaryof the Law

From Oran'5 Dictionary of the Law, published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of
"fiction" is found that of "legal fiction":

"A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is
true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing
a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent 'John Doe' off your property used to be the only way to
establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain."

Merriam- Webster's Dictionary of Law

Merriam- Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996 states:

"legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of
that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no fractions --Fields V.Fairbanks
Nor! h Star Borough, 818 P .2d 658(1991)."

This is the reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The U.S. 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 adhering to their own recognized
authorities.

In the same respect, by identifying their own government entity in ALL CAPS, they are legally
assuming/presuming it to be so. As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this
report, 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
juristic license of arbitrary' presumption or assumption, irrespectin of the facts pertaining.

A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 6 of 19

347
 ."..'
; ~:" . ..

Arbitrary "Right" of Assumption is a Self-serving Fiction of the Law

An important issue concerningthis entire matter is whetheror not a proper name written in all caps,
can be substituted for a lawful Christi~nname or any proper name, such as "STATE OF FLORIDA"
.....
for "State of Florida." Is the assertionof all-capital-lettersnames legal? If so, from where does this
practice originate and what enforcesit?

Legal fiction may be employed when the name of a "person" is not kno)¥nby using the fictitious
name "John Doe." This is understood by all and needs little explanation. If there is no way to
identify someone, "John Doe" or "Jane Doe'! is presumedor assumedto identifythe unknown party
until the proper name can be discovered.
.~' . . -
In alf cases~a legal fiction is an assll1iiptlonof purported fact without having sho\vn the fac(to. be
true or valid. Legal fictions can be applied to manydifferentsituations;conversionof a true n~meto
.. . an all-caps version is one of them. It is an acceptance with no proof. Simply, to assume is to
pretend. Oran's Dictionaryof the Law says that the word "assume" means: .

1. To take up or take responsibilityfor; to receive;to undertake.See assumption.

....
";.'
2. To pretend.
.:: ~ '~..

. , 3. To accept without proof.

'.
These same basic definitionsare used by nearly all of the modern law dictionaries.It should be noted
'i. ~:
that there is a difference between the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the
.: ~.:
: i..
first. Pretending and accepting withoutproof are of the same understandingand meaning. However,
to take responsibility for and receive, i.e. "assumption," does not carry 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 'Y0rd assume are combined? In a literal and definitive
:'~~~L
. :-~;
sense, the meaning of "assume" wbuld 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 all-caps usage, such artifice is an assumption or pretension
that the juristic person/legal entity named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.

,1 ~ Use of the name "JOHN P JONES" in lace of the ro er name "John Paul Jones" im lies 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.

Please go no further until you understand and comprehend exactly what the above paragraphs have
stated. If necessary, re-read the above until you have a full understanding of what is involved in the
meaning of a name spelled in all-capital letters.

An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. ("An unrebutted affidavit, claim, or charge stands
as the truth in commerce." See Maxims of Commerce in Glossary). 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

Page 7 of 19 A Memorandum of Law on the Name

348
 , '. ,. . . . . ,. " .,
" /.
,~" ':.'.
..... ",. . , . . ,', .". .' ',1'
'j
," It ..

,',:- ;: ;,:;,;,.;,":'~.'. .~ "~'. ;,;~':j"',~ !:;:.~I'.. It. J',L!I I'."J~ J".., ;JtI I1'.'.. "It I" .J.~.:IJI'J' t~ lilt lalu;, ull',1
nc.:i1e. i.e. "Je)ft< P jrj:';f'.'-;"! :1h,.; hl/'J b';VIIII'; 'III': ;1/1<1.
II.,; ';a""~. 'II.,., ", ,I,,: '.,I,X /'/1"Ih,: II!,':'It IIlf~
all caps names by the C.S. Government and the ',talc';. It h ll1,;V/:IYthai Ih~~y1':111brill/!. ';fllI1l:f/I1f.~ 1111"
the de facto venue and jurisdiction that they have created..~By implicatil)1') of' definition, this also is
for the purpose of some manner of assumed debt. .

Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "J6hn Doe" in theircourts or on Driver's licenses?What
stops them from doing this? Obviously,there is a reason for using all-caps names since they are very
capable of writing proper namesjust as their own official style manual states. The reaso'nbej1indthis
practice is found within the definitions as cited above. At this point, this should be very .clear to
every reader. . . '.

The Legalities of All-Capital-Letters Names

We could go on for hundreds of pages citing the legal basis behind the creation and use ofatl-capital-
letters names. In a nutshell, fabricated legal persons such as "STATE OF TEXAS" can be used to
fabricate additional legal persons. Bastard legal persons originate from any judicial/government
actor that wishes to create them, regardless of whether he/she/it is empowered by law to do so or not.
However, a law can never originate from a fictional foundation that doesn't exist.
::
The generic and original U.S. 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 generic U.S. Constitution. Was it created according to the lawful process or
outside of lawful process?

Executive Orders and Directives

For years \ve have researched the lm11ul 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 defectivc basis for additional fictional "laws." 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."

Lincoln Esta blishes 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

A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 8 of 19

-
.was adjourned sine die, or "without day". This meant that there was no lawful quorum to s~t, a
specific day and time to reconvene which, according to Robert's Rules of Order. dissolved Congress.
This dissolution automatically took place because there were 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 1861called Congressback 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 Qfthe U.S. 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 Congressbased on nothing more holy.than "So what? What are you
going to do about it?"

Legal-fiction "laws," such as the Reconstruction Acts and the Lieber Code, were institUtedby
Lincoln soon thereafter and became the basis for the current "laws" in the US thereby. Every
purported HAct"in effect today is basedon colorablefictitiousentities created arbitrarilyand without
verification, lawful foundation, or lawfuldue process-all 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 des,troyor
avoid being eaten, killed, or destroyed= no law = lawlessness= complete absenceof all lawful basis
t,ocreate 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 in.stant the.
first man thought he would "hide from God," try to cheat ethical and natural law by overreaching,
invade the space and territory of others, covet other people's land or property, steal the fruits of their
labors, and atten1.ptto succeed in life by win/Jose games. All existing "authority" in the United States
today derives exclusively from the War Powers. Truman's re-affirmation of operational autJ10rity .
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."

The Abolition of the English & American Common Law

Here's an interesting quote from the 1973 session of the U.S. Supreme Court:

Page 9 of 19 '
A Memorandum of Law on the Name
350
 :..., ,,-.~ .'.._L ~\...~..l!.,,'.1...;.:. ., ~ ".' ._., ~

"The American law. In this country, thc law in clTcd in nil hul it fcw :)tatcs lIlIlilllli~I-J!Jlh
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
U.S. 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.fegalfoupdation,i.e., ExecutiveOrders 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.
Chapter2, at § 2.01 Common law and certainstatutesdeclaredin force, it states:

"The common and statute laws of Englandwhich are of a generaland not a local nature,with
the exception hereinafter mentioned,downto the 4th day of July, 1776, are declaredto be of
force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistentwith the
Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of ~he 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 Apri I 1861, the American and English common law was abolished and replaced with
legal-fiction "Iaw'i, a/kJa statutes, rules, and c0ges based on Executive Order and not the due process'
specified within the organic Constitution. Existing and functioning under the law of necessity ab :~t~:...-
initio, they are all non-law and cannot validly assert jurisdiction, authority, or demand for compliance r.~{,
from anyone. Th~y are entirely "rules of rulership," i.e. organized piracy, privilege, plunder, and .:~~11..
enslavement, invented and enforced by those who would rule over others by legalized violence in the . rr.f5

complete absence of moral authority, adequate knowledge, and natural-law mechanics to accomplish
any results other than disruption, conflict, damage, and devastation.

