Jovial (23 Nov 2014)
"More Evidence on the ALL CAPS controversy"

Someone posted a birth certificate with names spelled in ALL CAPS to support the idea that perhaps it means something.  If it really mattered, names would be spelled in ALL CAPS everywhere all the time, but they are not.   Whether your name is spelled in ALL CAPS on your birth certificate depends on where you live and varies by state and even county.

Here are a few examples of birth certificates where names are NOT spelled in "all caps"

So no, it doesn't ALWAYS happen, and if it doesn't always happen, the use of ALL CAPS on any one birth certificate is therefore not conclusive proof that births are used collateral and the use of mixed case in these birth certificates would indeed be evidence contrary to the assertions that a name in all caps is establishing you as a corporation.

The practice of spelling names in ALL CAPS originated to save time correcting certificates.  You don't want the guy whose name is "deFlueres" to object you spelled it "Deflueres" on his birth certificate.  To avoid those kinds of problems, and the time wasted in correcting them, many jurisdictions do indeed use ALL CAPS in order to avoid offending people and avoid having clerks retype a certificate that would not need retyping had ALL CAPS been used.

But birth certificates are controlled at the state, and in some states, at the county level.  Yet this is allegedly being used as collateral at the FEDERAL level.  If the allegation is true, why hasn't the Federal Government taken over birth certificates?  Because the Constitution forbids it.  The Federal Government does not have to power to do anything not explicitely enumerated to the Federal Government in the constitution.  This is not one of them.  They can't take an asset away from a state without compensating the state.  So if humans truly are "assets", the Fed would buy humans at the same price they are selling them for.  Nothing to be made there.

Now Phil said, "You go ahead and believe the lawyers, Iíll believe the Bible first and my observations secondly."  Well, that is sort of a silly statement.  the Bible does not say American citizens are used as human collateral.  And if the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no difference between "John Doe" and "JOHN DOE" (which I documented at ), then that IS the law of the land.  It is not a matter of believing vs disbelieving "the lawyers", it is a matter of establishing what the law of the land is.  The LAW of the land has been established by our Highest Court that "JOHN DOE" is not distinct from "John Doe".  This is more a matter of believing vs disbelieving "NON-LAWYERS" describing the LAW contrary to how the Supreme Court describes it.  So what we have here is

  • THE SUPREME COURT says "JOHN DOE" is not distinct from "John Doe". Their opinion counts, because it establishes the law of the land.
  • NUMEROUS CONSPIRACISTS (who are NOT lawyers) claim "JOHN DOE" is a legally incorporated version of "John Doe", contrary to Supreme Court rulings.  Their opinion about the law doesn't really count if it contradicts a Supreme Court ruling.
  • THE BIBLE is silent on the issue of whether this is happening in modern day America, but it does WARN us that there are people out there who "wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." (1 Tim 1:8).  That description fits these non-lawyers making assertions about the law that contradict the rulings of the Supreme Court, doesn't it?

Who you going to believe?  The Bible does warn us about these people, doesn't it?

As a side matter, shows that in Indiana, the Department of Health, which issues birth certificates, is a subagency of the Department of Security.  That is "Security" in the sense of keeping the state Secure from enemies, not as in the sense of collateral for a debt.

The US population is 317 million, not counting those who have died.  With about 2.5 million people dieing per year, we're talking over 400 million Americans since 1933.  If they've all been pledged as collateral to a loan, surely with that many records, the paperwork would leak out on at least one of them somewhere.  So my question is this.....