Phil2 responded to one of my post by trying to allege that all of my previous examples were invalid, but completely ignored the fact that I did provide evidence he refused to address.  https://github.com/m0smith/topoged/wiki/Entering-a-Simple-Birth-Certificate shows an example of a birth certificate from the State of New York in which the baby's name is filled out "John Edward Simoneit" in mixed case, not in ALL CAPS.  It is a "Birth Certificate", not a "Certificate of Live Birth".  That is a reality.  That is a truth that cannot be dismissed by pretending it does not exist and claiming I failed to produce a proper example.

Phil also had this to say,

"You listed a bunch of cases here http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/nov2014/jovial119-5.htm and then stated that the Supreme Ct. had ruled on the ALL CAPS name. Not one of those cases is a Supreme Ct. case. You'll find a ton of Supreme Ct. cases here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases ....... please notice how they are cited. I suggest that you take a law course or two."

Phil....did you read the page you quoted?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases  gives a list of Supreme Court cases but also says "This list does not contain every case decided by the Court."  There is a place to go to get a list of all cases that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court.  However, it will only show cases in which they have issued an independent ruling from the lower court, mostly to overrule it.

If a US District Appelant Court makes a ruling, and the Supreme Court disagrees with the Appellant Court, the Supreme Court can hear the case and overrule it.  If they agree with the Appellant Court, most of the time they will refuse to hear the case because it is a waste of time to do so, and they simply let the lower court ruling stand, and the case stands as a precedent JUST AS IF the US Supreme Court had heard it themselves.  that is how our US Court system works.  They CAN hear a case and affirm a ruling with their own ruling, but they usually don't unless it is something that involves original jurisdiction, or 2 different appellant courts in two different districts have disagreed, or a majority leaning against the lower court ruling at the onset, although sometimes justices change their mind after they hear all the arguments.  In re the list I gave at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/nov2014/jovial119-5.htm , several were marked "F.Supp", meaning it made it into the Federal Supplement because they are viewed as important cases. 

None of these cases involved people waiving their rights to protest on the grounds the judges ruled on.  If that were the case, they would not have made comments about whether ALL CAPS make a difference.  Judges only issue an opinion based on the NARROWEST reason to reject or accept an appeal.  "Narrowist" is how the courts have worded it, but what they mean by that is the LEAST IMPORTANT reason.  So if they issued an opinion based on whether ALL CAPS was significant, it was because they HAD to, in that the appeal could not have been decided that way without that opinion.  If a judge rejects a case for a trivial reason, he won't rule on the case for a more important reason.  If they lost their right to protest the ALL CAPS issue for a reason that was not on the merits, the judge would not comment on the merits of whether ALL CAPS is significant.  The fact they did proves there was no other reason the case could have been decided the way it was.

Now suppose for a moment that the US Govt HAS pledged all citizens as security for loans.  How do they get new loans?  There's nothing left to pledge if that has already been pledged?  So there's a logical problem here that must be addressed.   

Also, the previously cited quotes prove that the ALL CAPS issue is not what makes or breaks the ability of the Government to pledge citizen's lives as security.  If that were the case, then John Edward Simoneit of New York is not pledged.  Why is he special?  If the government really has done what you claim, the security does not rest on whether their names are spelled in ALL CAPS or not and the issue of whether their name is spelled in mixed case or ALL CAPS does not affect whether they did or did not do it.

Also, there was a rumor that was reported in even the liberal media outlets that shortly after Baryy O took over, he pledged American land to the Chinese as collateral.  Why would he do that if they were taking the lives of US citizens? 

Personally, it would not shock me if both rumors were right.  Pledging the lives of citizens is a great propoganda tool, because it gets a potential military agressor to see American lives as assets they don't want to destroy, and thus, is a deterrent to a military attack.  I am not saying I approve of this....I don't.  Just saying I understand why someone would do it.  But I doubt the people doing it consider the issue to rest on the ALL CAPS usage, it violates American Law, and there hasn't been any paperwork produced to prove this is really being done.  It is only at the rumor level, not a known fact, and it has several flaws to the theory , not only in re whether ALL CAPS is significant, but also by virtue of the fact that it involves the Federal Government pledging a state asset.

Shalom,

Joe