Sovereign arrested in place of STRAWMAN

[Pottapaug1938]

Years ago, when I was a first-year law student studying Civil Procedure, I learned about how, in days of old, legal writing took the turgid form that we all know and hate because 1) you had to use specific language to trigger the application of certain statutes or accomplish your intent; 2) legal writ writers were paid by the word; and 3) legal pleadings had to use alternative words to get the message across to the Norman nobility in England and the Anglo-Saxon lower classes. That's why old deeds contained clauses like "give, grant, bargain, sell and convey", and "to John Smith and his heirs to their use and behoof forever" instead of just "to John Smith". That's why wills still sometimes contain terms like "I give, devise and bequeath." Nowadays, legal reforms, both statutory and procedural, have eliminated the need for most of these "magic words".

My point in all this? It's that the tax protest/sovereign citizen nuts still have not caught on the the fact that "magic words" are no longer necessary. They obsess over "united States" versus "United States", attach the most critical importance to the way that names are typed in court documents, and so on. They also cannot read court decisions properly; instead, they read the decision with a "fundamentalist" approach: if the Court decision says it, then so it must be. They cannot make the distinction between the court's decision, typically contained in a paragraph or two, and "dicta", which are not part of the decision but are included as a way of explaining it.

This Hansen buffoon seems to think that by playing his "John Paul: Hansen" game with the judge, he is protecting himself from the consequences of his actions. Right -- just like the "Ghost Dancer" shirts protected Native Americans from the Wounded Knee massacre. Well, I hope that he and the Browns, among others, enjoy their taxpayer-funded vacation in Hotel Leavenworth....

[ASITStands]

As has been explained MANY times, the use of all upper case is a carry-over from days when legal documents were written by hand and names were written in upper cse block letters to make them clearly readable and to stand out from whatever text they werre embedded in.

Some might ask, "How many years must there be a 'carry-over' from prior years?"

All of the early programming languages used UPPER CASE exclusively both during the programming and in the printout (either onscreen or through the teletype printer).

Anyone ever seen those old black & whites where the urgent message comes in by teletype? That's what we're talking about when we talk about printing characters to display or paper.

Several of those major programming languages are still used in government and corporate computer rooms, and though many were updated prior to Y2K (and since), many of them still do not use both UPPER and LOWER case characters in the printout.

Why does a document prepared by an attorney or by the clerk of a court still show the headnote in UPPER CASE, as in PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT? Why the carry-over?

They're messin' with your brain! It means absolutely nothing, and you'll find many attorneys, and many judges, who write their briefs and orders in both UPPER and LOWER case.

Why are HEADINGS in UPPER CASE, such as INDICTMENT or TABLE OF CONTENTS?

It's the standard format of a legal brief or document presented to a court. Means absolutely nothing in terms of an artificial entity or legal fiction, and that's the point of it all.

Ever seen an ACCOUNT TRANSCRIPT or IMF SPECIFIC? It's kept on magnetic tapes and accessed by a computer using one of the older languages (probably Cobol, originally COBOL).

It's printed out in all UPPER CASE, and really, it means nothing. Harder to read in my opinion.

Now, take a look at the first broadsides published of the Declaration of Independence.

Dunlap broadside, the first printing of the Declaration

Notice, near the bottom, the words, "WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled ...." Mixed case and UPPER CASE.

It's a printing phenomena and not a conspiracy.

When I saw how these words were first produced, it settled the question for me.

Factually, when the judge called, "Paul Hansen," there was no way to conclude he meant, "PAUL HANSEN," as phonetically, they sound exactly the same. There's no dispute.

There's no way to distinguish the two, and therefore, no dispute until or unless it's in print. If the responder asks to be addressed in proper case, the court will often comply. It depends on the attitude exhibited by the requester, and therein, lies the problem for PAUL HANSEN.

Shakespeare would say, "Much ado about nothing!" Or, was that Poor Richard?

