Donald-Joe: Barber

Postal Department: 370

Pinson, Alabama  (Republic)


Without Counsel

superior court of Alabama

Jefferson: the county


























    Case No.: CV-08-902646.00








                Third Party Plaintiff,







              Third Party Defendants.




















Donald-Joe: Barber, Third Party Intervenor, Real Party in Interest













COMES NOW Real Party in Interest, Donald-Joe: Barber and Brenda-Gail: Barber appears specially and not generally.  REGIONS MORTGAGE has come against this living breathing man, a Sovereign-in-Fact, a non corporate entity, in the name of a fiction without authority to do so, as is evidenced by this memorandum of law.




The Federal Government and numerous States have passed laws that address the problem of identity theft.

The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act enacted by Congress in October 1998 (and codified, in part, at Title 19 U. S. Code §1028) is the federal law directed at identity theft. Violations of the act are investigated by federal law enforcement agencies, including (but not limited to) the U. S. Secret service, the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the SSA'S Office of the Inspector General. Federal identity theft cases are prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In most instances, a conviction for identity theft carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, a fine, and forfeiture of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the crime. This Act also directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend the federal sentencing guidelines to provide appropriate penalties for those persons convicted of identity theft.

Schemes to commit identity theft or fraud also may involve violations of other statutes, such as credit card fraud; computer fraud; mail fraud; wire fraud; financial institution fraud; or Social Security fraud. Each of these federal offenses is a felony and carries substantial penalties - in some cases, as high as 30 years in prison, fines, and criminal forfeiture.

What follows is a compilation of positive proofs that show what is and what is not a true, complete, factual, and not misleading identification. One will see that many systems of law, rules of our common language, Government style directives, and many venues have been visited. Of course, in a fictitious name charge, one must start with a complete and factual definition of name.

Name/Abbreviation/Capitalization/INITIALISM/Idem Sonans/Fictions

Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines Capitalize adj. as… "To take advantage of  - To use to ones own advantage."

Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive 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, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. BARBER DONALD or DONALD BARBER) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was 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.

Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.

Capite. - Lat. By the head.

Russell Mortland wrote:

Quoting and relying on


by John Salmond Third Edition.


It often happens that a single human being possesses a double personality.  He is one man, but two persons. Unus homo, it is said, plures personas sustinct.  In one capacity, or in one right as English lawyers say, he may have legal relationship with himself, or owe money to himself, or transfer property to himself.  Every contract, debt, obligation, or assignment requires two persons; but these persons may be the same human being.  The double personality exists chiefly in the case of trusteeship.  A trustee is, as we have seen, a person in whom the property of another is nominally vested, to the extent that he may represent that other in the management and protection of it. A trustee, therefore, is for many purposes two persons in the eyes of the law.  In right of his beneficiary he is one person, and in his own right he is another.  In the one capacity he may owe money to himself in the other.  In one capacity he may own an encumbrance over property which belongs to himself in the other.  He may be his own creditor, or his creditors as his executor, or a testator appoints one of his creditors as his executor, or makes one of his tenants the trustee of his land.  In all such cases, were it not for the recognition of double personality, the obligation or encumbrance would be destroyed by merger, or confusio as the Romans call it, for two persons at least are requisite for the existence of a legal relation.  No man can in his own right be under any obligation to himself, or own any encumbrance over his own property. Nulli res sua servit.


We, Donald-Joe: Barber and Brenda-Gail: Barber are making the statement in this document that I/we are the Real Parties in Interest to the above action. We have made this statement due to the fact that we have not been specifically identified. It is known that a statement of this kind is met with a lot of resistance from every quarter within the Anglo-American, Public, and Criminal Procedure System of Law. This system is dependent upon the fact of the Private Citizen to "volunteer" to be identified by a Government created Public "name". Government Public citizens will even stoop to using vi et armis, threats, duress, coercion, false arrests (capture), forced assignment of unionized court officers ("officers of the court"), criminal conversions, securities fraud, private property trespasses, trespasses upon the Law of the case, extortion, deprivations of all manner and form, etc. This is used to maintain the illusion of the "volunteering" of the Private Citizen of being identified by a Public Name. We have already experienced the forcible serving of alleged "Court" documents from an authority that is without constitutional basis, etc.

There remains one more fundamental doctrine to explore before we can continue. From a textbook used in law schools that list fundamental and rudimentary principles of the science of law very few people have the knowledge that there exists, in our Anglo-American system of law, two disconnected sub-systems. First we must properly identify and define this source of this little known fact.