Applying it all to Current "Laws"

Title m, Pleadings and Motions, Rule 9(a) Capacity, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states, in part:
I
. ~ir~!f.
t",., I
?~~r~.

~.;K:t
"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." (Bold emphasis ..~.
added).
~<::;~
At this juncture, it is clear that the existence of a name written in all caps is a necessity-created entity.
This is surely an issue to be raised and the supporting particulars are outlined within this artic1e. 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 ifhe
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 they would be required to
succeed in life by honest, productive labors the way those upon whom they parasitically feed arc .;~.:!.
forced to conduct their lives. ....

....

A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 10 of 19

351 ':.' ~
....

.-''.

.. .
'. ... .: ;....-..
.
~,:'i.:~,
. -.~ :
,
'."~.....
.;..

.. {~::.:
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 involvedwhen proper names are
"':",
provided. In regard to criminal prosecutionthis is clearly set forth in the OklahomaStatutes,Chapter
. 1 ~;.'
22, § 403:
,~>:.
"When a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by -a fictitious or erroneolls name, and in any
stage of the proceedings his true ,name is discovered, it 'must be inserted in the subsequent
proceedings, referring tei the fact of his being charged by the name mentioned in the
indictment or info'rmation."

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.]

The Current Scene in America

'."..'
"Legal Person"
:~~.tr

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
t
sued. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996.

Person. 1. 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.
<1. '.
,"I. '.~
"
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 incidentalto the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are
..
. Page 11 of 19 A Memorandum of Law on the Name
':"
'..;..
352
 "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacitysllch us a
court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons"which, in
almost all instances, includes businessorganizationsthat have been formally registeredsuch
as partnerships, corporationsor associations. Duhaime'sLaw Dictionary.

PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latinpersona; said to be compoundedof per, through or by, and
sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primar.i.lya mask used by actors on the stage.]
Webster's 1828Dictionary. . .

A corporation incorporated under dejure law, i.e. by bona fide express contract betweenreal beings
capable of contracting (a phenomenonthat went extinct almost 70 years ago), is a legal fact. Using
the self-styledjuristic artifice (legalfiction)of "right to presume, irrespectiveof the law or the facts,"
implied contracts, constructive trusts, and other entirely different entities can be created using the
name of the bona fide, legally and grammaticallycorrect name of the corporationby corruptingthat
name into an ALL-CAPITAL LETfERS format or by abbreviating names (within the complete
proper name). The corporation exists in law, but has arbitrarily been assigned a different NAME.
No such corporation nor any valid law can be created under the "law of necessity," i.e. under "no
law." Likewise, the arbitrary use of the legal-fictionartifice of "right of presumption"(overunwary, . .
uninformed, and usually blindly trusting people) can be legitimately exercised under "no law."
Maxims of law describing "necessity" include: '.
0'.
"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 '= no lawful basis upon which anything can be created, be made to transpire, or
upon which 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 subject to their jurisdiction
(and cannot be made subject to their jurisdiction by them). The crucial issue is then how to notice
them of your position and standing so that they leave you alone.

As mentioned above, an artificial person (corporation) created under de jure law, with the person's
identifying name appearing as prescribed by law and in accordance with 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 presllmption remains
unchallenged. The rule of the world is that anything and everything skates unless you bust it.

"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

A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 12 of 19

353
,.
.,
,.
'.' issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. See
~'.
legal." [Boldemphasisadded]

"Legal. Latin legalis. Pertainingto 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 actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is
the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott's Law Die. 24." . .
. [Bold emphasisadded] . . .. . - . ..

Le al matters administrate conform to and follow rules. The are e uitable in nature and are.
im lied resumed rather than actual ex ress.. A Ie alrocess 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 follow the law. Instead, it conformsto and followsthe rules orform of law. . This may help you
to understand 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 "U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT," that rule the courts.

Lawful matters are ethical! en'oined in the law of the land-the law of the eo Ie-and are actual in
nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the generic 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 USC
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 (page 241) 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.'"

Executive Orders Rule the Land

The current situation is that le~ll[jsm 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 in law and are based
on fictitiously created "authority," i.e. no authority; and 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 revealsthat the legal authorityfor this census comes from
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Approval No.0607-0856. The OMB 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 usboc is a department of the Executive
Branch. Obviously, Census 2000 is authorized, carried out, controlled, enforced and implemented by
the President,
. a/Ida the Executive Branch of the Federal Government-functioning as it has been

Page 13 of 19 A Memorandum of Law on the Name

354
 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 d~partments
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 U.S. Constitution:

"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, 1101by lawful constitutional due process, there is no United States
.. Congress. The current "Senate" is, 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.

The Fcderal Register is an Executive FUllctiollary

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 aI, Creditors in bankruptcy who have conquered the country by their
great paper-money banking swindle.2

For the past 65 years, every Presidential Executive Order has become purported "law" simply by its
publication in the Feeleral Regi:-:ter,which i'soperated 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 cluties

2 The Federal Reserve Bank, i.e. the "Central Bank," places Government IOUs, i.e. Treasury Notes, on deposit in the
Federal Reserve bank. credits the Government account for the amount of the IOU, charges interest to the
Government (paid by taxpayers), and the Government has checkbook money to spend. The cost to the bank for
these bookkeeping cntries is nothing.
A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 14 of 19
355
 ----

"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 Departmem 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. I{owcould anyone possibly call this lawful?

In 1917,President.Woodrow Wilsoncouldn'tpersuade.Congressto agreewith his desireto.arm

United States vessels accessing hostile Germanwaters before the United Statesentered World War I,
so Wilson simply invoked the "policy" through a PresidentialExecutive 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 concentrationcamps while all their property was
confiscated. .

Is it any wonder that the Congressthe president"legally" controlsdid not impeachPresidentWilliam

Jefferson Clinton when the evidence for impeachment was overwhelming? On that note, why is it
that the 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.

How Debt is Assumed by Persons with All-Caps Names

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,""JOHN P JONES." Since an
assumption, by definition, implies debt, what debt is assumed by the newly created artificial person?
Now that we have explored the legal-executive-basis of the current federaland state governments,
it is time to put all this together.
..

The government use of all caps in place of proper riamesis absolutely no mi.stake. It signifies an
internal ("legal") rule and authority. Its foundation is pure artifice and thl::results have compounded
into more deceit in the form of created, promulgated instituted, administrated, and enfo~ced 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 on liS. 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.

The Birth Certificate

.~..
.f.~;:.;
...f:- Since the early 1960's, State governments~themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons
."..'~:
signified by all-caps names-have issued birth certificates to "persons" with all caps names. This is
not a lawful record of your physical birth, but rather the birth of the juristic, all-caps name (see birth
in GlossClty). 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 id,entify 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

Page 15 of 19 A Memorandum of Law on the Name

356
~U..J.,
artificial person whose all-caps name "mirrors" your true name. The birth certificate brings the new
all-capital-Ietters vessel into colorable adm.iralty/maritime law, the same way a ship 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 "leftover" from various tdetype-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 Ihe m~!inSlrCmllor CUlI1l11l1l1icnliOJI!I, !III111
r:
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 importantdocuments,such as driver's licenses.,wereproduced
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 databankall-caps storage systemswould have
been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in bulk, including payment checks, which the
governmentsdid 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. Re the past fifteen years, there can be no excuse that 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 ofre-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 for the writing of a
proper name is no mistake.

