Black's Law Dictionary is a Hoax and there is no such thing as "capitus diminutio"

Under 'color of law', it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.


Any way that they are attempting to separate a person from their Constitutional rights is committing a crime no matter how they try to word it on their psuedo-but not legal-documents.

And that includes as many games they want to play with the word person!

You are a natual person. You are not an atificial person. All government and banking documents refer to you as an artificial person without your consent or should I say through TACIT consent (if you did not object to it,
you agree to it) or if you did'nt say no you said yes with out saying yes.
Here in Canada Includes is another interesting legal term. If in a statute it reads eg motor vehicle act (not word for word) An accident is a collision between two parties BLAh BLAH... then near the end of the diffinition of accident it reads an accident INCLUDES intentional collisions. This means every accident was intentional and the courts are only dealing with parties that have confessed to intentional collisions because you've signed your liscence. This is only one of many examples of the term includes within statutes. Look up includes in blacks , It says to confine within,attain,shut up, contain, inclose....... then read the definition folloeing includes. It's Incluslo unis est exclusio alterius- The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The original poster said a curious thing, the lawyer was not cheap he must know, The prior post mentions attorney client relationship is not what you think. I agree the attorney is loyal to the court first the the client.
When you challenge the system the lawyer denies the truth either by ignorance or by deceit.

reply to post by mystiq


I think there are many well meaning people enforcing statutes that really don't understand the word games within them. I think the the foundations are rumbling ever so slightly with films like Freedom to facism etc

Here is a great film that deals with the issue of artificial and natural persons and how they are used within the statutes of Canada. The principles apply in to America as well.

video.google.com...

Originally posted by mystiq
Under 'color of law', it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

That is not quite the correct way to use that term, but the meaning is essentially correct...

A person who is acting "under color of law" cannot violate the civil rights of a person, or a section 1983 Civil Rights suit can be brought against that person. In order to be acting under color of law, that person must have authority to act in a certain capacity. A policeman, for example, is acting under color of law when he is on duty. He is also acting under color of law if he is off duty, but is wearing his uniform/carrying his badge/driving his car and implying that because of those things he has certain authority.

And I personally use all caps in a lot of legal documents because it is easier to read. Especially in something like a contract or an act of sale that might have soooo much fine print.

reply to post by TheHypnoToad


Much better to keep the print fine and use all caps. It saves paper, and these days thats all that matters

John Doe - Capitis Diminutio Minima

The lowest or least comprehensisive degree of loss of status.This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed.

It happened upon the arrogation (pride) of a person who had been his own master (surjuris) ( of his own right, not under any legal disability)

It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered.

_____________________________________________________________

You are a soveriegn a country of your own under CD minima until you "plug in" to the legal system or social contract ie Bill of rights (Canada)
_____________________________________________________________

John DOE - Capitis Diminutio Media

A lesser or medium loss of status this occured where a man loses his rightsof citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

_____________________________________________________________

JOHN DOE - Capitis Diminutio Maxima

The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occured when a man's conditionwas changed from one of freedom to one of bondage,
when he became a slave . It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

_____________________________________________________________

Rules are made to be boken however,

Federal interpretations act common names,

#38. The name commonly applied to any country , place , body, corporation, society, officer functionary, person, party or thing means the country..(same as former list)..party or thing to which the name is not the formalor extended designation thereof.

So.. the formal name formation dos'nt matter until you get into contracts. If you are trying to find out if it's a natural or artificial person you must find the source of creation of the name. OK?
_____________________________________________________________

Joinder of a natural and artificial person

What is a Joinder?

Joinder - Joining or coupling together uniting two or more constituents or elements in one, uniting another person in some legal step or proceeding union concurrence.

How must occur?

Voluntary , Unconstrained by interferance unimpelled by another's influence spontanious acting on ones self. Proceeding from the free and unrestricted will of the person.

Why must it be Voluntary?

Universal declaration of human rights Dec 10 1948

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all there forms.

How can it occur?

