is it possible at all for a bank to be honest

[bl4kjaguar]

Besides the obvious matter of a social security card not being a government publication  either

Interesting claim; maybe we can get back to it later...

, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a private bank or a checking account.  

Oh? You mean to say you opened a "personal" checking account in the US without the use of a tax ID document bearing your name in all caps?

Incidentally, it IS the only document giving you these guidelines.  If there was anywhere else, you wouldn't have to draw the conclusion for us, you would just point to that document.  Which you do not do.

I do not point out documents like The Chicago Manual of Style 14th Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, among others, because this has already been done for me in that link that I gave you.
Here is that page again.

As for asking you questions, you keep saying you will answer questions if they are asked, yet you have refused or ignored any question that you do not have a "good" answer for.  Obviously there is little point in having a discussion with someone who is not willing to actually discuss.

Well... have you been asking these questions one at a time and in full context as per my request??? Worle1bm has been abiding by my request and I have been answering his questions; I do not intend to stop so long as these two simple rules are followed. So, how have I refused to answer your questions when you have not even stated them to me in an acceptable format as far as I am aware? Go ahead and ask away; nobody is stopping you!

Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences.

[bl4kjaguar]

I think it is fairly obvious at this point that you're simply a troll.

How can you justify this when you have not even started a conversation with me? 

[brian_23452]

Besides the obvious matter of a social security card not being a government publication  either

Interesting claim; maybe we can get back to it later...

pub·li·ca·tion:  a book, journal, etc. issued for public sale.
Clearly a SS card is non of those things.  This isn't really a debatable point.

, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a private bank or a checking account.  

Oh? You mean to say you opened a "personal" checking account in the US without the use of a tax ID document bearing your name in all caps?

That is correct.  The law requiring a SS card is quite new, 2002 I think?  Sometime around then.

Incidentally, it IS the only document giving you these guidelines.  If there was anywhere else, you wouldn't have to draw the conclusion for us, you would just point to that document.  Which you do not do.

I do not point out documents like The Chicago Manual of Style 14th Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, among others, because this has already been done for me in that link that I gave you.
Here is that page again.

None of those documents have anything to do with a private bank though.  A private bank can use whatever format they like. 

As for asking you questions, you keep saying you will answer questions if they are asked, yet you have refused or ignored any question that you do not have a "good" answer for.  Obviously there is little point in having a discussion with someone who is not willing to actually discuss.

Well... have you been asking these questions one at a time and in full context as per my request??? Worle1bm has been abiding by my request and I have been answering his questions; I do not intend to stop so long as these simple rules are followed. So, how have I refused to answer your questions when you have not even stated them to me in an acceptable format as far as I am aware? Go ahead and ask away; nobody is stopping you!

Well no, I don't think I have.  When I ask you something like, "did you ask the bank why, and what was their answer", you either have an answer or you don't.  There is no hidden meaning in the words, and the specific format or punctuation I use has nothing to do with whether or not you choose to answer.  It DOES however reveal why you have such great difficulty with dealing with institutions of any kind.

Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences.

Just because you say it is true, doesn't make it true.  As an example, my drivers license had a mispelling in my name.  Never had a problem with the bank.  My father has a completely different name on his SS card as on his checks, never had a problem either.  As an asside, you keep going on about the "authorized signature" line.  My checks don't even have such a line.  A quick google image search will show many many checks that do not.  If this is some big scheme, obviously all the banks ain't in on it!

[brian_23452]

I think it is fairly obvious at this point that you're simply a troll.

How can you justify this when you have not even started a conversation with me? 

Well this is a public message board, not a private discussion.  I have tried to engage you, but your refusal to address any of the many points brought up makes discussion quite impossible. 

[bl4kjaguar]

Just because you say it is true, doesn't make it true.  As an example, my drivers license had a mispelling in my name.  Never had a problem with the bank.

Perhaps they don't need the NAME, just the ID number.

As far as your checks, the "authorized signature" line is but an example of what I am trying to say here. Your proper name is not the name written on your checkbook, is it?

Actually, it is factually correct to say that punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and grammar are important in law. For example, an alleged violation of law charged to the all-caps name can be abated with the primary cause being misnomer.

I am not in receipt of any evidence that capitalization is universally unimportant in law, but I am again pointing you to evidence indicating that it is important and will await your providing evidence that disputes the following line of reasoning:

If, for instance, one attempts to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State of a State, if the exact title of the corporation - down to every jot and tittle - is not exactly the same each and every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State will refuse to file the papers. This is because each time the name of the corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation identifies an entirely different legal person.

It is therefore an eminently valid, and possibly crucial, question as to why governments, governmental courts, and agencies purporting to exist (in some undefined, unproved manner) within the jurisdiction of "this state" insist on always capitalizing every letter in a proper name.

There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of all caps when writing a proper name. To do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed jurisdiction by unknown people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary presumption not based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the deceit.

I would rather not cointinue quoting this source, but would prefer that you read it in its entirety because it provides definitive proof that capitalization is important in law, at least sometimes, and like I stated above, you can test this yourself. OK, now for your convenience I will quote this definitive proof and you tell me if you can find a counterexample:

Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.

[brian_23452]

Just because you say it is true, doesn't make it true.  As an example, my drivers license had a mispelling in my name.  Never had a problem with the bank.

Perhaps they don't need the NAME, just the ID number.

But your entire argument up until now has been there is something unique and special about how they write your name.  Now you're saying they don't need the name at all?

As far as your checks, the "authorized signature" line is but an example of what I am trying to say here. Your proper name is not the name written on your checkbook, is it?