When a baby 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 child's true name, e.g. JAMES.
WILBUR SMITH.. . . .

"cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificat. from Middle French, from Medieval Latin
cerl!ficatum. from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus. past participle of certificare. to certify,
15th century. 3: a document evidencing ownership or debt." [Underline emphasis added]
Merriam Webster Dictionary, 1998.

The Birth certificate issued by the State is then ,-egistered 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 110tmean 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 the presumption is
effectively rebutted; i.e. notice to the effect of: "It ain't me."

A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 16 of 19

357
 "Security, Bond. - Security.I a: Something(as a mortgage or collateral)that is provided to
make certain the fulfillmentof an obligation. Example: used his property as security for a
loan. lb: "surety." 2: Evidenceof indebtedness,ownership, or the rightto ownership. - Ibid.
Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person undertakesto perform a
certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract) . . with the condition that failure to perform
or abstain will obligatethe person. . . to pay a sum of money or will resultin the forfeiture of
money put up by the person or surety. Ib: 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." Merriam-WebsterDictionaryof Law, 199~.

"Surety. The person who has pledged him or herselfto pay back moneyor: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 separate.ly, as
part of an independent contract with the obligee of the original contract." 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.
I::
Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department, who 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-see Glossary) from the Department of Commerce, who invests
the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury
:L..
".
('..
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.
:1
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 newborn into a legal, juristic name of a person.

Dubuque rei po/issinia pars prineipium est. - The principal part of everything is in the beginning.
("Well begun is half done.")

Legally, you are considered a slave or indentured servant to the various federal, state and local
governments via your STATE-issued, 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. YOllhave 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, the holder in due course of the instrument, i.e. you, reclaims/redeems it.

.'

. " Page 17of 19 A Memorandum of Law on the Name

....
" '
358
~J.
: '..
Tbe P';3i:1r:,\'rle:n !5 that r.10thers't'2!'erts ard trel1 t\1e !~.vea!,-(lid 1T'2n/WC'ma:1
~...,.,;.,.~,.,
"
~..'"".., '.
.,
."
.,~, '.
, " """~...~.,~~
d. \,,,...\..,...\
",:..:."
.~...\.,. ",
.:1.,,;.
,\ .,
"""'~:';
\
""'.'
:'-.... 1
have vC'luntarHv
~,'f.,\ ."...\.,.' .
\..,,~..\.."'..\d.\'.~.\, ,\\.:,' \,\"\"',, ',
.\\,'\~ ' :'iI',,
f;\I\:n~ h' ;\~:,,'\"\,'\1\ :\h"\\1tC' nt:ht:,'. 1h:-m:\:\im \,r \aw l'C'~l'l\\e$c\'Udall)' operativc: "He who fails
to assert his rights has none." The lega\ ru\es and codes enforce themselves. There is no court
hearing to determine if those rules are correct. Their "law" is self-regulating and self-supporting.
Once set into motion, their "laws" automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been
followed. .~

The Various Bankruptcies

The legal person known as the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally
mandated silver or gold-coin or bullion-with which to back any currency. 'All privately 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 under the terms ofthe bankruptcy;

Congress-still convening strictly under Executive Order authority-confirmed ~he bankruptcy

through the Joint Resolution to Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5,
1933 in House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rd Congress, 1sl 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 obligee 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.1I

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 use 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 costs). Their future labor and tax revenues have been "legally" pledged via the new al1-
caps, juristic-person names appearing on the birth certificates, i.e. the securities tlsed as collateral for
loans of credit (belief/air) 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.

All Caps Legal Person Y. 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-Ietter 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 when the legal person
is addressed, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the Ia\.\.fuI being
distinguishes himself/herself as another party than the legal person, the two are separated.

J Laches: Unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a right or claim - almost always an equitable one - in a
way that prejudices the party against whom relief is sought. Black's 7th,
4See absolute rights in Glossary.
,
A Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 18 of 19
.
" NO'l'~

The Shetar's Effect on English Law-A Law of

the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land

The rational study oflaw is still to a large extent the study of history.
.,
Holmes, The Path of t!le Law. I

I. INTR.ODUCTION

English law, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural

influences. The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete cle-
ments from disparate sources. After the conquest of 1066, the Normans im-
posed on the English an. efficiently organized social system that crowded oul
many Anglo-Saxon traditions.2 The Jews, whom the Normans brought to
England,J in their turn contributed to the changing English society. The Jews
brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and
a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into
the developing structure of English law.
Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into
the English legal system.4 Notable among these is the wriuen credit agree-
ment-shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the
shctar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on aUproperty (including really)' that has
been traced as a source ofthe modem mortgage.6 Under Jewish law, the shetar

I. 10 HARV.L. REV. 457. 469 (1897).

2. I G.M. TREVELYAN.HISTORYOF ENOLAND 142-48 (1953). 1'
J. I F. POLLOC1(. &: F.W. MAITlAND. THE HISTORYOF ENOLISII LAw DEFORETilE Tn"!E OF Eo.
WARDI 468 (reissued 2d cd. 1968). There'is some dispule whether the Jews arrived by WiUiam Ihe
Conqueror's invilation or merely with his permission. 4 S. BARON.A SOCIALANDRELIGIOUSHISTORY
OFTIlE JEWS 77 (1957).
4. Su &~n~",'1y J. RASINOWITZ.JEWISHLA'iV250-72 (1956) (discussing Jewish Gage. Od~il~. StarT
or Acquittance. and Reprcscn/alion by AttoC1ley). .
5. Su "nf'" lext Iccompa.nying notes 34-36 (d~bing sbelar and accompanying lien).
6. Rabinowitz. 17rt!Common LAw Monlalt! andllr~ Contlillonal Bond. 92 U. PA. L REv. 179.94
(1943). The author trac:es the Iwo-instrument (debt and releue) mort!;age to its origin as a device 10
Ivoid umakhta. a Jewish priaciple invalidaWr~ penally clauses.. Under that doctrine. Jewish money
lenden were forbidden 10 eUe! a penally oonditioned on the fulure fsilure of Ihe deblor's obligalion.
It!. II 184-85. If a oonveyance involved umal:ht.. II."., void. Iri. "t 182. InVllidaliCln as Ismakhla
could be avoided if aU obligalions'were incurred at the time of the originallransaclion. IrI. at 184. 185.
86. Land wu sc:izable as security only I( the creditor went iDto possession at the time of Ihe loan:
"Meakhsbav"-"rrom now". Iri. at 185. For this reason. the debt inslrument included In immediale
conveyance ofthe land that'll" 10serve., security against defaulL A $Coond inSlrumenl. Ihe acquiUII.
would rele:LSCtbe securily and reconvey the la.nd to its original owner ifthe debl were plid on or before
its due dale. It!. It 185. The entire written obligation (shetar) remained in the hands or a third party ror
the duratioo or Ihe debL Iri. al 192. The document proved that the debl existed and clarilied the nghts
and dUlies ofthe parties in case of defaulL St'I! DIN 2 C. HERZOO.TItE MAIN INS1'ITUT/ClN5 OF Jr,w/m
LAW71-92(2d ed. 1967) (chapler on .,makhla).
Rabinowitz finds in these and other early Jewish devices (or avoidin!; asmalchla both lire structurll
IJId subslantive roots ofthe English mortgage a.nd the laler developed equitable righl of redemption. J.
RASINOwrrz. .tfIprD nole 4. at 250-72. St!t! DUOF. LINCOLN,THE STAUA 47.~O (1939) (oullining Ihe
ume dcrivalion):.rt!t! ltnmrlly F. LINCOLN;ThE LEOALBACKOROUNDTO mE STARRA(1932) (same).
Compare the bislolial period o( equitable right of redempllon with Ihe same term of prolected reo

1179

. .

