# Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009 "2015-08-04T21:07:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/381 "2015-08-21T22:32:58Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > When the subject is changed from Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule to me personally, then I’m damned for failing to confess that I am the one changing the subject from the subject to me personally. No one has demanded that you “confess” to changing the subject. We just wish you would actually participate in a reasonable manner in the thread that you chose to start. Accusations that you have been damned for failing to “confess” are silly and not even factual. They are odd opinions held solely by you. The topic has never been changed to “you personally.” That is simply one more example of your habit of misconstruing what has been posted. > [@Josf](#): > > When I ignore the changes from the subject to me personally, I am damned as someone refusing to answer questions, and I am damned as someone (who must confess) who is using the Debate forum as a personal Blog. No. When you spout nonsense couched in terms that use English words, but assigning them meanings that they do not actually convey among other speakers of English, you raise questions as to what you are (very unsuccessfully) trying to convey. You are not required to answer those question and no one in authority on this forum has indicated that you are required to answer. (Just the opposite, in fact.) However, when you insist on giving words meanings that do not correspond to the meanings anyone else understands them to convey, you invite challenges to your statements. You are free to refrain from responding and the other posters are free to draw conclusions from your persistent misuse of language and your refusal to explain the source(s) of your idiolect. To the extent that you continue to post in a manner that no one else can understand, you are not engaged in a debate, but are simply posting random thoughts (poorly expressed), that wander through your mind. That is very much the nature of a blog, in which one casts one’s ideas out to the world without actually engaging others in genuine discussion. > [@Josf](#): > > Now the subject turns to the Divided meanings of Debate. > > 1. Debate is whatever you think constitutes a Debate, and it is your forum to police as you see fit with any Rules you make up, or any Rules you already published. > > 2. Debate to me is a forum where competitive ideas are shared and the idea is to find the higher quality and lower cost viewpoint while the competition of ideas are ongoing during Debate. The winners (so called) are those who manage to gain the power of knowledge as the competition of ideas works to find the Division between higher and lower quality ideas, and the Division between lower and higher cost ideas. And yet, you refuse to actually share ideas, masking whatever ideas you have behind words contorted away from their agreed upon meanings. > [@Josf](#): > > When my performance (me, I, the one typing right now) is unsatisfactory then someone can let me know and I can move on to another forum where competitive ideas are welcomed and debate is allowed on specific topics such as Division along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. We have had multiple posters, in this thread, express their honest evaluation that your performance is unsatisfactory. That you persist in your [Humpty Dumpty](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16949052#post16949052) approach to discussion is not the fault of the other posters. Competitive ideas are welcome in this forum. Odd claims that rely on the misuse of language and the presentation of clear errors in regard to history, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/382 "2015-08-22T11:36:54Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > English words on both sides Divided along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule: > > 1. Bill of Rights > > 2. “Shall not be questioned.” > > How many contradictions are self-evident to anyone caring to see the contradictions? > > To those on the side that prefer not to see the contradictions there are none; and that too shall not be questioned. > > … > > Here is another (obvious) side: > > Congress, so called, ignores Rule of Law and replaces Rule of Law with Criminal Rule at will. Who dares to question otherwise? > > 1. Some do > > 2. Some don’t So your position is that the Bill of Rights is part of the (good) Rule of Law, but Congress replaced that with the clause that the validity of the public debt “shall not be questioned” and now we have criminal rule? I don’t want to misrepresent your position, but I think that you are placing the wrong meaning on the phrase “shall not be questioned.” Are you suggesting that this somehow means I am violating the Constitution if I say that such and such public expenditure is improper, unconstitutional, or wasn’t validly bargained for, thereby violating my freedom of speech? That is not at all what that means, and it represents a misunderstanding of the law. I can cite for you if you would like, but before I waste keystrokes I want to make sure that is your position. All that phrase means is that the United States government will honor its debts. If you invest in a Treasury bond, then it will be repaid. No law can be passed to dishonor or refuse payment on that bond. No rights are violated and it protects the credit of the United States. It is a non-controversial statement. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/383 "2015-08-22T19:17:18Z")