But see thats the whole problem.  You haven't actually said what you're trying to say.  You've been asked several times what that is, and you refuse to answer.  You asked why that line is there, and I'm telling you that line isn't there on my checks.  But since you won't actually get to your point we have no idea what to make of that.  Of course my proper name is written on my checks. 

Actually, it is factually correct to say that punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and grammar are important in law. For example, an alleged violation of law charged to the all-caps name can be abated with the primary cause being misnomer.

To a certain extent perhaps, but not nearly as much as you claim.  I provided two specific examples refuting this, but like everything else you don't have an answer for, you simply ignored it.

I am not in receipt of any evidence that capitalization is universally unimportant in law, but I am again pointing you to evidence indicating that it is important and will await your providing evidence that disputes the following line of reasoning:

If, for instance, one attempts to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State of a State, if the exact title of the corporation - down to every jot and tittle - is not exactly the same each and every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State will refuse to file the papers. This is because each time the name of the corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation identifies an entirely different legal person.

It is therefore an eminently valid, and possibly crucial, question as to why governments, governmental courts, and agencies purporting to exist (in some undefined, unproved manner) within the jurisdiction of "this state" insist on always capitalizing every letter in a proper name.

There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of all caps when writing a proper name. To do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed jurisdiction by unknown people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary presumption not based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the deceit.

I would rather not cointinue quoting this source, but would prefer that you read it in its entirety because it provides definitive proof that capitalization is important in law, at least sometimes, and like I stated above, you can test this yourself. OK, now for your convenience I will quote this definitive proof and you tell me if you can find a counterexample:

Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.

Or perhaps they chose that format completely at random?  I'de ask you again what the bank told you when you asked them but we both know by now you won't answer.  What it really comes down to is two things.
1.  Obviously they have to write something.  We could just as easily be having this exact same conversation if they had chosen to write your name in lowercase letters.  You would then be asking why do they do  it that way.  They have to write something though. 
2.  You pick and chose what to respond to, ignoring anything that refutes your claims.  Don't tell me it has anything to do with not formatting the questions correctly, because anything you have a ready answer for you DO answer. 

I guess the best answer for you then would be to just not do business with the bank.

[bl4kjaguar]

Or perhaps they chose that format completely at random?

Sorry, I did not see a counterexample in your post, so I will assume that I have spoken correctly by stating "capitalization is important in law". Once we can agree on that, then I would be happy to cointinue our conversation.

Feel free to provide any proof that "capitalization is NOT important in law"; all it would take is a single counterexample:

Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.

I do not claim to have all the answers, but I would be happy to discuss with you as long as we can agree on facts such as the above. It is quite important that we start from a point of agreement before going further, if our goal is to understand the banking system.  

[brian_23452]

Or perhaps they chose that format completely at random?

Sorry, I did not see a counterexample in your post, so I will assume that I have spoken correctly by stating "capitalization is important in law". Once we can agree on that, then I would be happy to cointinue our conversation.

Feel free to provide any proof that "capitalization is NOT important in law"; all it would take is a single counterexample:

Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.

I do not claim to have all the answers, but I would be happy to discuss with you as long as we can agree on facts such as the above. It is quite important that we start from a point of agreement before going further, if our goal is to understand the banking system.  

Typically, in a discussion, the one making a claim has to provide the proof (and no, someone's opinion on a website is not proof).  One does not make a ridiculous claim, and then demand it be disproven or else it must be true, and get taken seriously.  With that said, I will be happy to answer your specific question posed here as soon as you go back and answer at least some of the questions posed to you. 

[bl4kjaguar]

Sorry, we really need to agree on this fundamental point about proper names and how the government is failing to write them out properly... and why it is doing that... because that is the key to understanding the first layer of this; now, if you would like to pose questions to me one at a time and with full context I can try and answer them, but we will probably keep getting stuck on this point.

[brian_23452]

Sorry, we really need to agree on this fundamental point about proper names and how the government is failing to write them out properly... and why it is doing that... because that is the key to understanding the first layer of this; now, if you would like to pose questions to me one at a time and with full context I can try and answer them, but we will probably keep getting stuck on this point.

I don't need to do anything of the sort.  You know what the questions are, because you are perfectly capable of picking out certain pieces of my posts and responding to them.  You just choose to ignore the parts you don't have an answer for.  As you said, there is little point in discussing the issue further, your agenda is quite obvious to any neutral observer. 

Incidentally, I believe you are a DPRK agent sent to undermine the US banking system.  Prove me wrong    See how silly such a claim sounds?

[bl4kjaguar]

First, I would like to mention that it takes two to tango; I do not at present have any interest in going back through your posts to answer your questions; so will you still be my dance partner?...

Incidentally, I believe you are a DPRK agent sent to undermine the US banking system.  Prove me wrong    See how silly such a claim sounds?

That claim sounds silly because you have not proposed a means by which it could be tested.

However, the claim that capitalization is relevant in law has in fact been tested and you can test it yourself by submitting a plea in abatement with the primary cause being misnomer.

I will now show you a few examples, now you don't have to believe that these tests occurred, but you can easily run a similar test yourself:

Test 1:


Test 2:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/irs.html

OK, now I am not suggesting that you DO go out and run these tests, just that it is possible, and that it seems like it has already been done. The combination of apparently successful tests and a well-reasoned hypothesis, along with the possibility of disproof by counterexample, are good reasons to believe what I have claimed. Your assertion that I am a foreign agent does not have any of those elements, nor can I see any other kind of hard evidence for that claim, so I am not obliged to refute it.

[brian_23452]

As I said, since you refuse to address any of the many flaws in your "theory" or answer the most basic questions, and simply categorically ignore anything for which you do not have an answer, there is little room for discussion.