A primer, a book, explaining the basics, fundamentals, or rudiments, of any science or branch of knowledge.

"The phrase "hornbook law" is a colloquial designation of the rudiments or general principles of law." - Black's Law Dictionary 6th ed.; pg. 737.

It is within this reference that it is found the names, types, and jurisdictions of the Public Law and the Private Law.

"Anglo-American law has been separated into two main divisions

---Public Law---
which has to do with the regulation of relations between independent states and between a state and its (Public) citizen; and

"---Private Law---
which regulates the relations between the citizens, of the state." - Handbook on Common Law Pleading, Page 8; Joseph H. Koffler, Professor of Law, New York Law School and Alison Reppy, Late Dean and Professor of Law, New York Law School West Publishing Co. (1984)

As one can plainly see the Public Law only applies to those entities that are commonly called "creations of the state, or in this case, STATE. Some of these creatures (state citizens) are known as incorporations, municipalities, committees, commissions, conferences, persons, whoever, taxpayers, just about any and all that is fictionally created.  In other words, when it comes to citizenship, all that is neither natural born or naturalized. Since this Citizen clearly has been shown to be liable only to the Private Law, then it must be defined how this Citizen is allowed to respond to damaging and injurious matters. This too, is within this same book.

" as the solemn and stubborn fact is that Common-Law Pleading still survives as the basis of our Modern Remedial Law”.

"While the New Rules have abolished the distinctive Common-Law Forms, the essential and differentiating rules applicable to Pleading as established at Common Law still survive as a basis of Remedial Law. - Handbook of Common Law Pleading, Koffler & Reppy, Page 6 West Publishing Co. (1984)

The "supreme" Common-Law states:

"shall make no law abridging the right of the people (Private Citizens) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Article the third (First Amendment), ("further declaratory and restrictive clauses") Bill of Rights, Constitution for the united States of America (1774-1791).


It is evident that we must address this matter as venue, and, subject-matter, and personam jurisdictions will remain unknown, unless we can factually establish identity of the parties in this matter. It is an ultimate Public fact that:

"a Sovereign is not a "person" United Mine Workers vs. United States, 330 U.S. 258.

What is a Sovereign? Article IV of the Constitution mandates:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," - Article IV Section 4 Constitution for the united States of America (1774-1791).

From that we can now declare (as U.S. was in the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S "constitutional period):


"in our republican forms of government the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people [Private Citizens] of the nation: and the residual sovereignty of each state, not granted [contracted] to any of its functionaries, is in the people [Private Citizens] of the state;" - Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 471 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Page 3096.

Once again in the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S constitutional period, we learn from the positive proofs used in that era:

"If the Government should overpass the just bounds of its authority, and make tyrannical use of its powers; the people whose creature it is must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution”
- The Federalist Papers,
Hamilton, No. 33.

And finally, even state creatures (incorporations, municipalities, fictions, color of law/Public Law, color of official right/false personators, etc.) are only liable when there factually exist a bona fide contract.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, applies in Civil and Criminal actions with equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. No civil or criminal cause of action can arise lest there be a contract. See Eads v. Marks, 249 P. 2d 257, 260. There is always a presumption that a contract exists and that the responding party is a Corporation. Under Rule 52, which is the same in all states as in the Federal Rules, the Texas Court of appeals (5th Cir;) Galleria Bank v. Southwest Properties, 498 Southwest 2nd has ruled of the finding of fact, by the Court, that “the failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact”. Thus, a presumption becomes a finding of fact by the court unless rebutted before trial.

"The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." - Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How. 393)

So a Private, Sentient, Civilian, Sovereign Citizen is required to exact lawful behavior, constitutional compliance, and redress by petition, those being both by Common-Law Form, and an Affidavit in the form of a petition.

It is, therefore, factual to say that by the ultimate Public facts shown, it is safe to say:
1) A Sovereign is not a person;
2) A Sovereign is one of the People (We the People/Private, Sentient, Civilian, Sovereign Citizens);
3) A Private Citizen is one of the People;
4) A Private Citizen, as well as a "state citizen" (Public Citizen, "state" creature) is immune "from any and all Government attacks and procedures", unless there is a procedurally proper and Lawful contract present;
5) As the above is the definition of a Private Citizen, and not a "state and its citizen (see the Handbook of Common Law Pleading, pg. 8), it is factual to say that, in fact, a Private Citizen is only obligated to the separated Private Law and not the Public Law.