> [@](#): > > No one has demanded that you “confess” to changing the subject. We just wish you would actually participate in a reasonable manner in the thread that you chose to start. > Accusations that you have been damned for failing to “confess” are silly and not even factual. They are odd opinions held solely by you. The Topic above is a focus upon me personally rather than people in general. Divided are those who focus attention on people personally on one side, and on the other side are those who work to avoid focus of attention on individual personal characters when discussing a Topic. Divisions along Rules Published as Forum Rules (no personal attacks) versus personal attacks becoming the Topic because that is a choice made. 1. Those who effectively work to avoid personal attacks and character assassination. 2. Those who work to ignore the actual topic and change the topic from the topic, and change the topic to personal attacks and character assassination. Examples: “Please don’t.” “Yikes, that post reads like a game of Milton Friedman Buzzword Bingo.” “The posts of yours under discussion are riddled with jargon and short on clarity.” “If you want to make this out to be libel, I suggest you seek legal counsel.” “Are you a part of the “Freemen on the land” movement?” “And if ye shall find the chulengo, ye mustn’t chinga the chulengo, for that is an abomination. However, if the chulengo giveth permission, but spitting twice in thy face, then ye may stroke the balls of the chulengo, if it be a man-child chulengo.” “I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.” “And then…the second man turned to the first and started telling him how Dick Cheney had kidnapped him and inserted top secret DNA strands into his anus.” “Funding based on land mass is a stupid idea, and still results in funding coming from individual people.” "I’m not making any accusations, but I’m not entirely convinced you are human. You sound like a robot attempting to write vaguely in the style and vocabulary of a typical GD poster, but without the form, structure or coherence. Is this what you’re going for? “I’m not trying to flame you, man, because I still have hope that you’re just a misguided human who needs some help.” “I mean it lacks incoherence or walls of text but you know how it goes.” That is the first page. Attempts to connect me to other people as if the topic is me personally, such as attempts to connect me to people labeled as Sovereign Citizens, or “misguided human” “Freemen on the Land,” or whatever: is clearly (unless your viewpoint ignores the clarity I see from my viewpoint) moving from Rule of Forum and moving to rule by changing the topic from the topic and changing the topic to me personally. Damned if I point this out, and damned if I do not point this out, and so the Topic is designed to include this specific eventuality within the Topic boundaries. Divisions along Rule of Law (Published forum rules) versus Criminal Rule (those who ignore the actual published forum rules) and now the subject can turn once again to my personal character as I choose to point this out, rather than the actual information pointed out, such as, again, efforts to connect me personally to other people, and efforts to characterize me personally as someone worthy of ridicule. > [@](#): > > The topic has never been changed to “you personally.” Moving from last page to first page: "My money is on taxation equals slavery and the criminals are the ones who want to punish Josef for not paying taxes. I always comes down to taxes with the SovCits, " “I think I’ve got it. Buried in that last screed was something about debt slavery. So Josef doesn’t have to pay federal taxes because they didn’t exist under the Articles and the Constitution did not abolish slavery right from the start something something Profit!” Stopping right there for the sake of clarity. Why not call the IRS and have my records checked since the topic has turned from the Topic to my personal life? > [@](#): > > The topic has never been changed to “you personally.” Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule include those who refuse to hear, refuse to see, and refuse to speak about those who are criminals posing as the government. A place and a time rich with this type of information that spells out Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule is American history at the time of the original federal founding. “Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” If someone starts a topic about me, and my tax records, and the Topic also concerns people I am actually connected to, or people I was connected to at one time, and the topic started about me also includes any opinions concerning my mental health, or my lack of ability to write a coherent sentence in English, then I can volunteer to join in on that Topic to help anyone who cares to know about me personally. > [@](#): > > That is simply one more example of your habit of misconstruing what has been posted. The Topic about me can be Titled “The habits of Josf.” An opening statement on the Topic Titled "The Habits of Josf,’ can be something along the lines of how wrong Josf is when Josf wrongly thinks that his personal dealings with the IRS are his personal dealings with the IRS. > [@](#): > > No. When you spout nonsense couched in terms that use English words, but assigning them meanings that they do not actually convey among other speakers of English, you raise questions as to what you are (very unsuccessfully) trying to convey. Spouting nonsense is what Josf does, one of the habits of Josf, as this Josf character habitually spouts nonsense. That is the Topic. If I defend against the move from the Topic to me personally I am merely proving beyond a doubt that I am spouting nonsense. If I point out that Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule includes those who follow Published Forum Rules are Divided from those who don’t, then that too is proof that Josf habitually spouts nonsense. I stay within the Topic boundaries either way; but only from my personal viewpoint which proves to be a personal viewpoint that habitually spouts nonsense, and therefore my viewpoint is irrelevant