TACIT

Tacit consent is consent iferred from the fact that the party kept silence when he had an oppurtunity to forbid or refuse.

or if you did'nt say no you said yes.

Tacit Acceptance - In cival law a tacit acceptance of an inheritance (position) takes place when some act is done by the heir which nessesarily supposes his intention to accept and which he would have no right to do, but in his capacity as heir (person)

Anyone who tries to tell capitalization in insignificant is either a liar or just dos'nt know any better and in some cases both.

There are an increasing amount of people learning their rights. It's really worth the little bit of effort that it takes.

Check out this 1/2 hour flick


video.google.com...

Originally posted by Mad_Hatter
HypnoToad,

I have a question for you since you seem to be an attorney. Do you have an actual copy of Black's Law Dictionary? If so, could you check and see if there is anything included about Capitis Diminuto? I have read from multiple places that this seems to be the only law book containing that particluar "law." I would love for someone that actually has the book to look this up so this rumor of that law can be put to bed.

Also, I agree that the article from Reuters is questionable. That's why I have emailed them directly about it.

[/quote


____________________________________________________________
Swingarm says,

I have the third and fifth editions My post above contains the deffinitions from the third edition as well, other posts in this thread concerning includes and tacit and tacit acceptance and inclusio unlus est exclusio alterius came from there.


[edit on 21-6-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Swingarm]

Here is a small portion of the film esoteric agenda that deals with capitis dimmutio

www.youtube.com...

Esoteric Agenda is an absolutly must see video.

video.google.com...#

reply to post by Swingarm


Just a fyi friend. Esoteric Agenda has a lot of misinformation in it, but it also brings some good points. Just because Capitus Diminutio is in the film does not make it true. Go ahead and try that defense and court and see how well it works. I would like you to find me some court case citings that have actually had success with this defense. Maybe then you will convince me.

reply to post by Mad_Hatter


Hey If you don't beleive it thats fine with me. I guess I should have known better, the title of your thread what it is. This takes extreme balls to do no doubt. You would not get an attorney to RE-present you on this. You'd have to go it alone. Like I mentioned before check Irene Gravenhorst. I did'nt beleive it on first glance but I'm now convinced.

Esoteric may have some dis info but it introduced me to codex alimentarius. I'm greatfull for this. Will I be able to do anything about it ?
Most likley not. But I write my members of parliment and talk about with other that have no clue about it. It's really not dealt with in the media, surprise surprise.

FACTS ABOUT CODEX:
1. Codex Alimentarius requires that all meats, poultry, fish, fruit and vegetables must be irradiated by Dec. 31, 2009.
2. Codex Alimentarius requires that all dairy cattle are to be given Monsanto bovine growth hormone by Dec. 31, 2009.
3. Codex Alimentarius reclassifies vitamin and mineral supplements as toxins and dramatically limits their dosage and availability.
4. Many nations have already harmonized their laws with Codex Alimentarius making it their de facto law. This has already been approved by the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and others.
5. Codex Alimentarius allows significant trade sanctions to be levied against noncompliant nations.
6. In 2005 there were five bills submitted to U.S congress to weaken or eliminate DSHEA.

Codex Alimentarius is a shrewd vehicle for protecting the pharmaceutical industry from the loss of income it stands to suffer due to the inevitable growth of natural healthcare.

In Canada it comes in the form of bill c51 and c52 and it's bad news.

This may not work due to pasword protection

reply to post by roadgravel

Neither Termes de la Ley, nor Bouviers, make any mention of "capitus diminutio." Bouviers has a listing for "Capias," which means an old form of writ. Also you need to realize that Law Latin is different from true Latin. Law Latin is a form of pig Latin used by smarmy lawyers (probably as a secretive cant, in lieu of the obsolete Law French). Black's first edition was a plagiarism of Anderson's Law Dictionary. Black's 2nd Ed. was pretty good, but afterwards got gradually watered down. Current editions are for idiots. See, for example, Black's modern entry for "Obligation" has no reference at all to Art. I, Sec. 10 -- or even Dartmouth! The Supreme Court still references Bouviers today, despite being last published in 1914 (3rd Rev.). Track various definitions, see how they change over time and lose their original citations; bastardizing jurisprudence as a whole, and steering it towards entirely different directions. Use of ALL CAPS is modern, birth certificates and driver licenses did not exist prior to late 1800s. Might be some grain of truth to the theory of implied contracts in these typographical usages. Most minds are incapable of legal abstraction, and are therefore ripe for slavery by stealth; sedition by syntax. See "Silver Bulletin" by Bill Medina for more info. OBSTA PRINCIPIIS!