As the definition of Sovereign could be construed as fatal flaw to all the practices, procedures and processes of any Government action, it is advisable to continue to fully explore this subject. There remains the introduction of the term "person". The historical background of this word is ancient, indeed. Our common language word is based in the romance languages, that being "persona". What is a "persona"?

Persona (Latin)

"In its original signification, a mask, is extended to the dead, a statue in a fountain, a slave.
Roman lawyers sometimes use persona so as to include slaves." - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., pg. 2575.

This is the ancient system of "Novation" where upon the capturing of a nation by the Roman Army, all citizens had a persona attached to them. This not only represented their subjection and enslavement to the Roman Canon Law (Public), but also was an actual identification of a prisoner of war to be plundered. The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was dependant upon the obedience to the Roman Canon Law (Public Law).

Person, n. per'sn.

[L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonas, sound; a Latin word signifying a mask used by actors on the state.]

In law, an artificial person is a corporation or body politic."
- Webster's 1828 Dictionary, D. Webster (1828).

In our common language as far back as 1828 it has been a fact that, in Law, a "person" is "artificial".

"Artificial person"

A subject of duties and rights which is represented by one or more natural persons, generally, not necessarily by more than one but does not coincide with them. It has a continuous legal existence not necessarily depending on any natural life; this legal continuity answers to some real continuity of public functions or of special purpose recognized as having public utility or of some lawful common interest of the natural persons concerned. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., pg. 252.


Created by art, or by law; existing by force of or in contemplation of law." - Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd ed., pg. 92.

It is therefore factual to say that a "person" throughout the history of our common language has always meant a Government created fiction (artificial) subject to the Public Law, Public Utility, or Public Function. The only exception is by "lawful common interest" [Common-Law Contract(s)]. See our lawful common interests; the Constitution for the United States of America (1764-1791), and in this case, the Constitution for The State of Alabama (1801 and 1819 to Date). Current attacks by the creations of the Public Law or by its Public Servants in the name of its fictions (persona/person/whoever/etc.) or otherwise is absent contract. And by supreme and binding declaration in the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, at Dred Scott, we have learned that absolute immunity is dictated where a procedurally proper and lawful contract is lacking even in the case of a state created fiction.

"A name is word or words used to distinguish and identify a person" [Emphasis mine]
-Name, 65 C.J.S. 1, pg. 1.

C.J.S. are the widely recognized initials of Corpus Juris Secundum (According to the Body of Law) and this is the embodiment of the Public Law, with some Private Law thrown in. It is from this that we can be identified. Let's look to the Law Dictionaries to find meaning in "person", that which possesses a "name" (Public).


A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duty which it imposes. It may include [limited to] artificial beings, as corporation, territorial corporations, foreign corporations, relating to taxation and revenue laws. XIV Amendment "persons" A county. a slave. An estate of a decedent, a judge holding court, an infant [Ward of the Court] officers, partnerships, and women, participants in the forbidden acts ["defendants" & "plaintiffs"] agents, officers, and members of the board of directors or trustees, or their controlling bodies, of corporations, the legal subject [subject-matter] or substance [rem; res] " - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., pg. 2574.

It is now factual to say, pursuant to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, the Body of Public Law, our Common language, etc. that a Sovereign is not a person; a person has a name; and, therefore, a Sovereign has not an all capital/acronymical/abbreviation NAME (Public). This seems to fly in the face of logic, because it is the common presumption that everyone has a name. Does this principle include those identifications known as Common-Law or Christian "names"? Are and how are these different? Let's address the latter firstly.

As "This is a Christian Nation" 168 U.S. 625 and "The Bible is Law to be applied nationally" 380 U.S. 163 it is easily seen that Divine Law holds a place in supremacy, even over the "supreme Law of the Land", constitutional Common/Equity-Law. It was the Christian duty of my co-creators to give to me words that would forever be used to recognize me. These are the same words that were used at my Baptism into the Kingdom of Heaven. As this is a guaranteed freedom, under our national contracts specifically at the Article the Third, (First Amendment) of the "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" of the Constitution for the United States of America (1764-1791). All Public Servants are required to swear or affirm their word, secure with their Bond/Surety (before taking office or compensations), and make a binding Common-Law contract that makes this truly a guarantee to all Private Citizens and not merely a bare assertion. If anyone or anything would try to change the Christian Doctrine of my property, commonly called my Christian name, then they or that would be guilty of establishing a conflicting form of religion that would have to give evidence to the superiority to my Christian beliefs. It is easily seen that this would be an impossible task. We must address the possibility that someone or something may try to accomplish this wholly anti-Christian action.