for any purpose other than to prove that my personal viewpoint is unworthy. > [@](#): > > You are free to refrain from responding and the other posters are free to draw conclusions from your persistent misuse of language and your refusal to explain the source(s) of your idiolect. An example of what someone claims to be “misuse of language” might help when the Topic turns from the Topic to me personally. Someone, for example, can claim that I, me, and only me, misuse language when I use the word Federal to mean a voluntary association. That is a problematic claim if that is the claim since my use of the word federal is offered by John Adams and my use of the word federal is offered by someone writing in defense of the correct use of the word federal. Blaming me for the definition of the word federal, as if I alone made up the word, is problematic since John Adams offers the meaning of the word, in context, and then someone else confirms that meaning well enough in English, and that was done well before I was born, so claiming me, personally, as the one abusing language now, is a problem if the word “federal” is the example used now as proof that I abuse language now. [http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom\_documents/anti\_federalist\_papers/anti\_federalist\_papers\_03.php](http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_03.php) > [@](#): > > There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. Divisions along Rule of Law (federal means voluntary association between states) versus Criminal Rule (national men abuse language). Why do those national men (who were slave traders, and today very few people, with a Bill of Sale in hand, claim to own people) abuse language in that way? > [@](#): > > One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. [http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up](http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up) > [@](#): > > To the extent that you continue to post in a manner that no one else can understand, you are not engaged in a debate, but are simply posting random thoughts (poorly expressed), that wander through your mind. That is very much the nature of a blog, in which one casts one’s ideas out to the world without actually engaging others in genuine discussion. Focus of attention upon negative qualities of me personally is a tactic. Focus of attention upon the voluntary nature of a federation, “the only true and strict sense of the word,” in English, defined by example, after example, before I was even born, can be a method of discussing the actual topic. What, for example, is an example of a federal union, if someone were to ask John Adams as John Adams took his place in the American federal Congress as the American federal Congress discussed, debated, the writing and publishing of the first American document (statute) known as a Declaration of Independence? That would be a topic point of discussion, but that would not be the Josf is an unworthy character topic. Volume I page 57, 58 (73,74 in pdf copy): > [@](#): > > That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: > That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: > That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which has long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn: Rather than the unworthiness of Josf’s character as the Topic, the Topic can be the voluntary nature of a federation as explained in the words of John Adams while John Adams was an American federal Congressman debating, and discussing, the publishing of a Declaration of Independence. Changing from a discussion on that part of the topic (John Adam’s explanation of the voluntary nature of a federal association) to the unworthy character of Josf as Josf failed already to discuss that part of the topic, without actually showing where a failure by the unworthy character of Josf occurred, is a Division along Rule of law versus Criminal Rule. 1. Accusations of unworthiness (of Josf = off topic) while affording the accused a means by which the accused can defend against said accusation in cases where the accusation is demonstrably false. 2. Accusations of unworthiness (of Josf = off topic) without actually showing said unworthiness. > [@](#): > > And yet, you refuse to actually share ideas, masking whatever ideas you have behind words contorted away from their agreed upon meanings. An example might be offered. One possible example is the meaning of the word federal in the context offered by John Adams during the discussion, and during the debate, when the first American federal Congress worked on the first official Declaration of Independence. Do the words explain a voluntary association or not? > [@](#): > > That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only… If the answer is yes, yes the words of John Adams clearly show that the meaning of the word federal is in line with the meaning of the term voluntary association, then that is not a move from the topic to me personally. If the answer is no, then how can someone arrive at that point of view when John Adams is quoted as John Adams offers the words “acquiescence only” when John Adams spoke the words “our connection had been federal only”? Those who are voluntarily associated can, on their say so, un-associate. Even if the topic discussion leads to Division concerning “federal means voluntary” on one side, and “federal does not mean voluntary on the other side”, even if that is the discussion now in this topic, that too is a mirror, clearly, as to what happened in the first example in America when people were Divided as Tories, or Loyalists on the involuntary side, and Regulators, Patriots, and Revolutionary people forming a voluntary federation on the other side. Those on the “federal means voluntary” side offer information concerning the means by which people in States (that are federated) can voluntarily