[GoldandSilverEagles]

GoldandSilverEagles:

1 - Don't be so picky about forms of address, especially when you don't adhere to your own standard.

lol.....for an irs agent, you make me laugh.....lol

2 - I'm glad you have a big ego. Your attitude is going to attract derogatory remarks.

Hmmm...the 'pot' calling the 'kettle' black. Mr irs agent, I challenge you to be the forum 'police' and bust everyone with a big ego who makes derogatory remarks, you might want to begin with yourself...lol

3 - Please address the following:

Which of the following rights do you allege that the judge violated?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is it inconceivable to you that:

1 - The judge called for the defendant Paul Hansen or Paul J Hansen to step forward.

2 - The person who stepped forward identified himself as "Paul John."

3 - Paul John refused to state that he was either Paul Hansen or Paul J Hansen -- the person who was called by the judge.

4 - Since no one stepped forward in response to the judge's call, he was authorized to issue a bench warrant.

5 - The sheriff, upon reasonable belief that the man in the court room was, in fact, Paul Hansen immediately executed the arrest warrant.

If so, please explain your issues, so they can be addressed.

Finally, specifically, which of the actions by the judge or anyone else associated with the case violated anyone's rights in any way and how were the actiona a violation?

This issue is growing into a HUGE waste of valuable time, however, I did say that I would address it.

I'm going by the courts dialog at the beginning of this post while assuming it is accurate.

What it boils down to is that the judge wasn;t interested in anyone IDing themselves other than "PAUL J HANSEN". The judge was arrogant and inflexible. Paul offered that his last name (family name) was Hansen, but the judge was too arrogant to accept it.

On the basis of the 1st amendment":

Is there the chance that Paul IDed himself in this manner in honor of his religious beliefs? If Paul could prove this, backed by a recognized religion, then the judge could be found in error of not honoring/acknowledging Paul's 1st amendment right.

Second, Paul has freedom of speech. Paul has the right to verbally announce his name in any way he wishes as long as conforms with his "certificate of live birth".. Now that is State law and being more specific, the legislative side of State law.

The judge could just as easily figured he was dealing with a nutcase who was picky about how his name was announced.

Now why didn't the judge stop the sheriff from arresting Paul if the judge had in actuality believed that Paul John of the family Hansen wasn't PAUL J HANSEN? The judge clearly knew Paul was the "PAUL J HANSEN" he had called for, but Paul wouldn't play into the judges powerplay and that evidently upset the arrogance in the judge.

It wasn't about legalities inasmuch as it was about power, ego, and control, all on the part of the judge.

I could go on, but I dont really have any interest to.

[Nikki]

1 - I am not an IRS agent. You are 100% wrong on that assumption.

2 - Your allegation of constitutional rights violations can't be based on your theory as to what might be. Thus you are again 100% wrong.

Congratulations. Your record is unblemished.

[wserra]

What it boils down to is that the judge wasn;t interested in anyone IDing themselves other than "PAUL J HANSEN".

And why should the judge be so interested? The court officer calls out the name on the docket (voices don't come in upper and lower case). No one IDs himself by that name. My copy of the Constitution seems not to contain any right to have a judge play stupid guessing games with idiots.

Is there the chance that Paul IDed himself in this manner in honor of his religious beliefs?

No, there isn't. You don't get to make up your own religion and then claim that you are only following its dictates. Otherwise, people could join the "Church of Carlos the Jackal" and go around performing assassinations. So please cite to me the church which teaches that God abhors uppercase names.

If Paul could prove this, backed by a recognized religion, then the judge could be found in error of not honoring/acknowledging Paul's 1st amendment right.

Wrong. Religious practice - even if real, unlike Hansen's - is no defense to laws of common application. There is no doubt that polygamy was part of Mormon doctrine, at least a century ago. Think that's a defense to an indictment for the practice? Well, read Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), and think again.

Second, Paul has freedom of speech. Paul has the right to verbally announce his name in any way he wishes

Absolutely he does. However, if the person named in the docket fails to acknowledge his presence in the courtroom, he has failed to appear. We return to the absence of a right to have the judge play stupid guessing games with idiots.