"If the Christian name be wholly mistaken, this is regularly fatal to all legal instruments, as well as declarations and pleadings as grants and obligations; and the reason is, because it is repugnant to the Christian religion that there should be a Christian without a name of baptism, or that person should have two Christian names, since our church allows of no re-baptizing; and therefore if a person enters into a bond by a wrong Christian name, he cannot be declared against by the name in the obligation, and his true name brought in as an alias, for that supposes the possibility of two Christian names; and you cannot declare against the party by his right name, and aver he made the deed by his wrong name; for that is to set up an averment contrary to the deed; and there is the sanction allowed to every solemn contract, that it cannot be opposed but by a thing of equal validity; and if he impleaded by the name in the deed, he may plead that he is another person, and that it is not  his deed." - A New Abridgement of the Law, Matthew Bacon, Vol. III (1846).

It should go without saying that the "person" referred to in the above quote is a Christian, andwedo not believe that anyone or anything has ever maintained that a Christian is subject to the Government, or a creation thereto, since the Government is foundationally based in Christian Doctrine. As we can easily see, it is impossible to be recognized by two names and maintain your belief structure of being a Christian. It is obvious that the Divine duty of the gift of the words used to recognize the Christian and the one time only solemnity of being washed clean and emerging as a new creation (baptism) has no option in regards to changing horses in the middle of the stream. If anyone or anything should try to change such things, then we are left with repugnancy and blasphemy of our Christian beliefs. If someone or something should then try and force a different recognition upon you through vi et armis, threat, duress, etc. then you have identified, defined, and exposed an anti-Christian, despot, and tyrant. Therefore, if a Private Citizen is Christian, then, and only upon commission of a Common-Law crime (damage or injury against another Citizen or their Property), can the Christian be made the object of some action; and only in his Christian name.

"The omission of the Christian name by either plaintiff or defendant in a legal process prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction," - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8 th ed., pg. 2287

Federal Civil Procedure 671

Court must be able to identify from complaint at least one plaintiff by name, otherwise no action has been commenced. Fed. Rules Civ .Proc. rules 3, 10(a), 28 U.S.C.A.; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343(3), 2201, 2202; 42 U .S.C.A. § 1983.

Federal Civil Procedure 392 If action has been commenced by filing of complaint then amendments can be permitted or protective orders made on proper showing to shield identity of plaintiffs while permitting necessary knowledge to court and to defendants. Fed. Rules Civ .Proc. rules 3, 10(a), 28 U.S.C.A.; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343{3), 2201, 2202 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

Federal Civil Procedure 382, NO action was commenced by filing of complaint in which names of all plaintiffs were fictitious and subsequent disclosure of true names of plaintiffs in application for an order in case did not change the situation. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. rules 3, 10(a), 28 U.S.C.A. ; 28 U. S.C.A. §§ 1343(3), 2201, 2202; 42 U.S. C..A. § 1983.

 Morton P. Cohen; South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiffs Roe, Soe and Joe; Albert Angeloro, Harlem Assertion of Rights, New York City, for plaintiff Moe, Marcia Lowry, Community Action for Legal Services, Inc., New York City, of counsel.  Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., State of New York, New York City, for defendants; Irving L. Rollins, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.  WYATT, District Judge. This is a motion for defendants for an order dismissing the complaint "for failure of the infant plaintiffs herein to state their true names in the title thereof". The motion is said to be under Fed. R. Civ.P. 10 (a).

 The complaint and the motion raise a novel question: whether an action can be commenced in a federal court by the filing of a complaint in which the names of all plaintiffs are fictitious.

 The complaint was filed on February 4, 1970. It is stated that there are four plaintiffs, boys from fourteen to sixteen years old, who are in custody at training schools of the State of New York under commitments of the Family Court.

The four plaintiffs are all named in the caption and in the complaint under fictitious names: R. Roe, M. Moe, S. Soe, and J. Joe. Three of the plaintiffs sue by their mother and next friend, whose names are also fictitious; one sues by guardian ad litem, Morton P. Cohen, Esq., attorney for three of the plaintiffs.