leave the federation, which is known as secession. That happens without me becoming the topic of discussion as my personal character is publicly drug through the mud. > [@](#): > > Odd claims that rely on the misuse of language and the presentation of clear errors in regard to history, not so much. The topic concerns a very specific misuse of language having nothing to do with me personally, and that is clearly stated in English by someone who is not me. My personal character is now claimed as someone who relies upon “the misuse of language,” in yet again another attack upon me personally. > [@](#): > > Odd claims that rely on the misuse of language and the presentation of clear errors in regard to history, not so much. If there is an error, such as the dating error, then those errors are easily identified and corrected. Where is language being misused by me? How about an example of language being misused so as to exemplify the meaning of the misuse of languge? Such as the following example: > [@](#): > > There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. That is at the core of the topic. Those words are not my personal abuse of language. If someone wants to change the topic from the topic to me personally, that can be done, sure, and where then is an example of me personally abusing language? How about a new topic: Josf (not the “Federalist Party” members) abuses language; here are examples proving that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/384 "2015-08-22T19:33:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > **Josf** -Can you please, _without using a wall of text with multiple quotes and/or links and using your own words only_, tell us simply if, by “slavery”, you are also referring to economic or debt “slavery”? Did I miss his answer to this? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/385 "2015-08-22T21:42:03Z")
**Josf** , this isn’t the 1700’s, and we really don’t care to join your club and use your particular interpretations of Mr. Adams archaic definitions of words. This is the year 2015, and if you wish to converse with us, it would be nice if you would use a dictionary that was published within the last twenty years or so, o.k.? By the way, the random capitalization of words is rather distracting, and since you have shown no interest in telling us why you do this, it would be peachy keen if you would either tell us the reason, or cut it out. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/386 "2015-08-22T21:43:27Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Did I miss his answer to this? Has he answered _any_ straightforward requests? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/387 "2015-08-22T21:45:23Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > How about a new topic: Josf (not the “Federalist Party” members) abuses language; here are examples proving that fact. Are you saying that we, the other posters, are members of this “Federalist Party”? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/388 "2015-08-22T21:59:07Z")
Asking for clarification does not constitute a personal attack. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/389 "2015-08-22T22:34:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Has he answered _any_ straightforward requests? He reluctantly answered my question about his first language. There are teeth that have been pulled more easily. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/390 "2015-08-23T05:08:45Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > The Topic above is a focus upon me personally rather than people in general. Divided are those who focus attention on people personally on one side, and on the other side are those who work to avoid focus of attention on individual personal characters when discussing a Topic. No. It is not a focus on you, personally. It is a response to comments you have made. That is a sidebar discussion, not a change in focus. Similarly, your long catalog of comments that you claim were attacks on you were merely observations about your (often confusing) posts. Comments linking you to other people or movements are not attacks. They have been efforts by posters to try to provide a context in which to figure out what you are trying to say, since your actual statements are rarely clear. > [@Josf](#): > > Stopping right there for the sake of clarity. Why not call the IRS and have my records checked since the topic has turned from the Topic to my personal life? The topic has not changed. This was simply one more effort to place your nearly incoherent posts in context. And attempting to discover and publish anything about your actual identity, much less taking that information to the IRS would be a violation of board rules. > [@Josf](#): > > Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule include those who refuse to hear, refuse to see, and refuse to speak about those who are criminals posing as the government. And here is the crux of the problem. Your insistence that the government is “criminal” was challenged on the first page of this thread. You have responded with meaningless walls of text that have persuaded no one of your odd definition of “criminal” (misuse of words). (Your definition of “federal” is also simply an odd interpretation that you have assigned to various selected quotations that you have failed to persuade anyone to accept.) It should be noted that you have been asked on more than one occasion to explain what our current response should be if we accepted your odd definitions and declared that the current government was, in some idiosyncratic way, “criminal.” You have not provided any coherent answer to that question. > [@Josf](#): > > If someone starts a topic about me, and my tax records, and the Topic also concerns people I am actually connected to, or people I was connected to at one time, and the topic started about me also includes any opinions