In United States - Legal Straw Man Leads to Dismissal?

I live in the United States. I have noticed that every government document with my name on it misspells my name by printing it in all capital letters. According to every English grammar and style guide I've seen, proper nouns such as people's names are not to be spelled in all capital letters. In fact, names spelled in all capital letters are considered to be acronyms.

My understanding is that in order to be valid, a legal filing must name all parties precisely and unambiguously. Every last letter and piece of punctuation is critical (has "deadly force.") Since my name as it appears in the government's records is not really my name, but rather a legal fiction, how can a court claim jurisdiction over my actual person? It's not within my power to appear as a fictitious character, and the law cannot command an impossibility. In the absence of having a person to answer for the crime, would a court be forced to dismiss?

You could certainly try to go in and argue that, but you will likely lose in front of most judges unfortunately; many court docs just caption it as such and it has become accepted.

Well as I understand it, jurisdiction ("juris diction") means the swearing of an oath, or an agreement by one party to subject himself to the laws of another party. United States courts claim jurisdiction over US citizens due to the fact that many US citizens do certain things, like make use of the government's Social Security numbers, and voluntarily file tax returns. Being born in the United States, as I understand it, entitles me to US citizenship but does not obligate me to accept that status.

Unfortunately, my parents applied for a Social Security number for me when I was born. However, I myself did not enter into any contracts knowingly, willingly, and intentionally with the US government where I accepted the status of US citizenship and the jurisdiction that implies. Should I notice the court that I reserve my rights under UCC 1-207 not to be forced to perform under the terms of a contract that I did not enter into knowingly, willingly, and intentionally? How would I do that? And what do you think would happen if I disclaimed US citizenship in that way?

What is the underlying issue; what do you want to do?

I want to make it impossible for a US court to bring charges against my flesh-and-blood person. They may be able to bring charges against an artificial ink-and-paper identity, an identity that the government created for its record-keeping purposes and which therefore belongs to them. But what I want, as a flesh-and-blood person, is to not be required to assume that created identity. If no human being steps forward and agrees (either by oath or by acquiescence) to assume that identity and its alleged liabilities, then what need is there for anyone to defend himself/herself against those liabilities in court?

What I want to know is how to make sure the court understands that I am a flesh-and-blood person with no ability to appear before them as the artificial identity that is the only entity they can legally try for guilt.

As far as I can see, a legal identity is nothing more than a pile of paperwork bearing a name that appears to belong to a human being (but doesn't, unless that person accepts it as his/her own.) I don't want to be put in a position where I'm stuck defending myself in court against crimes that the state alleges were committed by a pile of paperwork.

I think the burden of proof is on the people to show how a pile of paperwork is able to commit a crime at all. If, as I suspect, a pile of paperwork cannot commit a crime, then they should have to show how a human being (hypothetically myself) that might be called to appear before the court is in any way equivalent to that pile of paperwork. Since the charges are brought against the pile of paperwork, what makes them think that I'm obligated to, or even able to, answer for them?

I want to make sure they understand that since I am a flesh-and-blood human being, and not a pile of paperwork with an unrecognized acronym printed on it, there is no legal way for them to claim jurisdiction over me.

i hope they answer this but they might not - if people knew it was this easy to stay out of jail then no one would pay crazy money for a defense lawyer and an entire profession would be out of work...

acdd

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I live in the United States. I have noticed that every government document with my name on it misspells my name by printing it in all capital letters. According to every English grammar and style guide I've seen, proper nouns such as people's names are not to be spelled in all capital letters. In fact, names spelled in all capital letters are considered to be acronyms.

My understanding is that in order to be valid, a legal filing must name all parties precisely and unambiguously. Every last letter and piece of punctuation is critical (has "deadly force.") Since my name as it appears in the government's records is not really my name, but rather a legal fiction, how can a court claim jurisdiction over my actual person? It's not within my power to appear as a fictitious character, and the law cannot command an impossibility. In the absence of having a person to answer for the crime, would a court be forced to dismiss?