Re: KANSAS maybe not, but where

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Two Cities on September 14, 1998 at 17:13:28:

In Reply to: Two Cities we're not in Kansas anymore. posted by New Kid on September 14, 1998 at 14:02:09:

: In California, all legal process is required to be in the English language.
You are more learned than I am.
My true expertise lies elsewhere.
Is this British English or American English?
What dictionary governs?

: To the best of my research, within the English language, the use of upper and lower case characters is declarative. [Try reading the Declaration of Independence and decipher the declarative intent of the framers when they use different cases in the construct of their statements.] However, the general rule does not allow a succession of upper case characters without the subsequent use of punctuation antecedent to each character to indicate a contraction. If perhaps the succession of upper case characters produced a recognisable phonetic utterance, such utterance would be classified as an anacronym, not as a noun.[e.g.: By understanding little letters subversive heathens inform telling truths, or B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.T.]
One of the items of interest in the 'Declaration' is that
the signators acted in a representative capacity.
Whether they acted in their own capacity as well, is
hard to decipher.

: To my knowledge at present, the only language that allows for a succession of upper case characters is the language of Latin (the tongue of Rome). This form of latin was constructed from only upper case characters. Perhaps this is the declarative intent of such phonetic utterances as the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. A form of law foreign to our heritage of English Common law. While latin is the linguistic heritage of English Common law, from what I have read, it utilizes both upper and lower case characters.
If you executed a "Real Estate" transaction,
you will find much interesting reading between
the lines. Such as property "situate" or "Situate"
here and there, conveniently bouncing between linguistics.

: Has anyone else in those two cities of yours contemplated this in the context of the rules of English form and punctuation? [Rules are rules for a reason, not just as a nuisance as some would believe.] Or am I engaging in childish forms of sophistry?
I don't think so (sophistry).
The head guy at the PLANNING DEPARTMENT just about swallowed his
lunch when I asked him (face to face) the difference between "City of .."
and "CITY OF ..".
I have a copy of 'deed' or the 'formation' of a town. The year is 1884.
These six years are never referred to.
The same town later incorporates, via the "county commissioners" and is
declared a "Town" duly incorporated. This is 1890.
In the waning months of 1970, some resolutions are
passed by this "Town", and a "CITY" with a optional
municipal form of governance is formed. The numerals '1971'
exist within their "seal", so it could not have been used to sign off
on any business prior. At a visit to Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas),
almost identical structures can be observed. A response from the
"City" or "CITY" attorney at a public council meeting, informs me
that the previous structures have been "subsumed". I suppose he
knows what he is talking about.

: I look forward to an intellegent response.
I can only work towards my own potential. The workings of a
"Title Insurance" encounter provides a good read, in the
application of lettering.
At a hearing with a "BOARD OF EQUALIZATION" in another COUNTY,
in another STATE, I'm told on the record, that FRN's are the
expected return for unqualified numerals, and that my backward
and CAPITALIZED name does not refer to a man, but to a
"taxable entity". This last verbal, so I don't know how they
would spell it. It arises by voluntary application of contract.

Another break occurs in the so called "style of law".
This is specified (Washington) in three places, that I
have documents for.
A 1878 constitution (which may be adulterated)
A copy of the "Constitution of the State of Washington" 1889
The statute law committee web site.
The language for the style differs in miniscule parts, and in
my opinion casting whatever 'legislation' into one domain or
another. Upon completion the "Code Reviser" removes the style
language, and tosses the stuff into the big bucket.

: New Kid

Two Cities

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]