concerning my mental health, or my lack of ability to write a coherent sentence in English, then I can volunteer to join in on that Topic to help anyone who cares to know about me personally. If someone starts a topic on you and your tax records on this site, they will be shut down. That is not an appropriate topic for this message board. Speculating as to whether your odd, rambling, and not very coherent presentation is inspired by one or more of the various “Sovereignty” groups is not an actual investigation into your personal life, but an effort to provide context for your odd use of language. I will make no assertion that there have been no negative comments about your posts or your posting style. There clearly have been. Those comments, however, are a response to your insistence on posting in a style as obscure as possible and generally reflect frustration with your insistence on generally refusing to answer direct questions with direct answers. For example, in Post #21, you were asked a direct question regarding the intention of this thread. You responded first with a declaration that you were not selling anything, (although the question had implied no such thing), then implied that that had been the intent of the question. So, very early on, you were making your person the focus of the discussion while “attacking” (to use your terminology) another poster with implications of his motives. You then went on to quote various authors making vague assertions about their personal views of the constitutional convention while refusing to actually answer the direct question asked. Your continued use of the phrases “Rule of Law” and “Criminal Rule” are nothing but jargon for some sort of philosophy, the objections to which you have merely dismissed without providing a satisfactory response. That is not our problem. That was your choice to obscure the discussion behind a wall of text and jargon. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/391 "2015-08-23T17:31:03Z")
> [@](#): > > For example, in Post #21, you were asked a direct question regarding the intention of this thread. Again, I am not selling anything, I am not on a fishing expedition, and I am not trying to win anyone over to my side, the idea of debate from my side is what it is, not what it is not, and if no one shares my idea of debate, then they do not. Debate is a contest of ideas and anyone caring to see a better (higher quality and lower cost idea) can, anyone caring not to can not, there is no intention on my part to “win anyone over to my side,” as the information offered is self-evident as far as I can concerned, and those who see it, do, and those who don’t, do not. The question (which was offered indirectly because there was an effort to misdirect the the focus of attention onto someone who is presumed, falsely, to be someone on a fishing expedition: “…i’ll bite…”) was answered directly. The alleged “direct” question (which was not direct) was answered directly. The question (which was not direct): Human Action “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” The answer offered: > [@](#): > > One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. If every writer in this Topic fails to understand the meaning of the word fraud, then those people constitute a Division along Rule of law versus Criminal Rule. 1. Those who understand the meaning of fraud. 2. Those who do not understand the meaning of fraud. If every writer in this Topic fails to understand how criminal’s rule their victims, such as criminals ruling their victims with fraud, then those people constitute a Division along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. 1. Those who understand how criminals rule their victims through such crimes as fraud. 2. Those who do not understand how criminals rule their victims through such crimes as fraud. The direct answer to the indirect question is offered by a speaker who speaks English well enough, a speaker who is not me, so claims of failing to speak coherent English directed at me personally (when the direct answer to the indirect question is offered in the testimony of someone else, not me): there is an obvious further Division along Rule of law versus Criminal Rule. 1. Those who understand a direct answer offered in response to an indirect question offered in testimony from someone at the scene of the fraud in progress. 2. Those who do not understand, where those who do not understand respond with personal attacks concerning the personal character of the OP who quoted the direct answer to the indirect question. Of course there are many other possible Divisions within Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. Rule of Law: 1. Those who understand the meaning of fraud, and they understand also the methods by which victims are effectively defended against fraud. 2. Those who understand the meaning of fraud, and they do not understand how victims can be effectively defended from frauds. Criminal Rule: 1. Those who clearly understand the meaning of fraud because they perpetrate fraud routinely. 2. Those who perpetrate fraud routinely while they have convinced themselves that fraud is not fraud, rather fraud is just normal for them, it is their way of communicating naturally. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/392 "2015-08-23T17:44:12Z")