 The complaint avers that plaintiffs "are all natural persons who are employing fictitious names for the purposes of this action in order to protect their true identities. Plaintiffs fear that if their commitment to state training schools were to become generally known, they would be subjected to personal embarrassment, harassment, and ridicule, and upon their release, would be hampered in their attempts to assimilate into the community" name; in two of the actions the names used were fictitious. There was no discussion the point in the Supreme Court except to record in a footnote that the Connecticut court had approved the procedure. In the highest court in Connecticut, it had been said on this point
(Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48, 156 A.2d 508, 514 (1959) :

When brought into Court by its Corporate name, its existence as a Corporation is admitted. See Mud Creek Drain Co. v State, 43 Ind. 157; Johnson v. Gibson, 73 Ind. 282; Ewing v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Callender v. Railroad Co, 11 Ohio St. 516; Com. Ins. Etc. Co. v Taylor, 8 S.C. 107. Compare Ware v. St. Louis Bagging and Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667.


Stating not facts, but a conclusion only, is insufficient. It has been held that where the representative of railroad corporation is served with process, he may plead in abatement in his own name, that the Corporation is extinct. See Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2 Flip C.C. 581; Callender v. Plainsville Co., 11 Ohio St. 516; Quarrier v. Peabody Co., 10 W. Va. 507; Evarts v. Killingworth Co., 20 Conn. 447; Stewart v. Dunn, 12 Mees. & W. 655; Stevenson v. Thorn, 13 Mees & W. 149. Where the person is so served with that he may, by plea, deny that he/She sustains any such relation to the Corporation as authorizes the service of process on him/her. See Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2 Flip C.C. 581.

Returning to the former subject, the Common-Law name is merely the duty of the parents to assign, and in this nation, this is normally the Christian Name.

We must re-address the scheme that was known to the Romans as "Novation". As "Novation" is nothing other than when the Romans militarily conquered a nation, they assigned to the Citizens, thereto, a "persona". This persona when brought before the Roman courts was required to seek "counsel" as a persona is without the corporal herediments required to defend itself. These courts were in actuality nothing other than King's Bench, Consular, Military courts that were operating under maritime/admiralty hypothecations.

I only mention this because of all the parallels that have been drawn into our currently practiced form of Government today. Masks are created to hide from view the Private Citizen. There are government agencies that can only deal in these masks. Under the "Alien Enemy Program" these masks are described internationally as "nom de guerre".

"Nom de guerre"

"(F: war name): a fictitious name: Pseudonym - Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Merriam-Webster, pg. 1534.

Under International Law, all parties to a cause must appear by nom de guerre, because an "alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own name". See Alien, Wharton's, Pennsylvania Digest, 20.94 and the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd. ed., Clarendon Press (1989). It is by International Doctrine that the use of nom de guerre would indicate a state of war. Is it by the Government's use of personas, nom de guerre, artificial persons, fictitious names, etc. with the enforcement of obedience (military jurisdiction) by vi et armis that we can know that the Government, Public Law, Public Servants are waging war against the Private Citizen? Is this done in spite of the Common-Law contracts that are a matter of Public record that the Private Citizen has in regards to each and every Public Servant? The facts in this matter seem to bear this out. As a matter of fact, an exhaustive description of this "economic war" against the Private Citizens of the United States of America can be found in the Digest of International Law, Volume 10, and pages 95-127. It is here that we will find that the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the Treasury, in disregard to the administrative orders of the President, conduct an "Alien Enemy Program" whose sole purpose is to unconstitutionally seize the properties of all Private Citizens, militarily, with the aid of such maritime hypothecations as "Bottomry Bonds", etc.


A review of the "Federal" Government doctrines regarding names reveals the following:


Do not abbreviate the first word of a party's name, unless the full name of a party can be abbreviated to widely recognized initials:

Internal Revenue Service IRS
Federal Trade Commission FTC
International Business Machines IBM
United States Style Manual, 2-2 (d); Government Printing Office (GPO).

