Tuesday, May 15, 2018

NDAS - How to sign your name without assuming liability


07 – How to sign your name without assuming liability
What does a signature mean? I will tell you right now that when you sign something (no matter what “they” say), it means that you accept liability. And if you don’t read and agree to EVERYTHING you sign, you are making a big mistake.

I am constantly being asked… “How do I sign my name? … AND maintain my rights?”

We all know that before they let us go, they ALWAYS want us to sign something to keep us coming back. There are other points in the “legal” system where a “signature” is expected or required before the court can proceed as well.

I have heard that adding “Under Duress”, or “All Rights Reserved” to a signature when signing a document will maintain our inherent human rights; and while this could work as well,
the proper and Latin way to sign under duress is to add a “V.C.” before your name.

Vi Coactus, abbreviated to V.C., is a latin term. The website wikipedia cites the definition of vi coactus as:

“constrained by force”. Used when forced to sign (“or else …”)
Perhaps the most famous use of vi coactus when signing a document was that of Cornelius de Witt. Alexandre Dumas captured the event as follows:

The Grand Pensionary bowed before the will of his fellow citizens; Cornelius de Witt, however, was more obstinate, and notwithstanding all the threats of death from the Orangist rabble, who besieged him in his house at Dort, he stoutly refused to sign the act by which the office of Stadtholder was restored. Moved by the tears and entreaties of his wife, he at last complied, only
adding to his signature the two letters V. C. (Vi Coactus), notifying thereby that he only yielded to force.

There is scant authoritative information regarding this term on the web. However, on the One Heaven Society of United Free States of Spirits website the following information is provided:

The Bar wants you to sign as surety

At key points in a Court case, the Bar members want you to sign certain documents. Why? Because
your signature is like your vocalized consent – it can be legally interpreted as your agreement to be surety for an obligation and to perform as well as to waive other rights.

Do you have to sign? No you don’t. But in many cases, the Bar has designed a system so that if you don’t it is interpreted as dishonor so that they can invoke their power of attorney powers to declare you delinquent, incompetent and send you to prison anyway.

This is why you may have heard of people who refused to sign the papers when entering prison and yet were treated worse than most serious criminals, with complete apparent ignorance of their rights.  Why? Because the system is designed at certain points where you MUST sign.

So how do you overcome an unjust and unfair system that forces a man or woman to sign under duress, against their will and yet interprets such signatures as valid under Canon Law? The answer is making sure your signature follows a clear mark of duress.

Vi Coactus

Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined as in dishonor and incompetent,
you may lawfully initial in large letters the letters V.C. where you will sign, then sign your name after- always after.

What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally “under constraint”. This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.

Now, at the earliest opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that, upon review of your signature, it can be proven to have been forced under threat and coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.

In some locations and in some prisons as this knowledge grows, it is possible that law enforcement officials may start to reject such signatures, adding more threat and force on a person to sign without using V.C. It is your choice remembering that if you allow such criminal intimidation and torture to prevail and do sign without protest then the system can simply lie and state you made such a sign of your “own free will”.

So if they tear up the paperwork and demand you do it again, stating that such a signature is unlawful then such claims are against the laws of the Roman Cult Canon Law - the actual law that underpins their own statutes and regulations. However, if after several attempts they still refuse, there is a second method equally valid - the use of ellipse.

The use of ellipses

When the threat of intimidation or outright rejection of lawful protest is too great, then a second and equally valid method of signing under protest is permitted, namely the use of three full stops placed first, followed by the signature so that the three dots are not obscured by the signature.
This is called an ellipsis eg “…” and indicates that legally there was a form of words you wanted to state but were unable due to some event, in this case because of threat and coercion.

Thus, at the earliest opportunity the ellipsis can be revealed and it can be stated that you intended to write V.C. but were prevented therefore nullifying any agreement
It would be of interest to the author if there have been any more recent cases where V.C. has been used to sign a document. There appears to have been a case in Indonesia where Dutch interests signed V.C.; however, the author does not have full access to the journal in question:
The Measures Taken by the Indonesian Government
against …by I Login – 1958 – Related articles
Authority” or “o.p.” (under protest) or “v.c.” (vi coactus). And that, of course, was preciously what it was: compelled by force. …
Further definitions and their sources:
Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edition)
The ninth edition does not provide a definition for vi coactus.
Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (27th edition, 1955, pp.103)
Coactus – a compulsion, compelling; coactu atque efflagitatu meo, cic.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary ABS-LIB (1968, pp. 339)
1. Compressed, condensed; (of milk) curdled. b (neut. pl. as sb.) felt cloak.
2. Unnatural, artificial, forced, contrived.
3. (of instruments, actions, etc.) Unwilling, forced. b. required by law, compulsory.
Compulsion, constraint.
Interestingly, Cassell’s Latin Dictionary and the Oxford Latin Dictionary provide the additional definitions:
Cassell’s Latin Dictionary:
coacto – To compel.
coactor – 1. a collector of rents, money at auctions, etc. 2. One who compels.