And you honestly believe that you provide direct answers. Astounding. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/393 "2015-08-23T18:01:46Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Again, I am not selling anything, I am not on a fishing expedition, and I am not trying to win anyone over to my side, the idea of debate from my side is what it is, not what it is not, and if no one shares my idea of debate, then they do not. And, since no one accused you of trying to sell anything, this whole paragraph is silly. > [@Josf](#): > > Debate is a contest of ideas and anyone caring to see a better (higher quality and lower cost idea) can, anyone caring not to can not, there is no intention on my part to “win anyone over to my side,” as the information offered is self-evident as far as I can concerned, and those who see it, do, and those who don’t, do not. _::: shrug :::_ We have had posters, here, for whom it was “self-evident” that the moon landings were a hoax or that the WTC/Pentagon attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government. To me, it is “self-evident” that such posters were kooks with little grasp of reality. Your posts do not quite fall into the same category, but your persistent argument by obfuscation does nothing to persuade me that your position has any basis in reality. Direct question (which has been asked before): Even if your odd beliefs are true, what should be done to address them? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/394 "2015-08-23T19:22:45Z")
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. At first glance, these 2 concepts do not appear to be on the same scale, so talk of the line between the two isn’t coherent. Criminal behavior is defined by a code of law, which varies from place to place. Rule of Law is a characteristic of forms of government. We can clarify by substituting in a commonly understood term: say we consider, “Divisions along Rule of Law vs. Kleptocracy”. A necessary condition of kleptocracy is that those on top amass great wealth in connection to their control of government. An implication is that this sort of thing is done via corruption, though I suppose it _could_ be consistent with local legal codes. I’d say the relevant defining traits of kleptocracy involve a) lack of transparency and b) lack of external oversight, though c) corruption is typically involved. How any of this ties into the Articles of Confederation and the constitutional convention of 1786 is unclear to me. > **[Kleptocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy)** > > Kleptocracy (from Greek κλέπτης kléptēs, "thief", κλέπτω kléptō, "I steal", and -κρατία -kratía from κράτος krátos, "power, rule") is a government whose corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) use political power to expropriate the wealth of the people and land they govern, typically by embezzling or misappropriating government funds at the expense of the wider population. Thievocracy means literally the rule by thievery and is a term used synonymously to kleptocracy. One feature of political-b Kleptocra... I suspect that what the OP is driving at is the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate governance. I might derive a biblical foundation for that, to wit, “Love God and His creation, love thy neighbor as thyself, but try not to be a sanctimonious prick about all that.” Freedom of religion props the last clause. The goals in the preamble of the US constitution of insuring domestic Tranquility, promoting the general Welfare, and securing “…the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, aid the preceding. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/395 "2015-08-23T19:37:55Z")
In the effort to redirect the focus of attention back onto the Topic instead of misdirection from the Topic to my personal character, the following is offered in Debate on the Topic of Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. The indirect question was asked: Human Action “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” Divisions along Rule of Law (Forum rules) versus Criminal Rule is exemplified when an individual misdirects focus from the subject matter of the Topic, and the subject matter is directed toward an imaginary fisherman who is a Man of Straw: the imaginary fisherman only exists in the imagination of the creator of this imaginary fisherman. The imaginary fisherman is fishing for imaginary fish, and then an imaginary fish claims that an imaginary fish is on an imaginary hook, biting down on the bait, and finding that the imaginary food is a trap, as the hook sinks into the mouth of the fish. Those who initiate such forms of a Man of Straw argument are on one side, and on the other side are those who recognize them for what they are, and those who initiate those types of Man of Straw arguments are accurately identified as individuals who initiate a turn of attention away from the subject matter of the topic, and the change of attention initiated by the individual is a change toward focus of attention upon an individual, who is, in this case, falsely claimed to be someone setting hooked bait out so as to trick someone into biting on the hooked bait. That is sometimes called marketing. That is often used in marketing terms. An advertisement is often created so as to hook potential customers into buying something for sale. 1. Some people know that the above is factual. 2. Some people do not know that the above is factual. Getting past the misdirection away from the topic where I am being falsely characterized as someone setting bait with a hook, so as to get someone else to bite on the hooked bait, getting past that to the actual Topic question is next. Human Action “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” Question in red, and answer in blue: > [@](#): > > One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. The red colored words may constitute a direct question (after the misdirection concerning a fishing expedition/sales pitch comment) which can be understood as “what were the reasons, or motives, of the criminals as they perpetrated the fraud that they perpetrated,” and if that was the intent of the question (not so direct under closer inspection), then that is the answer provided by the witness who witnessed the crime as it was happening in time and place. Why did the criminals choose to be criminals, or what where their motives? Why were they criminals instead of good people who are not criminals? If, on the other hand the question concerns “why” is the crime of fraud a crime in fact, then common sense may help, and again the answer is in blue: > [@](#): > > One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. Frauds cannot “openly and avowedly” accomplish the ruin of a voluntary association (federal union) of defenders, the criminals must “covertly” (fraudulently) do so, since the “marks” or the victims who are being hooked (monarchy) by the bait (false federalism) would not bite into the bait (false federalism) if they new (monarchy) was the hook that would sink in once they bite on the bait. 1. Those who understand that the above is true and accurate. 