As it is the duty to give the procedures for writing all documents of the government, in all its branches, it is safe to say that the GPO is the most likely source of information on this subject of expressed identification. Admittedly, there is a section within the United States Style Manual that deals with court documents and how they are to be written. It is revealed that expressions of "Plaintiffs" and "Defendants" (Participants in forbidden acts; artificial persons) will be in the all upper case form. But if section 2-2 (d) is to be believed, then we must rely on the "widely recognized" characteristics of such expressions. What is meant by "widely recognized"? Does this mean that certain People are excluded from this recognition? Does it mean that certain People are incapable of this recognition? Must you be privy to such recognitions? Can only lawyers, judges, clerks, policemen, assessors, tax collectors, etc. understand this recognition? Is this a foreign language that must be interpreted to the Private Citizen? Has the Government "by the People" created alter egos to all the Private Citizens that they are responsible for? Is this a form of "Novation"? Is it the Government's policy "I'll tell you who you are and we will choose what you are so that may attack you and your property at my will, regardless of the Private Law? Does such authority exist in the Government, or must this be held strictly by vi et armis?

It must be evident to every person that a published notice, using the name by which the defendant is commonly known in the community, will as readily attract his attention as if his real name were used, particularly where the initials are the same, and that the use of the name as commonly known will much more readily and probably attract the attention of his acquaintances and friends by whom information might be communicated to him than if the publication had been by his real name by which he was not commonly known. Webster v. Heginbotham, 23 Colo. App. 229, 129 P. 569 (1913), aff'd, 58 Colo. 351, 145 P. 1165 (1915).

All evidences indicate that a system of "Novation" still exists to this day within the present alleged "government". In order to be "widely recognized", there must be a constitutional obligation upon the Private Citizen or a contractual obligation upon the fiction known as a "state/STATE subject-citizen (see Fourteenth Amendment). The point is that there will be documentation that will show these procedures. No Private citizen can ever be recognized by "Becausewesay so". To carry such belief is despotic and tyrannical, and maybe even treasonous and communistic. This is not what the GPO meant in its publications, and there exists no conflict between its sections.

Simply stated, the GPO has recognized the separation of the Public Law and Private Law in our Anglo-American Law system. The GPO's statement is that Private Citizens identifications cannot be an "Abbreviation", and the parties to a judicial process of Public Law cannot be Private Citizens. In other words it is impossible to identify a Private Citizen as a "Plaintiff" or "Defendant" in any of the "Federal" or "STATE" "courts", as such identifications are artificial (fictitious).


We must now explore the rules of our Common language. The identities of all things are known as "Nouns". This includes People, Places (venue), and Things (inanimate). Specific identification is accomplished through "Proper Nouns". In the Harbrace College Handbook, The McGraw-Hill College Handbook, the Reference Handbook of Grammar and Usage, The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, The McGraw-Hill Style Manual, and The Gregg Reference Manual, all books dealing with the rules of grammar to our common language, there can be found no reference that gives an all upper case lettered Proper Noun. It is also stated by these grammar books that something that is all upper case lettered is merely "initials" which are a representation of something else.


In order for a group of initials to make any sense, it must be known what each upper case letter represents. Take the following example "wysiwyg".we dare say that out of one hundred (100) People, you would be lucky to find ten (10) that would know its meaning; "What you see is what you get", a computer term. The proliferation of the computer has resulted in an unofficial language, which is "INITIALISM". Which asks the question; does the Government now practice the language of "INITIALISM"? As type on this computer, its "spell checker" recognizes INITIALISM, but not Novation, and, by Government practice, are they not the same? If you have the occasion to have your identity spelled incorrectly indicating an artificial person, and asked that it be corrected, and the response is that this is the only way it can be spelled, then have you not discovered whether you are being identified as a Private Citizen, or a creation of the state? Is it not factual to say that any agency of Government that is unable to correct such an error has been established only for the purposes of dealing with artificial persons, Public Citizens and not Private Citizens? This would include, but not be limited to, all judicial documents (remember the GPO), all licenses, all taxation, all credit instruments, banking, mail delivery, etc. "INITIALISM" deals with acronyms.


1. "Strictly, a word formed from (a) the initial letters of other words, or from (b) a mixture of initials and syllables.

(a) "NATO (=North Atlantic Treaty Organization) NIMBY (=not in my back yard) TINA (=there is no alternative)

(b) "radar = (radio detection and ranging) yuppie = (young urban professional + diminutive ending)

sometimes included in the term ABBREVIATION.

2. More loosely, an ABBREVIATION pronounced as a string of letters, especially letters that stand for the name of an organization or institution, e.g. BBC, USA.