List of Lation abbreviations (
wikipedia.org)    Dumas, Alexandre – Black Tulip, The (literature.org)    Signing in protest and under duress (one-heaven.org)    Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, pp.103 (exfacie.com)    Oxford Latin Dictionary, pp.339 (exfacie.com)
Note: Correction to the reference from 
one-heaven.org was applied (removing the term ellipse for ellipsis). Thanks to Gerald for identifying this correction.
Article courtesy of Freedom From Government

The Commonwealth Style manual says at page 116 that the only proper way to spell some one’s name is in lower case and that even to capitalize the first Letter is a family decision…  so here you have the Commonwealth Government admitting that all caps is not the proper way to spell some one’s name then if you add to that this statement by a USA supreme court justice the following…
“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. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” – S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795 [Not the “United States Supreme Court”]
This tells you where it stands at the moment…
If you need proof this unconscionable system is used in Australia, then all you need to do is examine your birth certificate, driver license and most government and financial institution issued documents.  In effect the law changes a human-being’s status from one of a free man or woman to an artificial person, juristic person, “ens legis” (creature of legislation) or legal fiction.  It is despicable fraud and deception by the political and legal systems.
If you have ever read a statute or Act, you will see references being made to a “person” instead of a man, woman or human-being.  Most Acts do not define what type of person they refer to: is it a “natural person” (human-being) or an “artificial person?”  In some law dictionaries a “natural person” can also mean an artificial person, so it would be best not to refer to yourself as a natural person, but only a man, woman or human-being.
If you are ever charged and summoned into court always ask and demand to know if your first name and family name is written in all-capital letters on the charge sheet, summons and any other court document.  Ask something like: “Before I grant my conditional consent to this proceeding, what is the nature of the entity this court believes me to be?” and/or “Does that name printed in all capital letters represent an artificial person; a juristic person and a legal fiction?”
If the magistrate or judge ignores, evades or disregards your question, then you can be reasonably certain that they want you to be liable and responsible for their created “strawman” legal fiction.  You are standing in a court acting deceptively and fraudulently in that it won’t disclose the fact that it’s dealing with legal fictions instead of free-born sovereign human-beings.  Tell the court: “I am not the artificial person/entity printed in your legal documents despite my name sounding the same as the all-capital printed name.  You are attempting to enslave me against my will and consent to accept liability for the artifical person/entity printed on those documents.”
Do not answer a magistrate or judge whenever he uses your name unless he is willing to state on and for the record the context in which your name is being used, and all the legal documents have been changed to spell your name in proper noun English and not all capital letters.
Continue to object, protest and dissent even if the judgement goes against you because, without your consent, any judicial decision is null and void and of no legal consequence.  The judgement only applies to their artificial person/entity – not you!
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (Name in ALL CAPITALS)

For purposes of understanding one’s legal or commercial status under the Admiralty system (the law system used in England, Canada and much of the US), it is necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS - Capitis Diminutio Maxima - in legal and domestic income tax forms, credit cards and statements, loans, mortgages, speeding and parking tickets, car documents, road tax, court summons, etc. While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently small detail has extremely deep significance for all of us!

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)


  1. Would you be so kind as to post the direct link to Von Reitz's article? We can't find it as titled. Weird, though her site is difficult to navigate. We tried Paul Stramer as well with no luck. thanks!

    1. Let me see what I can do for you! Will get on this! Blessings!

    2. Here ya go! Have no idea how this article got attributed to AVR but anyway following is the weblink according to a source who just sent it to us. Our apologies to Larry Hannigan.


    3. Thanks so much. Helps a lot & appreciate the extra effort. So much info out there, so many places to look. The good news is ITS OUT THERE FOR US!

  2. This article was written by Larry Hannigan, not Anna Von Reitz.


  3. yea didnt think anna wrote that and interestingly i saw Zap post/use it in one of his newsletters and annas name was nowhere near the article.