2. Those who do not understand that the above is true and accurate. One of many people in group 1 is named Luther Martin. Luther Martin was at the crime scene. Additional words were offered after the mischaracterization concerning someone biting on something, and after one question was answered directly, there is yet another possible direct question: Human Action “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” > [@](#): > > One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. Rule of law at that time was a voluntary federation as explained well enough by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, whereby those who are connected in a federal way are connected for their mutual defense, voluntarily, and when one member of the federal union perpetrates a fraud upon the other members, the nature of federation is ended because a crime scene replaces the former voluntary union. At the time the State governments were independent competitors where each defensive union supplied a different version of defense to many potential shoppers who are shopping for defensive services. Slaves, refugees, patriots, regulators, revolutionary war fighters, and veterans, can find sanctuary from criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law; and there were 13 competitors offering competitive versions of Rule of Law. That was explained here: > **[Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and...](https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037)** > > Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their Legacy \[Watkins, William\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their... > [@](#): > > Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. > > Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely. Those are many words. The following is fewer words: > [@](#): > > One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. The question was offered (after the “bite” comment): Human Action “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” They (the criminals) “whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations” opposed the existing federal union that was based upon mutual defense of Liberty done in a federal (voluntary) manner. A witness at the crime seen testified as to them “acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished,” which is called fraud. The crime was fraud, the crime scene was also called The Dirty Compromise. 1. Rule of Law = mutual defense associations called States, each with competitive forms of Rule of Law, federated, into one voluntary mutual defense association, under the Articles of Confederation. 2. Opposition = Those “whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations” and those who were caught red handed “covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.” The turn from the Topic to me personally is accurately identified as such, and the questions were answered. 1. Those who understand. 2. Those who do not. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/396 "2015-08-23T20:46:54Z")
More gobbledygook and another misuse of the word “criminal.” So noted. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/397 "2015-08-23T21:16:27Z")
Reiterating does not equal explaining. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/398 "2015-08-23T21:36:11Z")
Before I read this thread, I understood that it was possible to create a misleading argument by using a core term in an unconventional manner. It’s also possible to create a valid argument with an unconventional definition, provided you acknowledge what you are doing up front. What I didn’t have exposure to was the laddering of unconventional definitions. Here we can see unconventional definitions of criminal (which usually involves the breaking of a system of applicable law), monarchy (which usually involves mandates of hereditary rule) and federal (which usually refers to multi-level governance). Throw in some tendentious claims about the political foundations of the Articles of Confederation and you get an argument from which I selected the following: > [@Josf](#): > > Human Action > “Ok, I’ll bite - why were the Federalists criminals? In what way did they oppose the rule of law?” > > They (the criminals) “whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations” opposed the existing federal union that was based upon mutual defense of Liberty done in a federal (voluntary) manner. I would not characterize this rhetorical structure as particularly persuasive to most people. But perhaps it doesn’t have to be. Not sure. I _think_ what’s going on here is a variety of argument via association. Some words have positive associations, others negative. This appears to be an exercise in loading up the negative ones on your adversaries and the positive ones with your agenda. The sometimes scholar Newt Gingrich discussed a more sophisticated version of this in his memorandum, “[Language: A Key Aspect of Control](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm)”. I suspect that Gingrich was more conscious of the underlying technique or process than certain other practitioners. