Posted by Two Cities on September 21, 1998 at 16:48:30:
In Reply to: Re: Affidavit Notice posted by Patrick Henry on September 21, 1998 at 14:58:42:
:Yes, and I look with amusement at the thus-far illiterate
:course of said discussion.
I'm glad to be of some use. Don't laugh too hard.
:It is total
:balderdash, having neither substance nor
:historical veracity. If you want to joust with the
:upper-case/lower-case windmills in your confrontations
:with government, have at it. But I won't be
:holding my breath waiting for you to prevail.
Glad to hear your opinion.
:CAPITALIZATION of individual words HAS
:ANCIENTLY been used to denote emphasis. And I
:challenge you to come up with any historical or
:legal EVIDENCE that it either changes the intended
:meaning, or has any legal signification.
The premier EXECUTIVE seems to be raising questions
of the meaning of the word "is". I am hard put to
maintain that level of analysis, due to lack of funding.
I have other challenges.
:It is my opinion that Capitalization vs.
:non-capitalization is a red-herring at best.
Well, you are true to your statement.
Which "Capitalization", was that? Or are we discussing
capitalization in general?
It is however my opinion that capitilization,
especially as employed by statutory government entities
denote separately identifiable entities.
such as town of Edmonds (my first document anno 1884)
to Town of Edmonds (declared duly incorporated 1890,
by county commisioners, acting upon a document),
subsequently changed to City of Edmonds (population),
to CITY OF EDMONDS by virtue of resolutions and ordinances
taken in the fall of 1970, resulting in the adoption of
an optional municipal code charter, beginning in January 1971,
reflected in the current seal (the signature of the entity) by
the numerals 1971, that definitely did not sign off on any previous
activity. CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, which appear to run concurrently
with City Council Meetings, also evidence their separatenes with
other entities, such as EDMONDS, where the contractual relationships
between these entities is concerned. When it comes to the 'life',
of entities nothing is oral. Now EDMONDS appears to be a municipal
coorporation engaged in various activities, among others maintaining
a POLICE, for the purpose of CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT. The City Attorney,
says on the record, that the previous entities have been subsumed, but
at least he acknowledges their existence, or that they once existed.
:As far as birth certificate, Birth Certificate,
:BIRTH CERTIFICATE, certificate of birth, Certificate
:of Birth, or CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH, until I am shown
:proof to the contrary, I will continue to
:advocate that each of the terms is 100% identical
:in meaning in all respects, commonly and legally. If
:you will do some research, you will find that the very
:earliest Birth Certificates more often than not
:used the form Certificate of Birth. Even those which
:were issued through the Department of
:Commerce of the United States of America. And there
:is NO QUESTION that the children named
:upon those Department of Commerce certificates were
:in fact chattel the the central government.
You are of course welcome to claim identity between
those things that are clearly different. The ASCII
representation of characters uses different number codes,
the act of depressing the "shift" key on a type-writer
is an act separate from not using it. The act of not falling
through the ice, different from plunging below. In signature
analysis, that which does not look the same, is not the same.
What does your theory directly above explain?
:In my earlier more foolish years I worked for various
:state government departments. I have designed
:forms for state use. I can say from experience that
:it would be an extremely rare occurrence if those
:"Joe & Jane Sixpack" government employees whose job
:it was to design a new form ever consider
:whether or not a work should be capitalized or not.
:Esthetics, available design resources, etc., more
:generally control a form's FORM.
I'm glad they are not any longer (the years). Do you mean to tell me
that forms of legal significance were not routed for
approval by counsel, to ensure that the form would
implement the statutory rule at hand?
Esthetics generally control the form? Pretty.
Are you telling me that the COURTS are ENFORCING
contractual interpretations of appearance?
Are you suggesting that the current form of government
is a result of the loose construction of said "Joe & Jane"?
Why, the Statutory Law Committee, has a website, where they
go into great length over which words are capitalized and some
that are not. Are you telling me they are irrelevant?
In my earlier more foolish years, I used to troubleshoot and design
communications systems. I got to a level of analysis that allowed
me to listen to the physical manifestations, and correlate directly
with both software, firmware and hardware anomalies.
Web-boards run their own curiosities.
Post a Followup