'~~~i£~i~~*4~/#~~~:~:4t~~\#,~f
 . .

.,"'"
.",",~"., ."'tt;"1;,::y(f.:~~~?j;~;"~:ITi~~j{ft*~,!~~~
.. ." . -

1180' THE GEORGETOWN'LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 71:1179. 1983J THE SHETAR 11'1 ENGLISH LAW 1181

permitteda creditorto proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulling ments.18 And as the identity of the principals in the landlord-lenanl
debtor.7 Both "movable and immovable" property were subject to distraint.8 relationship becamelesscritical, a change in the feudal rnles restricling aliena-
, In contrast, the obligation of knight service under Anglo-Norman law bility of interests in land bcicame possible.
baITeda land transfer that would have imposed a new tenant (and therefore a One catalyst for th.is change may have been the litigation sUITounding debt
dilTc:rentknight owing service) upon the lord.9 The dominance of personal feu- obligations to Jews secured by debtors' property. The Jews in Norman Eng-
dalloyalties equally forbade the attachment of land in satisfaction of 8 debt: land had a specified legal status. They alone could lend money at inlerest."
only the debtor's chattels could be seized. 10These rules kept feudal obligations The)' were owned by the King, and their property was his property.20 T"t;
intact, assuring that the lord would continue to pc served by his own knights. King suffered their presence only so long as they served his interests21-pti-
When incorporated into English practice, the notion from Jewish law that marily as a source of liquid capital.22
debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all property, movable and Because moneylending by Christians was infrequent, English law had not
immovable" was a weapon of soCio-economic change that tore the fabric of established its own forms of security.23The Jews operated within the frame-
feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land work of their own legal practice,2-' which was based on Talmudic law devel-
holding. II oped over centuries of study. But the peculiar status of the Jews as the
The Crusades of the twelfth century opened an era of change in feudal Eng- Crown'sde factoinvestmentbankersencouragedthe King to direct his courts
land. To obtain funds from Jews, nobles offered their land as collateraJ.12 Al- to enforce the:credit agreements made by Jews under their alien practice. This
though the Jews, as aliens, could not hold land in fee simple, 13they could take nourished lhe growth of Jewish law in a way that .bluITed the absolutes of
security interests of substantial money value.l<4That Jews were permitted to feudal land tenure.2$Previously inalienable rights in land gave way to eco-
hold security interests in land they did not occupy expanded interests in land nomic necessities, and the English ultimatcIy adopled the Jewish practices.26
beyond the tradi~i,onal tenancies.l$ The separation of possessory interest from This note examines a moment of contact between two peoples, when neces-
interest in fee contributed to the decline of tJ,le rigid feudal land tenure sity, proximity, and social upheaval prompted a cultural exchange bctween the
stl'Ucture.16 . Jewish merchants and moneylenders and those they served. The note de-
At the same time, the strength of the feudal system's inherent resistance to scribes lhe effect on English law brought about by lhe King's Jews as they
th.is widespread innovation abated. By 1250, scutagel7 had completely re-
placed feudal services: tenant obligations had been reduced to money pay- 18. In reudalland holding. Ibe lenllll" possessory righl in land was limiled 10 usufrucl. U G'anled
by Ihe King. who relained absolule dominion over the land. The denolation of Ihe lenanl's inlcre51 n5
f~~ (orfiif,fnlli. orf~tldum) rellcClcd Ibe.lenUlI's obligatioo 10 render service 10 Ihe sovereign in relurn
demption iD.u..~kw 25:29: "i\nd if I man seU I dwelling bouse in a waUed cilY; Ihen he may redeem for the privilege of willg Ihe land. 2 W. BlACKSTONE.COMMENTARIES8104-05.
il within I wbole year Iner il is sold; for a full year shaU he have the ri&hl of redemption." It!. During the firsl century or the Norm8.l1 Conqucsi land was held by military lenure. in wlUeb the
7. J. RAIINOWITZ.JIIprtl nole <I,at 253. Su infrtl lexl accompanying nolcs 33-<17(dcscribing shelar in tenanu owed a specified Dumber of days per year ill I:ni&hl service. I F. POLLOCK&.F.W. MAITI.J\ND.
Jewish Jaw). JIIprtl Dote 3.at 252. Eilber Ibe lenlnts or their ~rvanu owed personal service in Ihe King's aony.
8. Su infrtl le:tl accompanying nole 35 (e:tlenl of lien imposed by shelar). . Lller, Ihe King came 10 require a slllldinr; limY 10 punuc e:tleDded campaigns on Ihc Continent. Id
9. T.F. BE~OIH & P.G. HASKELL. PREFACE TO EsTATES IN LAI'ID AI'ID F\JTURE INTERESTS 8 (1966). In pllce of sbon.tenD combat ~rvice. the King accepled "sculage" (lileral derivllion: "shieldage").
Land lenure was cenlrallo social organwlion wilhin Ihe feudal syslem: whereby bis lellants.in...bief senl money in lieu of themselvcs or their knights. It!. 31266. The sculage
fees enahled Ibe King 10 employ prof""ionallroops IIId pcrmilled Ihe genllemeD to remain al home.
The feudll syslem originaled in the reladollS of a military cbienain and bis foUowers, or king It/. Su lm~rQIIy id al 252.82 (section on knighl'S service). By the reign of Ed ard I in 1272. bolh
and Dobies. or lord and vusa1s. IIId espcciaUy their relalions as delermined by the bond personal ~rvice and sculage failed 10 provide adequale milil.o.ry resources; addilional tues were insli-
es..bUsbed by I granl of ItI",1 from the (ol1ller 10 Ibe laller. From Ihis il grew inlo a complele luted in their slead. E. JENKS.'"9'rtl nOle 11. al 102.
and iDlricale comple:t of rulcs for the lenure Ind transmission of real CSlale. and of COrTelaled
dUlics and ~rvices .... 19. 1 F. POLLOCK& F.W. MAmAND, '"9'rrz Dole 3, al 0168.
20. Id al <168.<171.
Bl.J\cK,'s LAw DICTIONARY 560 (rev. 5th cd. 1979) (emphasis in original). 21. Stt Mandatum Regis Juslicilriis Ad Cuslodiam Judeorum Assi~nalis de Quibusdam Stalulis per
10. 2 F. POLLOCK & F.W. M-'ITLAND..IIIprtl nole 3. al 596. Judeos ill Anglia Firmiler Observandis. Anno Regni Regis Heorici Tncesimo Septimo (Manda Ie or Ihe
Killg 10 the Justices Auigned 10 the Cwtody of the Jews Touching Cenain Sialutcs R~laling CoIbe
II. S~~ H.G. RICHARDSON. THE ENOLISH JE'W~Y UNDER ANOEVIN KJNOS 94 (1960) (Jews'liquida-
lion of IlIId obU~ations broke down rigidily of structure of feudal land lenure and facili"led Irans(er of
Jews in EngJ8.I1dWhich arc to Be Rigorowly Observed. The Thiny-Sevenlb Yeer of King Henry)
IlIId 10 DCWcapltalisl elus). (A.D. 12531(Mandate of Henry III ordaio.iog"[llbll no Jew remain in England uol"" he do Ihe King
service. Ind thai from the bour of binh every Jew, wbether male or female. serve Us ill some way").
11 E. JENIC.S.EDWARD PlAl-tTAOENET, TilE ENOLISH JUSTl!'lIAN <10-41 (1923).
I'nirttd in J.M. Rloo. suprtl Dole 13. al X}vijj-w.
13. S« F. Ltt<COLN.THE ST-'RM 11<4.15(1939) (Jews could possess lands. bUI nol bold by fee); 22. I a.M. TIlEVEL Y AN, JIIprtl nole 1. al 250.5 I.
SELECT PLEAS, STARIlS, A!'ID OrnER RECORDS FROM THE ROLLS OF THE EXCHEQUER OF THE JEWS ix.
23. J. RA8INOWITZ.
wpm Dole4, al 262. .
:t (J.M. RiU cd. & trillS. 1902) (bereinaf\er J.M. Rlool (Jews religiously barred.from swearing Cbris- 24. Su J.M. RIOO, JIIpra nOle 13, al:xix (Jews m.de 1011IuTlngements according 10Iradilionalla....
tian oath of really, and therefore disabled from bolding feudal cslale). of Ibe shelar).
14. E. JEHKS.'"9'''' Dole 11. at.olO-<lt.
25. S~e 2 F. POLLOCK& P.W. MAITLAND,supra Dole 3. al 123-24 (Jewish credilors' rights in land
IS. q: I F. POLLOCJ:: & F.W. MAITLAND..IIIpra Dole3. al <169(alien 10 English law for credilor nor enforced by King: same ri&hts nol available originally 10 Cbrislilll credilors).
in possessioDof land 10blve ri~ts in il).' ., 26. Su I F. POLLOCK & P.W. MAITLAND,.rvprrz nOle 3. al 475 (Second Slllules or Wc~lmin5(er of
16. E. JENKS.'"9'rtl nole 11.at 41. . .' 1285gave Christian creditor the remedy of ~/T/, similar 10 the choice o( remediC3 alTorded Jewish
.WAf.J:.P
17. S<utage.in meweval
THeOxrn,-", r,...Ifeudal Ilw. WLSa I,."
"r-"J_,.." plymelll by the
.,, ,.., r" lellanl in lieu
," of mililary service. D. aediton). ..fl't' t1lro If'f/ra tcxt ac:x::omOlnvin..nnt~ ''''.."7' fe',.,..,.. r\ L, I. . '..., 1. ..,..f'...
 . .,.."... II