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/399 "2015-08-23T21:57:59Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Before I read this thread, I understood that it was possible to create a misleading argument by using a core term in an unconventional manner. It’s also possible to create a valid argument with an unconventional definition, provided you acknowledge what you are doing up front. > > What I didn’t have exposure to was the laddering of unconventional definitions. Here we can see unconventional definitions of criminal (which usually involves the breaking of a system of applicable law), monarchy (which usually involves mandates of hereditary rule) and federal (which usually refers to multi-level governance). Throw in some tendentious claims about the political foundations of the Articles of Confederation and you get an argument from which I selected the following: I would not characterize this rhetorical structure as particularly persuasive to most people. But perhaps it doesn’t have to be. Not sure. > > I _think_ what’s going on here is a variety of argument via association. Some words have positive associations, others negative. This appears to be an exercise in loading up the negative ones on your adversaries and the positive ones with your agenda. The sometimes scholar Newt Gingrich discussed a more sophisticated version of this in his memorandum, “[Language: A Key Aspect of Control](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm)”. I suspect that Gingrich was more conscious of the underlying technique or process than certain other practitioners. Agreed. This mountain of text simply amounts to: Things I believe are positive=the Rule of Law. Things I believe are negative=Criminal Rule. If one disagrees with something, then a quote is cherry picked from a founding father to show that the Rule of Law is a good thing, therefore my position is right. Similarly, if one agrees with something, then another cherry picked quote shows that criminal rule is bad and therefore the position is incorrect. It is simple question begging. I wish the OP would argue the points he is trying to make instead of repeating the same things ad nauseum. How about this: since we cannot understand what the argument is, what then would be the result? Describe modern life under the “Rule of Law.” Are income taxes legal? Is secession legal? Is central banking legal? If it isn’t, what replaces it? Can a person be punished for operating a car on the public highways without a valid state issued license? What powers (if any) would the national government have? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/400 "2015-08-23T23:11:30Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > SovCits believe that all-caps are a sign of illegitimate gov’t authority, designed to suck people into accepting an illegal agency by contract law. The fact that your name on your Driver’s licence is typically all-caps is one example. If you accept the driver’s licence, you have inadvertently entered into a contract validating their illegitimate authority. > [@tomndebb](#): > > As opposed to the license being created from a database that derives from older databases where data entry was keyed in all caps because the keyboards were built to use only upper case to reduce the time it took to enter data in mixed case and the time it took the older CPUs to perform edits on multiple case texts? How odd. That is a level of paranoia that is seriously going out of its way to find a conspiracy of which to be afraid… Here’s a bit from Wikipedia on it, in the [context of tax cases:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments#.22Capital_letters.22_argument) > [@](#): > > Some tax protesters (and occasionally persons brought before courts[6]) have argued that because the titles of court cases identify the parties in all capital letters, the persons thus identified are “fictitious entities”. In other words, a court hearing a case titled “STATE v. JOHN Q. SMITH” has no authority over the defendant, “John Q. Smith” because the capitalization of the name means the court is addressing a person who does not exist. Such an argument was made by Eddie Ray Kahn, a co-defendant of Wesley Snipes in the latter’s high-profile tax evasion case. Kahn “made several missteps and peculiar motions. For example, he sought to be immediately freed because the indictment lists his name in all capital letters, and he claimed U.S. attorneys have no jurisdiction because Florida supposedly was never ceded to the federal government”. The court denied these motions.[7] > > No court has ever upheld such an argument. See, e.g. United States v. Frech[8] (“Defendants’ assertion that the capitalization of their names in court documents constitutes constructive fraud, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction and venue, is without any basis in law or fact”); United States v. Washington[9] (“defendant contends that the Indictment must be dismissed because ‘KURT WASHINGTON,’ spelled out in capital letters, is a fictitious name used by the Government to tax him improperly as a business, and that the correct spelling and presentation of his name is ‘Kurt Washington.’ This contention is baseless”). See also United States v. Ford[10] (taxpayer’s argument—that an IRS summons was invalid because the IRS capitalized all the letters in the taxpayer’s name in the caption of a petition—was ruled to be frivolous). Similar arguments have been raised unsuccessfully about things such as the presence or absence of punctuation, or of a middle name or middle initial. The fixation on all-caps pops up in other areas too, such as the arguments that your birth certificate is really a stock certificate for a secret account held in your name by the federal government, which you can access if you know the right codes, including using your name in regular punctuation, instead of in all-caps as is commonly used on birth certificates. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=21)