I could go on, but I dont really have any interest to.

Thank God for small favors.

[Pottapaug1938]

If Hansen had a brain -- which is debatable -- he could have at least said something like, "although that is not my correct name, that is how I am addressed sometimes, your honor, and that is the name under which I have been brought here," and the judge would have been satisfied. He might think that Hansen is a nut, but at least he won't be hitting Hanses with sanctions that Hansen could easily avoid just by using some common sense.

[Judge Roy Bean]

If Hansen had a brain -- which is debatable -- he could have at least said something like, "although that is not my correct name, that is how I am addressed sometimes, your honor, and that is the name under which I have been brought here," and the judge would have been satisfied. He might think that Hansen is a nut, but at least he won't be hitting Hanses with sanctions that Hansen could easily avoid just by using some common sense.

Ahhhh, at the risk of pointing out he obvious ... ... common sense is not a requirement to participating in the sovereign mythology.

[ASITStands]

If Hansen had a brain -- which is debatable -- he could have at least said something like, "although that is not my correct name, that is how I am addressed sometimes, your honor, and that is the name under which I have been brought here," and the judge would have been satisfied. He might think that Hansen is a nut, but at least he won't be hitting Hanses with sanctions that Hansen could easily avoid just by using some common sense.

Very good! That's exactly right, which abundantly shows the lack of common sense (as the 'Judge' suggests) and ability to reason these types lack. Amazing, ain't it?

What a simple, reasonable response that preserves the man's argument!

At that point, he could have purged himself of any contempt charges, and he could have stated his desire to be addressed differently, including his supposed religious reasons.

Instead, he was extremely stubborn and ignorant, and he paid the price of being arrested.

[Dezcad]

If Hansen had a brain -- which is debatable -- he could have at least said something like, "although that is not my correct name, that is how I am addressed sometimes, your honor, and that is the name under which I have been brought here," and the judge would have been satisfied. He might think that Hansen is a nut, but at least he won't be hitting Hanses with sanctions that Hansen could easily avoid just by using some common sense.

Ahhhh, at the risk of pointing out he obvious ... ... common sense is not a requirement to participating in the sovereign mythology.

Not only is it not a requirement, common sense is actually an impediment to participation in the sovereign movement.

[Nikki]

Multiple "tsk" to all of you for desparaging the Sovereigns.

They, both individually and collectively, possess Common sense, just as they participate in Common Law.

It is the failing of the sheeple, probably based on our indoctrinizing education, to recognize that their Common sense is superior to our common sense.

[ASITStands]

Multiple "tsk" to all of you for desparaging the Sovereigns.

They, both individually and collectively, possess Common sense, just as they participate in Common Law.

It is the failing of the sheeple, probably based on our indoctrinizing education, to recognize that their Common sense is superior to our common sense.

Is it the capital "C?" I guess I missed that.

And, does Common Sense make more sense than Common sense?

Tsk, Tsk, yourself!

[Judge Roy Bean]

A note from a relative (younger) I consulted regarding the upper and lower case data issue:

________________, I think it's a holdover related to printing issues with lower-case descenders back in your day (lol!). That and keypunch/data entry error reduction.

That makes sense.

[ASITStands]

A note from a relative (younger) I consulted regarding the upper and lower case data issue:

________________, I think it's a holdover related to printing issues with lower-case descenders back in your day (lol!). That and keypunch/data entry error reduction.

That makes sense.

I agree completely, but I'll ask again, "How long do they have to holdover from yesteryear?"

It seems to me with advancement of computing and printing most of that should be gone. And, in fact, much of it is, but there's still systems out there that cannot print both cases.

If a system supports both cases, I think the holdover should end. Just my opinion.

[webhick]

I agree completely, but I'll ask again, "How long do they have to holdover from yesteryear?"

Until there is no one left alive to remember yesteryear.