"This usage may be due to the fact that the specific term for this type abbreviation (INITIALISM) is not widely known." The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, S. Walker & E. Weiner (1994)

All the other grammar books also recognize acronyms for what they are, initial letters of words either strictly formed or more loosely as an abbreviation. So in this matter are we to believe that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the strict formation of the initial letters of words, or loosely the formation of an abbreviation? In either case, the meaning of this identification is, factually, "not widely known". And it is no stretch of the imagination to verify the GPO's statement that abbreviations, the more loosely formed abbreviation, must be "widely recognized".

There is a common test that exists that should show anyone whether they are dealing with a true pronoun name or merely a fictional, artificial identification. As an example, let's take John Paul Jones and its fictional want-to-be   JOHN PAUL JONES. Now, simply, try to cursively to write JOHN PAUL JONES. All will soon see that its an impossibility. If one would remember back to their school days and their Big Chief Tablets and fat pencils, you would remember that when starting to learn to write, there were two zones per line. The lower and upper zones were for capital letters (upper case), and the lower zone was for small letters (lower case). When we advanced to writing cursively, we learned that there were some capital letters that did not end where it was convenient for a smooth transfer into a small letter, let alone a capital one. Cursive writing is not conducive to all capital letters, and, therefore, their exists, no signature that can be produced that will show that JOHN PAUL JONES is legitimate in any way, let alone being able to produce an original signature positively proving the same. You do not have to be a handwriting expert to observe this fatal flaw to   JOHN PAUL JONES. In other words, the letters may be the same in these two representations, but our language does not allow for an original signature of   JOHN PAUL JONES.

Idem Sonans

The last hurdle we must climb in our identification of the parties in ANY action is a test called "Idem Sonans". This is the one and only test of a name that can be found and once more this test is not the privilege of alleged false personators claiming to be Public Servants.

Idem Sonans
a. In General
"If names sound alike or substantially alike, they are usually regarded as the same, although spelled differently, and the variance in their spelling is considered immaterial.

"With respect to names the phrase "idem sonans" means "of the same sound". The general rule is that the law (Public) does not regard the spelling of names as much as it does their sound.

Great latitude is allowed in the pronunciation and spelling of proper names, since proper names are often spelled differently, although pronounced the same (Terry-Terri).

"If they sound alike, or even if common usage (widely known) has made their pronunciation identical, they are regarded as the same and a variance in their spelling is immaterial, unless it is such as misleads a person to his prejudice, or the misspelling transforms the name into a wholly distinct appellation." - 65 C.J.S.  14 (a), Names, pg. 36.

Same sounding names discussed above are like Terry and Terri, not Terry and TERRY, as the latter is not a Proper Name, but an abbreviation/acronym/INITIALISM. Let’s look to proper pronunciation anyway. Pronunciations are found in most dictionaries. One of the words used to recognize the aforementioned example is the word John. Its pronunciation is ''JO 'Ach 'En’. Whereas, upon close examination of the documents of Government, creditors, bill collectors, courts, etc. reveals the word JOHN. Just as Tina represents a name, TINA means "there is no alternative" and though they may be purported as sounding the same, they are very different in meaning. In searching a five (5)-volume acronym dictionary and looking up JOHN; no meaning was found, no meaning either strictly or loosely. Using the pronunciation tables in the dictionary we have managed to define the pronunciation of JOHN. It pronunciation is 'JO 'Ach 'En. It is obvious from our basic principles of our common language that John and JOHN do not sound the same, as there is no acronymical authority to the contrary. So what is JOHN? It could be a corporation, a vessel, a computer term, etc. It is not widely recognized or known, and, therefore, according to the GPO an improper abbreviation. This is nothing other than an appearance of legitimacy (legal). By the free will and deed of these authorities, the exception clause of the "Idem Sonans" test must be invoked. It is obviously stated:

"unless it is such as misleads a person to his prejudice, or the misspelling transforms the name into a wholly distinct appellation." - 65 C.J.S. 14 (a), Name, pg. 36.

This is truly a wholly distinct appellation, as official sources of reference and information does not identify, describe, or define JOHN. And if it is left to "Because say So", then this is hearsay and again it is disallowed (Rules of Evidence). The document of the unknown thing, such as a "Direct complaint" calling itself THE STATE OF ARIZONA, for example, is fatally flawed in its definition of the Public Law entities described as "Plaintiff" and Defendant".

Further, "according to the body of law" (C.J.S.) there is only one test of names known as "Idem Sonans". This test is well beyond the authority of any judge. This means "because we say so, is an unlawful, infantile, and frivolous defense to using fictitious names. As a matter of fact, the "body of law" states the following:

"The question of idem sonans is essentially a question of fact.

