Legal Fictions

Legal fictions - such as that of corporations - being artificial persons, are lawfully restricted from "entering into contracts" with "live flesh-and-blood human beings," and are lawfully restricted to using only "UPPER-CASE" letters with regards to their title identification upon all contracts and legal papers. This is to legally/lawfully distinguish them from live flesh-and-blood "people" so to prevent them from ever imprisoning human beings as slaves. This has remained well-grounded, well-established mandate for hundreds of years. An early landmark Supreme Court case from the year 1795 further defined this grounded fact very well…

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed 57; Dall. 54), defines goverments succently:

"Governments are Corporations." Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary having neither actuality nor substance - is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. therefore, can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and contracts between them"

Fictitious Name defined; “A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic [surname]), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (page 624).

The use of, by implication, mistake, or otherwise, of fictitious names within any lawful and even “legal” document renders said document/instrument fatally flawed for simple fraud. And, since no man or woman in the Private Domain can be held accountable for the same crime twice, by guarantee, then if initially one is charged in the wrong name, and that mistaken identity at any stage of the proceedings renders the present proceeding null, void and dismissed. This renders the above “statute” also null, void, and never written, for this fatal error cannot be corrected and one must, secondly, face the same charges. Mistaken Identity cannot be used as a correctable error merely because one cannot be charged twice for the same cause, even if the first charge was mistaken.

Fictitious Plaintiff defined: “A person appearing in a writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it.” ‘It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (page 624). 

Fictitious Action defined: “An action brought for the sole purpose of obtaining the opinion of the court on a point of law, not for the settlement of any actual controversy between the parties.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (page 624), 

Fictitious defined: Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit,’ “Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent,’ “Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object,” Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 624).

American Jurisprudence

In general, it is essential to identify parties to court actions properly. If the alleged parties to an action are not precisely identified, then who is involved with whom or what, and how? If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d, at “Judgments.”

Sec. 100 Parties – A judgment should identify the parties for and against whom it is rendered, with such certainty that it may be readily enforced, and a judgment, which does not do so, may be regarded as void for uncertainty. Such identification may be achieved by naming the persons for and against whom the judgment is rendered. Technical deficiencies in the naming of the persons for and against whom judgment is rendered can be corrected if the parties are not prejudiced. A reference in a judgment to a party plainly liable, followed by an omission of that party’s name from the language of the decree, at least gives rise to an ambiguity and calling for an inquiry into court’s real intention as reflected in the entire record and surrounding circumstances.”