[Doktor Avalanche]

So you have "practiced law" earning the label/status of a "licensed attorney". Attorneys have always amazed me! What a breed! I have encountered very few whom didn't worship the very thing their "Monastery" (law school) taught them to 'worship' ~ Their many "gods" (aka statutes, regulations, case law, etc..)

I've also discovered their "Monastery" taught them that their "many gods" are very complex, thus attorney's became very complex in their perception of 'the law' themselves.

Now I am not putting you down, as I realize this is the path "attorneys" take in order to support themselves and their families.

Now, rather than taking a complex attorney approach, lets try to keep this simple. I read your 'laundry list' and I respect your achievements and accomplishments. To me it demonstrates vision, hard work, sacrifice, discipline, to say the very least. However, in an effort of keeping this real simple, I will pose the (simplified) reason why the Patriots of the us of A bitch about their name being printed in all UPPER case.

This is very simple. Patriots claim State governments create corporations/a corporations "name" in ALL UPPER CASE, and thus ALL UPPER CASE indicates a man-made entity. Honestly I have not verified this. The way to verify this is to review the papers of incorporation issued from a (any) said State Dept.

If said papers print the corporate name is ALL UPPER CASE, Patriots reason the State follows this agenda with any and all artifical entities they create, including your name when it appears in ALL UPPER CASE.

Quite frankly, I find this application of logic very sound.

However, being that we have "Courts of Equity", what judge wants to rule in favor of any plaintiff/defendant that would deny the court of any equity not in favor of the State? The judges first allegiance is to the State, am I not correct?

If I am overlooking something/anything "Professor" please kindly show me so.

Btw. "mr. irs"..."Nikki" , I will address your question to my username later 2day.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

So you have "practiced law" earning the label/status of a "licensed attorney". Attorneys have always amazed me! What a breed! I have encountered very few whom didn't worship the very thing their "Monastery" (law school) taught them to 'worship' ~ Their many "gods" (aka statutes, regulations, case law, etc..)

I've also discovered their "Monastery" taught them that their "many gods" are very complex, thus attorney's became very complex in their perception of 'the law' themselves.

Now I am not putting you down, as I realize this is the path "attorneys" take in order to support themselves and their families.

Now, rather than taking a complex attorney approach, lets try to keep this simple. I read your 'laundry list' and I respect your achievements and accomplishments. To me it demonstrates vision, hard work, sacrifice, discipline, to say the very least. However, in an effort of keeping this real simple, I will pose the (simplified) reason why the Patriots of the us of A bitch about their name being printed in all UPPER case.

This is very simple. Patriots claim State governments create corporations/a corporations "name" in ALL UPPER CASE, and thus ALL UPPER CASE indicates a man-made entity. Honestly I have not verified this. The way to verify this is to review the papers of incorporation issued from a (any) said State Dept.

If said papers print the corporate name is ALL UPPER CASE, Patriots reason the State follows this agenda with any and all artifical entities they create, including your name when it appears in ALL UPPER CASE.

Quite frankly, I find this application of logic very sound.

However, being that we have "Courts of Equity", what judge wants to rule in favor of any plaintiff/defendant that would deny the court of any equity not in favor of the State? The judges first allegiance is to the State, am I not correct?

If I am overlooking something/anything "Professor" please kindly show me so.

Btw. "mr. irs"..."Nikki" , I will address your question to my username later 2day.

A dumb ass eh? Lol.. Sonny boy, your picture above clearly demonstrates the only dumb ass in here is you...lol

[Gregg]

That's "lying dumbass who makes fake quotes to justify his erroneous position"

[Nikki]

Since SFBFKADMVP is no longer with us, perhaps we should honor our newest credibility-challenged guest with a special moniker: LPOSKAGASE

[Gregg]

Since SFBFKADMVP is no longer with us, perhaps we should honor our newest credibility-challenged guest with a special moniker: LPOSKAGASE

Great idea! Get Webhick to make up a branding iron so we can christen him properly!

[Nikki]

Webhick:

Can you, at least temporarily untill he confesses his blatant fraud, assigh the moniker as suggested above?