~- .-.-...---....-

I~ISJJ TilE SUETAR IN ENGLISH LAW 1183

1182 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 71:1119

and immovable property held by the debtor, but also against encumbered land
executed and registered debt instruments, assigned and enforced the underly- that the debtor had transferred to a third party.36 The debt attached to Ihe
ing obligations, and generally survived by moneylending, the only pro/Hable land, and the creditors lien had priority over subsequent alienations."
occupation open to them.27It first reviews the Jewish credit agreement and its Because of the seyere obligations imposed by the shetar, the contents of Ihe
function in Anglo-Norman feudal society. It then suggests a rational explana- instrument followed a stand~rd form designed to ensure authenticity and pre-
tion for a development in medieval English law heretofore perceived only as cision. Each shetar recited standard clauses of obligation, the creditor's right
an anomaly: that the early writs of debt, which were for recovery of money, to customary modes of execution, and a final phrase stating that the document
used terminology more appropriate to an action for recovery of land. This was not merely a form but a statement of an express contract.J8 Inserted into
confusionnow appears to be merely the linguistic expression of an innovation the form language were the names of the parties, the sum and the currency of
in the law due to the development of an actioJ1'to recover alternative relief: the debt, and the date of the obligation, thereby indicating the creation of the
repayment of money lent or award of collateralized land. lien.J9 To prevent fraud, the document was signed by two witnesses who knew
Finally, the note focuses on the incorporation of Jewish law into English the parties..co
practicethrough a series of thirteenth century cases involving the same Jewish A nation.of wanderers, in adapting to a variety of cultures, determined that
Litigant.Jewish debt procedure had by then become part of everyday business the language in which the shetar was written should be irrelevant to its legal
in England. Even as the Jews began to be excluded from moneylending, their validity.~' Thus, in dealings with a surrounding Gentile populace, Jews were
procedureswere adopted into the general English law governing debt registra- content that loan agreemenls be formalized in Latin or in the Norman French
tion and collection. In 1275. the statute "De Judeismo"28 forbade the Jews'
of early England.~2Generally, the Jewish parties and witnesseswould attest in
usurious practices.19In 1285, the Statute of MerchantsJOformalized creditor
remedies that paralleled the provisions of the Jewish shetar.JI In 1290, the
Jews were expelled,J2but their credit practices remained. inslrumenl.s formation, regardless ofwbether the lien ...as capressly wriUen into the shelar. Jewish 13w
originally did not auacb debt obligation to chauels. During the amouic period. Jewish law calended
the lien to tbe movable property of the debtor if specifically noted in Ibe shetar. But the r3bbinic couru
II. JEWISH CREDIT AGREEMENTS IN FEUDAL ENGLAND ...ould not enforce a lien against movable property that had been sold by the debtor 10 a third party. It!.
36. It!. at 186. During Ihe post-Talmudic period, it became customary 10 insert in the ~helar a provi-
A. THE SHETAR [N lEWISH LAW sion imposing a lien on Ihe deblor's aller-acquired property. J. RABINOWITZ. .srtpra nOle 4. al 254.
37. Elnn.Um. in PRI~clrLES OF lewlSH LAw 288 (M. Elon cU. 1975).
The law of the shetar, developed and elaborated by'500 A.D. in the Babylo-
nian Talmud, antedales the Norman Conquest by six centuries.JJ Historically, 39. G. HOROWITZ.
Jl/pranole 33. aI 511. .
38. Fuss. Jl/prrl note 34, at 184.8S: O. HOROWITZ.Jl/prrl note 33, nI SO'I-II.
\/'
40. It!. at 5 11. In coDtrast 10the dociJmcotary pr~dure of the wriUen shetar. credit asreemenlS also
the "shetar hov" (or generallyjust "shetar") was an instrument that established could be made nrally under Jewisb la Milveh be.a[ peh-tilenUy .'Ioan by moulh'. was distin-
formalobligation, either in contract or in debl.H At the moment that a debtor guished from milveb bi shelar-"Ioan by writing:. Sbiloh. Loans. in PRINCIPLESOF IEWISH L w 262
(M. Elon cd. 1975). The oral creditor, however. had no right 10 levy on the dcblOr"S alien:\led and
acknowledgedhis indebtedness through a shetar, a general lien was estab- encumbered property to obtain satisfaction of the debL It!. .
lished, encumbering all the debtor's property as security for ultimate repay- 41. I C. HEIUOO, THE MAIH INST/TVT10NSOF lEWlSH LAw 152 (2d cd. 1965).
ment.J' In case of default, the CTeditorcould proceed not only against movable From Ihe lime of the Jewisb e~ile in Babylonia, 586 B.C., tbe Jews had lived as outsidcrs in foreign
lands. III order to live within their own law, they developed a doclrine 10 minimize conflictS belween
lewish law and the law of the surrounding community. G. HOROWITz.Jl/pra note 33. at 79. In deal.
17. [ F. POLLOCKok F.W. MAITt.A~O.Jl/P'" Dote 3. at 471 (EDglish Jews could profitably engage ings witb !be Christian populace, the Jcwi~h .commWlity followed Ibe principle Ihat ".hc .Iaw of the
only in mODeyleDding).Although the Talmud prohibiled cbarging i4le~est ODloans. even 10 Genliles. Kingdom IS Ihe Law" (dID' de.malkhuta dlDa). They ac:ccpted and obeyed any law thaI dId nol con-
aulhoritics including Rabbeou Tam (a 12th-ceDtUr'yTalmud scholar wbose opiniO,1lSare sliU ciled with tliet with lewish laws governing spcci.6c religiow obli~ations. Dina Dt.Ma/Ic"ula Dina. in 6 ENCYCLO.
respect) permitted Iews 10leDd Gentiles mODey at interest .'because no other avenues of trade or com- rEDIA lUOAICASI. 54 (1972). Respect for the nile of the Gentile sovereign raised the problem of
merce (werel OpeD10 lews. and the lendi4g of money Iwasl the oa[y means of livelihood lell to them." delermilling the applicable law:
D.M. SHOHET.THE lEWlSH COURT I~ THe MtDDLEAOES 89-90 ([931). .
The decrees of the Icing are law to US;but the IIIuonal1aw is Dol our law. Among all nations
28. I STATUTESOF TilE REALM22[ (LondoD 1810 4r.photo. reprinl 1963). This statule. wbicb is tbere arc certain fundamenlal ri&ll" &ad privile~cs which belong to the sovereign. Within Ihis
uadated. is ~eaeuUy thou&ht to date from 127~. Su 10 S. DAllci~.Jl/pra Dote.3. al I [I (auribuling scope. the coounands of the Icing ue law. But !!:.isdocs Dot hold true of Ihe judgmenU ren-
stalute 10 127~);J.M. RtoO.Jl/pra Dote [3, at JlJUtvUi(auributing statute to 1274-7~). STATUTESOFTHE
REALMaUribules the statute 10 either 4 Edw. (127S-76) or 18 Edw. (1289-90). I STATtlTES OF THE dered in Iheir couru. For the laws which the courts apply arc not Ihe esscnce of royalty. They
arc based on tbe prcccde:lltJ to be found in their writings. You c&nJIoldispute this distinclion.
REAt.M221 n.l11. ... .
29. S~~ Lea Esututz de 1a Jeuerie (The Stalutes of lewry) 11 STATtlTESOF THE REALM221. 221 for otberwise,youwould annuL God forbid. the lAwsof the Jews. .
(providing that bCDceforth no Jew lcod at wury upon [and. renl. or other lhin~: tbat inlerest ao:ruing O. HOROWITZ.Jl/pra. at 79-80 (quoling Rashba, Rabbi Solomon ibn Adrct of Barcelona (123S-1310».
rJ\er previow Feasl of St. Edward Dot be coUcct.ible: Ihat deb" 10Jews secured by cbattels be paid by Jewisb courts would enforce external civil laws and formalities. it!. at 80. but did DOlpermit such civil
EaSIer or be forfeited; and that the King will 00 longer enforce the.Jews. usurious conlraCU. bUI wiU law 10 sanction bebavior othet1l'isc forbiddco to Jews. N. Thus. a transaction enforceable in Gentile
punisb tbe lender). courts might sliU be invalidated (as applied 10 Jews) by a Jewisb tribunal. It!. at 80-81.
30. SUtute of Me~bants. 128S. 13 Ed",.. Stat. 3. 42. J.M. Rloo. Jl/P", Dote 13, at xix. See Huuw DEEDSOF E~oLJSH JEWS (M.D. Davis cd. &
31. St~ infrrl telt accompanying notes 168-78. Ita:s. 1888) [hereinafier M.D. DAVISI(reproducing the: HebfC'Wportion of shetars in Hebrew and
32. 10 S. BAIlOH..svpra note 3. al 113. Latin); STARIUAND JI!WISIICHAltTI!IU hUl!ltYED IH T1t1!B1lmSK MUSEUM(I. Abrahams. H.P.
~ JJ. G. Holtowrrz. Tilt SruUT OF JEWISII LAw 16 (19S3).
~. Fuss, S"(ftU, in hlNCll'LES OF 1I!WISHLAw 186 (M. Elon. cd. 1975).
SlOk= d: H. I.ocwe cds. & Iran.s. 1930-32) (herein.rJ\:: STAltlU ANDCHAltTERSI(reproducing Hebrew
~ 35. It/. The sheur insposed a lien on all the real property that the deblor OWlled at the time of the.
and Lati4 portiollSof sbews). .
~
I.
i.. .'. .. ..
 " :.~,~,:~~y!:t~~f~~~~4Z~?&~~~1?:;~;~zi~~~~~\~tr~})'f¥<Pi:¥.f.~J~~.~~~~
.' -.' . , "..

1184 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [VoL 71:1179 1983] THE SHETAR IN ENOUSH LAw 1185