Great work, however I still think that if this is not true then why do they capitalize all the letters? If our life, liberty, and property can not be taken away then why are many people forced to leave their homes?

Found this article on it www.rumormillnews.com...

This is also a really good one www.answers.com...

I don't doubt what your lawyer told you. Remember they teach you only what they want you to know. I gave an affidavit for traffic citations to a friend of mine. He showed it to his friends father which is a lawyer. He said it was strange but was without a doubt iron clad.

Whatever the case, this is something that does need to be researched further. I certainly don't want this to be true, but it just makes more sense to me if it is. I do find that very interesting about the Black's Law Dictionary being a fraud. Even if it is a fraud, the courts can go by fraud if they say its not. They have the last word. I guess its kind of like saying the earth is round to people who still think its flat.

It seems we need to get to the reason why certain things are put in CAPS. Has anyone asked a Court Stenographer about this?

Excellent thread! Starred and Flagged.

I have often been faced with CT's that insisted this was a solid fact. But I always believed that such a doctrine could not be effected into law without a direct assertion to that end within the legal system. Maybe then, in times of Empire, but not now.

Answer the following to remove the disease from your brain, or at least to show everyone else that you're.... of questionable mind.

1) What is a person under law? Why are persons defined as such?

2) What is a fictitious identity? How are they used?

3) How does a person do business vs. a fictitious identity.

4) Are all persons fictitious?

5) Are all fictitious identities persons?

6) If your capital letter name is a fictitious identity, how exactly does that change anything about the way you operate or do business?

7) If you are a fictitious identity under law, what would you be if you were a person?

8) If the birth certificates make you into a fictitious person, what were people before birth certificates? How were people represented under law before then?

9) Presuming you were a person before birth certificates, what changed after you became a fictitious identity?

10) Can you register your own fictitious identities?

11) Why would you want to do that?

12) If a corporation is a fictitious identity with the same rights as a person, how does that relate to your all capital letter name being an incorporated fictitious identity remove your inalienable rights?

13) Does a lowercase "L" resemble an upper case "I"? l vs. I

14) Do you think that could cause confusion on important legal documents?

15) What are 5 purpose of a name (i.e identity - fictitious or not)?

16) Are you your lower case name? Why?

17) Are you your capital letter name? Why?

18) How can what you are be represented without a fictitious identity?

19) Where was it established that your identity is in fact your true nature?

20) What exactly are YOU?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I disagree, A lawyer RE-presents you within the maritime admiralty jurisdiction. If you try to claim yourself as a natual person in common law jurisdiction by estople your challenging the whole legal system. Under those circumstances your lawyer dos'nt give a # about you. You have to learn this yourself and defend yourself. Even if you do establish yourself as a natural person there is still a list of tricks used by the court to bind you back to the status of plantation slave in admiralty law. Check out paradigm education group (Canadian). It deals with this issue and how it is used in the construction of stautes. Within statutes they regularily (through definitions that mean somthing totally different than the term meaning in the real world) trick people into accepting servitude through some type of benifit. Much like the freak that lures little children into their car with the lolli pop. If you'd rather think this is a ferry tale, it dos'nt surprise me because after all if it were true it would be on the nightly news now would'nt it ?

You are right.

Madhatter I admire your research skills but the name in CAPS conspiracy is really not a HOAX.
I personally know people here in The Netherlands that never ever have paid TAX, FINES or any other amount of many to entities that fall under admiralty law in other words the law of commerce.
For more info read my threads.