"Generally (constitutionally) it is a question of fact for the jury to decide under proper instructions from the court (See; Rule 201(d), Fed. R. Evid.), and it takes a very fair case to give it application as a matter of law." - Rodriguez vs State, 363 S.W. 2d 472; Jones vs. State, 27 S.W. 2d 653.

"The question whether or not names are idem sonans, is properly a question for the jury? It has been held that the question is for the jury where it arises on the evidence [Rule 201(d)]." - 65 C.J.S. Names, 16, pg. 51.

For an alleged judge to state that it is his opinion that John and JOHN are the same, is called the federal and state felony known as "Practicing Law from the Bench”, especially when this alleged judge finds it impossible to produce any positive proof, whatsoever, to prove his opinion, like an original signature of JOHN, or even merely the physical presence of JOHN.

In all "Court's" headings, we find that the secret, concealing, fictitious, foreign, unofficial language of "INITIALISM" is used extensively. As this is a foreign language, the law provides the procedures needed for its interpretations. We find:

d. Abbreviations

Do not abbreviate the first word of a party's name, unless the full name of a party can be abbreviated to widely recognized initials:

Internal Revenue Service IRS
Federal Trade Commission FTC
International Business Machines IBM
- United States Style Manual, 2-2 (d)

Does anybody know what the second initial of JOHN stands for and is it easily recognized? If this is to be a representation of a name, let’s explore the following. Using what these ALL CAPS authorities use, then TINA is a name. Not so!

"According to the Body of Law" (Corpus Juris Secundum), this matter is exhaustively discussed. As a matter of fact it states:

In general, in the absence of statutory prohibition, judicial inhibition, or fraud, a person, without abandoning his real name, may adopt or assume any name, wholly or partly different from his name, by which he may become known, transact business, execute valid and binding contracts, and carry on his affairs.

"The use of fictitious names is not, however, to be encouraged since it lends itself readily to fraud because of the concealment involved and is likely to be used against the public interests?

"The average person views with suspicion any use of a fictitious name, and its very use puts on notice a person who has knowledge of such use that there is a purpose to conceal something.

"If it involves a public official, there is every reason to conclude that the motive is not in the public interest. - 65 C.J.S. Names, 9(1), pgs 13-14.

What can we conclude from all these references that are mentioned? Is it fair to conclude that any Private Citizen that faces an authority that is insistent upon the use of fictitious NAMES has relinquished any and all authority that may have been present since this authority has assumed the duties of a jury, and is desperate to conceal the truth? Are we bound to obey such despicable authorities, even if they commit civil and/or criminal violence to insure our obedience to their secret, unlawful, anti-Christian and unconstitutional demands? It is quite obvious, that anyone believing that fictitious NAMES are the ultimate fact leaves one only to question the patriotism, the word, the constitutional integrity, the power and authority of the jury, and the religious toleration of these fictitious NAME creators, and as a matter of good citizenship to dismiss any implied authority or powers of said creatures and their creators, and if necessary for the Public Peace to remove forever any and all practitioners of this despicable behavior.

As can be seen from this exhaustive research, there cannot be found absolutely any reason that would justify this, in fact, this is attempted identity theft and mail fraud. This Citizen knows that it is not the primary responsibility to prosecute any crimes, but even a cursory investigation will reveal multiple felonies or even higher crimes.

I declare under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to the Laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true, correct, complete, and not misleading.


 _____________________________________, a Private, Sentient, Civilian, Sovereign Citizen of the Alabama Republic, of these united States of America       


"at the mouths of two, or at the mouths of three the matter is established." Deuteronomy 19:15

_________________________________    _________________________________

Divine and Common Law Witness                                        Divine and Common Law Witness


Divine and Common Law Witness                  



Maricopa County       )       

 Alabama: the land      )                       Commercial Oath and Verification

Jefferson: the county  )


I, Donald-Joe: Barber, under my unlimited liability and Commercial Oath proceeding in good faith being of sound mind states that the facts contained herein are true, correct, complete and not misleading to the best of Libellant/Claimant’s knowledge and belief under penalty of International Commercial Law.


                                                                                                                Donald-Joe: Barber            


Jefferson: the county               )       


Alabama: the land                      )


The above named affiant, personally known to me, appeared before me a Notary, Sworn and under Oath This_______ day of June, 2008.