Hebrew and the Christians in French or Latin:CJAllhough neither party may system, he avoiaed the system's tendency toward decentralization :lnd disinte-
have understood the other's language, the document had the full force of law gration that had sapped the power of the French kings..13He limited the power
in both communities.'"
· The crucial limitation on debt collection under Jewish law was that a credi-
tor had a lien against the debtor's land, but not against the debtor's person:"
of his tenants-in-chicf by granting each of them landholdings scattered over
the realm, instead of large, contiguous tracts.5" He governed the counties
through sheriffs who depended on him for their power:" He maintained a
Personal freedom was not to be diminished by a debt obligation; and a creditor national ~ilitia, thereby shunning total reliance on the loyalty of his tenants-
could not enslave one who was unable to repay 'him."6The origin of this prac- in-chief..1t;And he had all significant landholders swear an oath of primary
tice was the Biblical protection of the dignity of debtors, as embodied in the allegianceto him." This concentrationof power in the monarchgrewduring
injunction not to enter:the debtor's home to receive I!pledge, but rather to wait the successivereigns ofa series of strong kings who irlcreasingly assumed more
outside for the debtor to bring it OUt,"7This was the structure of the law of power-military, legislative, and judicial~ver the nation..18
obligation that the Jews brought with them to England.
C. THE JEWS UNDER THE NORMAN KINOS
B. NORMANS IN ENOLAND-A CENTRALIZING MONARCHY
Outsiders in feudal society, both Anglo-Norman and continental. the Jews
Unique among its feudal neighbors, the Norman Duchy was governed as a were not pan of the network of land-based obligations. They could not own
centralized unil, with no baron strong enough to challenge the Duke's author~ land.. -0n the Continent, they were owned as chattels by the local lords, who
ity."a Although the Norman Duke owed fealty to the King of France, that protected the Jews' possessions on the understanding that what a Jew owned,
King lacked effective power over his vassals, who independently governed be held for the ultimate use of his 10rd.'11The Jews in Norman England, how-
their own territories."9In Normandy, however, feudalism was strictly territo- ever, were wilhin lhe exclusive domain ofthe King's personal control, living at
rial: a. pyramid pCland tenure embodied a system of military obligations as- his sufferance and according to his wishes.60
cending from knight through baron to Duke, from whom all land and The first settlement of Jews in England came in the wake of William the
authority derivcd..1OOn the continenl, and later in Engla~d, William the Con- Conqueror.61William determined that he should be the sole owner of Jews in
queror set out to maintain and strengthen this Norman system of centralized England. Others could own Jews only with the King's permission as expressed
governance..11With the Conquest, the Normans introduced to England a well- by royal grant,62The L~g~.rEdwardi Conf~.r.ron:r, a twclflh-century compila-
organized central authority.52 tion and translation into Latin of laws attributed to Edward the Confessor,63
The early governance of conquered England concentrated power in the
King. As William the Conqueror imposed the rigorous order of the feudal, 53. w. Sro88S../IIpru nOle 51. a185-91.
5~. It/. al90-91.
5S. It/. II 88.
43. Sn. ~.!.. J.M. Rloo. ./IIprrznole 13. al xix (Hebrew credilor signed in Hebrew); It!. al46 (record S6. Id &I86.
of Exchequer documenling sbetAr wriuen in Hebrew wiili Lalin duplicate). In En&Jand the lerms ortbe S7. It/. II 8~. .
Icquiuancc lool: the JewUb form of the releuc: "from the beginning of the world" 10 the present.. J.
RAa,,"owm. Nra no[e ~, 265-69. S8. It!. aII17-18. The dlles of the Norman and Ansevin Kings from the Conquesllo Ihe expulsion
of Ibe Jews in 1290 Ire:
44. Both JeWIsh Uld EngllSb courts m:ogni.z.cd the force of I shelar olJ"ered u evidence of a debt.
J.M. Rloo,Npra note 13, II xix-no RiU describes the elaborlle recording and witnessing procedures, Willir.ml 1066-1087
including both Jewish and Gen[ile panicipanu, designed 10 avoid fraudulenl documents. It!. The William II 1087-1100
lGng's courts enforced a duly enroUed sbellr. Sn infra lexl accompanying noles 132.48 (discussing Henry I II 00-1135
mcc:hanism by which Exchequer co forced debl obligaliolU). The courts within Ihe Jewish communily 1135-1IS4
routinely enforced shetAn. Slephen
-45. Elon, Imprisonm~n' for DdJI. in PRI~CIPLESOf JEWISH LAw 634 (M. Elan cd. 1975). Henry II IIS4-1189
46. Id a1634. S« also M. ELO~. RESTllAltlTSOf THE l'Etuo~ ASA MEANSIN THE COLLEcnON OF Richard I 1189-1199
DEaTS IN JEWISHLAw (1961) (precis of doctoral dissertatioD) (Jewish IradilioD had no pcnoDal impris- John 1199-1216
OnmeD[ for deb!. reasoning thr.. if a deblor's bome could Dol be enlered, eveD less could the deblor be Henry III 1216-1272
I.8.1:.ca:in the I3lh ccnlury, Jewish scbolan be~an [0 debr.le and approve impriSQnmenl for evasive
Edwud 1 1272-1307
deblon. but oaly in carefuUy prescribed conditions).
Unlike Jewish law. E.a~b law spcci.6caJly envisioned, such imprisonmenl. S~~ Statule of D. WALUP..Nprtt Dote 17. al 1317.
MercbUlu, 128~. 13 Edw" Sial. 3 (eslablislWl& imprisonment of the body of a defaulting debtor); SIal- 59. F. L[~COUl, ./IIpru nOle t3, II 8-9. ~ "Adminislralor of the Realm." the conlinenlal King had
ule of Acton Burncll, 1283. II Edw. (if deblOr'S &oods insuffieienl to satisfy debt, debtor imprisoned inlenliliaJ power in the arcu here DOvusal could substantiale a rival claim: upon Ihis Iheory, Ihe
pcndin& repayment, hUI creditor responsible for assuring bread and water sufficieDI to sUSlam life of Kin! had usc:rted speciaJ authority over widoWl and orphaas, aliens. Jews. lunatics. etc, E. JE~KS.
IIDpriSODcddebtor, who musl further rcimbunc creditor upon releuc). Npra nOle 12. al 90-91. .
-47. Dn/ra-oflom/ 24:10-1.1(10 prescrye debtor's dignily m his own bome). 60. F. LI~CoL"'../IIpra note 13. al 10.
48. I G.M. TUvu.YAH. supra nole 2. al 14-4. 61. H.G. RICHAIIDSON../IIpranole II. at I.
49. Id at 14-4.45. 62. F. LI~COLN../IIpra note 13. at 10. I
50. hi. al 143. 63. 1 F. POLLOCK&: F.W. MAITLAHD..t!9'rrzDOic3. al 103. PoUocl: Uld M.ilbnd believe Iha'ihe
.1I. W. Srous. Tile CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOIlY OF ENOLAND74-75 (abr. ed. 19711). law. o( Edward the Coa("",,r arc o( dubiow authority as dc:scripUOQJor butorical hC1. perh.ps renee..
52. a.M. T..eV1!LVAN..rupraDolc 2. .1 1~2. inft :MJI'DC
unbown 12Lb-ccncury .uthn"', hOf1'C(uJImaltination.
 .. .. ...~- ""'.-
, ,

1186 TilE GeOROEToWN LAW JOUR.NAL (Vol. 71:1179 191:131 Tlln SIIIn"AR. IN iiNULI"" I "" IlK' .
contains a statute that, if not that ancient, adeq\late1y describes the Norman ing into their hands.71Subject to estate taxes,72Jews were permitted to inherit
period: property and loans. Richard 1's charter,73 granted in 1190, confirmed these'
Be it known that all Jews whe,resoever they may be in this realm arc rights. John affirmed ~heearly charters in 1201,extending their coverage to all, ,
Jews and adding the right to hold "mortgages."74
of right under the tutelage and protection of the King. nor is it lawful
for any of them to subject himselfto any person of wealth without the Under John's charter, a Jew was free "quietly to sell his gage where it be
King's licence. Jews and all their chattels are the King's property and certain that he has held it for a full year and a day."7s The charter further
if anyo11ewithhold their money from Ihem let the King recover it as clarifiedthat in suits betweenJews and Christians,litigation rights were ex-
his own.64 plicit and, in some cases, advantageous to the Jews. The "bare oath" on the
Torah of a Jewish defendant sufficedto rebut a charge against him by a Chris-
As chattels of the King, the Jews retained their own property at his pleasure. tian plaintiff unaccompanied by witnesses;76a Christian defendant similarly
In the thirteenth century. Henry d~ Bracton wrote: situated might be required' to "wage his law" with compu,rgators.77 A suit
[aJ Jew cannot have anything of his own, because whatever he ac- against a Jewish defendant was tried by a jury of his "peers."7BAnd although a
quires, he acquires not for himself but for the king. because they do Jewish plaintiff could use a writ to substitute for a required witness, a Christian
not live for themselves but for others, and so they acquire for others plaintilf could no1.79Trials illvolving Jews and Christians could be held only
and not for themselves.6j in the King's courts,&Owhile jurisdiction of disputes between Jews remained
with the Jewish courts.8I
They lived where the King permitted, and when' they died, their property
But the Jews had fewer rights in themselvesand in their possessions than did
vested in the King.66 Because the ecclesiastical courts could proceed only
against Christians,67the Jews operated free of the Church's usury prohibitions.
The civil authorilies openly permitted the Jews to lend money at interest and 71. 4 S. BAROH,.svpra note 3, at 78. The right 10 possess land was not equal 10 Ihe right to hold a
Creehold eSlale:,wbich would have evoked the fuU range of {eudal obligations between lord and lenant.
enforced their credit contracts, both for principal and interes1.6&As the Jews Str D. WALKER.JlJpra note 17, at 497 (detiaiag freehold). Jews were lraditionally excluded {rom
'prospered the King did too, extracting from them the fruits of their monopoly Creehold lenure. e. ROTH. HISTORYOF THE J1!WStN ENOLAND107 (1941): if. H.G. RICHARDSON,
on usury.69 supr" note II.. at 84 (Jews held in fee so rarely that 00 rule asainst the praclice was needed or eslab..
lished). The requesl by several Jews 10 bold land in fee and Ihe actual attempt by one 10 do so led. in
Because it was worthwhile to protect Jewish subjects for their potential 1271.10 a royal mandate denying them the privilege. C. ROTH,.svpra. at 65.66. S infra note 161
money value, successive sovereigns clarified the status of Jews. Charters of (discussing mandate o{ t27\). " .

Henry I and Henry 1170granted individual Jews rights to reside in England, to 72. Su JlJpra no Ie 66 (describins lUes levied on Jewish estales).
73. For a Iranslation of Ihe charter. JCeJ. JAC013. JlJpra nole 70. at 134-37.
buy and sell goods, and to possess all lands, fiefs,purchases, and pledges com- 74. W. PARKES.THE JEW IN THE MEDI1!VAL COMMIIJ'/ITY168-70 (1938). The author suggests Ihat
CheJews succeeded tbe monutic houses u moneylenders wben the Church declared such activily by
Chrislians 10 be usurious. It/. . .
64. F. LINCOLN,.svpra note 13, at 10; 4 S. BARON,JlJpra note 3. at 79; I F. POLLOCK&: F.W. 75. Carte Libertalum Concc:s.sarumet ConAnnalururn Jedeis Anglie Anno Resni Regis Johannis
MAITLAI'ID,JlJpranOle 3. at 468: J.M. Rloo.JUpra note 13, at X.Hovedon. Ibe medieval legal hislorian. Secunda (Cbanen of Liberties Gra.aled IIId Coalinned to the lews of England in the Second Year of
associated Ihe statule wilb tbe Justiciar Rlllulf de OIanviU. It!. at x, Ihe Reignof King 10hn) (A.D. 1201)(hereinaner Charter of KinSJohnl para. 7 prinlrrlin J.M. RIOO,
6S. 6 H. D1!BRACTOI'I,DE LEOlaus AT COI'ISU1!TUDINlausANOLlA1!51 cr. Twiss ed. &:lrans. 1883). supra note 13, at 1.2. The Cbarter of Richard I bad similarly provided: "(TJhe aforesaid Jews may sell
66. F. LIt/COloN,.svpra note 13. ..t 10.11. Althougb in theory all property of the deceased Jew reo their pledges wilhout trouble aner it is certified tbat tbey have held them a year anda day.. . ." 1.
vened to the King. in praeli"" tbe CrowD took only a one-third to one.half share in estate tues. From JACOBS. .svpra note 70, at 136. Compare the time period provided Corin lAd'lcur2.S:29 (one year musl
A..rOD of York, the richest Jew of Ihe time:, Henry 111exacted anticipalory est:1Ie tues for 19 years pASSbefore house takea u debt security may be sold).
before Ibe principal's death. By IheD, the estate was bumpt and the bein deslitute. 10 S. BAROt/. The rights available to Jews in EagLtnd collllasted sb&rply .,.,jth medieval French tradition. A apit-
JUpra note J, at lOO.aI. ulary of Charlema£JIe forbade Jews to lake the property oCthe Churcb or any Christian in pledge for a
67. H.G. RICIIAR.DSOt/,JUpra note II. at 142. debL The penally was confiscatioa of the Jew's property and loss of his right hand. LOUISthe Pious
68. I F. POLLOCK&. F.W. MAITLAND,Jtlpra nole 3. at 469 n.l. Only Jews were pennilled to "'alce liter grlnled chaMen to certain Jews penuilling free conlract rights for sale and exchange of propeny.
lI$ury" Crom a Chrislian.. Su iJ. al 473 (Jews had money.lending monopoly). Two conlemporary S.I0.n. Till! JEWS IN TIll! VrsiooTIIIC AHDFIlANKISIIKIMOOOMSOf SrAIN AND GAUL 92-93 (1937.f<
sourcc:s, GLANVILL'STR.EATISEand the DIALOOUSDE SCACCAIUO,describe the penalty exaeled rrolD photo. reprint 1910). .
Christians who engaged in "open usury ... Jile Ihe Jews": the usurer's eballels were forfeiL 76. Chaner of King 10ba,JlJpra aote 75. pan. 5. S..talr" J.M. RtOO..tJIpra note 13. at xii (constru.
TR..\CTATAaUSDE LEOIIUSET CONSUETUDINIIUSREOI'I'ANOLIE QUIGLAHYILLAVOCATUR(The trea. inScharter). '
lise on the laws and custollU of Ibe Realm of Englalld commonly called GlanviU) Book VII, cb. 16, at 77. 1.M. Rloo.Jl/pl'a nOIe 13, at xii. Under the most common 12th-c.cillury procedure. the court did
89 (G.D.G. HaU cd. &.IraIlS. 1965) (bereinaner GLANYILLJ:DIALOOUSD1!SCACCARIO(The Coune of aot decide facts but allocaled the "prool" to one of the p"nies. 2 F. POLLOCK 4t F. \1(. MAITLANO,
the Excbequer) 100 (e. Johnson trans. 1950). Moreover, if Ibe creditor bad executed a mongage:, III supra note 3. at 602.03. Tbe selected party could prove his a.sc by battle. ordeaL or com purgation. It/.
instrument that sc:cured the debt by possession of tbe debtor's land, and later failed to credit the princi. at 602. In compurgation, tbe party swan: IJ1 oath th&t be was innocent and produced a fixed number or
pal of the debt with the income from tbe 111I<1, be violated the condelDJlation of tbe Council of Toun. cornpurgatocs, or "oath-belpecs," wbo swan: that his oath was true. T.F.T. PLUCKN1!'TT. A CONCISE
DIALOOUSDE SCACCAlUo..svpra. at 100 n.l. Aner the credito(s deatb tbe debtor mi&Jtt get bis lalld HISTOIlY 01' TN1! COMMON LAw 109 (2d cd. 1936).
back frolD the King. but be would Ihen owe tbe Crown 'the amouot of the. principaL III practic:.c, the 78. Cbarter of King 10ba,JUprrznOle75, pu&. 2. 8/11JU I F. POLLOCK &:F.W. MAITLAND, Jtlpra
King forgave part o(this amount. presumably reducing it by the sum o(the debtor's usurious overpay. note 3, at 473 (Jew might bave use heard by jury,.talf of whom were Jews).
ments. Id. at 100. 79. Charter or King 10hn, JUprrl aote 75, put. 2: J.M. Rloo, JUpra note 13, at xii.
~ 69. a.M. TREVELYAN,Jl/pra nole 2. at iSo.25 I.
70. These cbarten arc 1uI01l'Donly by reference in other sources. 1. JACOBS,J1!WSOF ANOt:VlH
80. Charter of King JOM.JlJpra lIote 75. para. 3: I W. HOLDSWOIlT1f. HISTORY Of ENOLlSIlLAw
(5th ed. 1931).
46

~ ENOLAND 137.33(1893). . ' 3\. Charter of KinS John. JlJprrlDote75. para. 12. Ia his farnoll$dispute witb Henry II. TholD&S1
~