How North Dakota Is More Like Windows than UNIX

If your official name is YATES, you can't (and presumably needn't) file a petition to change it to Yates. "Petitioners have offered no authority or reasoned argument that there is any legal significance to the capitalization of their names."

From a decision of the North Dakota Supreme Court in In re Yates (Jan. 6):

Shane Lance Yates and Amy Jo Yates petitioned the district court to change their respective names from "SHANE LANCE YATES" (in all uppercase letters) to "Shane Lance Yates" and "AMY JO YATES" (in all uppercase letters) to "Amy Jo Yates." They requested the changes to "terminate the guardian-ward relationship and to distinguish from all other aliases, correct any mistakes, errors or identity confusion that exists in relation to the ALL CAPS STATE CREATED NAME." The district court denied the petitions … [in part on the grounds that] they did not seek to change from one name to another and the requested change would not affect any action or legal proceeding or other right, title, or interest, as was the stated purpose….

[T]he district court concluded the Petitioners are not requesting a change from one name to another name. On this record, we agree. In effect, the Petitioners request a change in the capitalization of their names from all capital letters to initial capital letters followed by lowercase letters. Petitioners have offered no authority or reasoned argument that there is any legal significance to the capitalization of their names. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitions….

Comments

[ah....Clem]

Ok, but was there fringe on the US flag in the courtroom, and does the ND Supreme Court Count as a "Court of Admiralty"?

That's the *REAL* issue here I think.

[John F. Carr]

And if the proceeding was virtual, how do you know the judge didn't change the background to show a different flag?

[Zarniwoop]

That was my very first thought when I read the post. Well played.

[Jerry B.]

"Sovereign citizens"?

[Michael P]

Quite possibly. Their basic argument is one that sovcits use. For example, from https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/sunday-edition-sovereign-citizen-cases-cause-quagmire-in-courts/article_b1f04374-f10f-11e9-8228-f3990996ee23.html:

“Are you saying you are not Mr. Trevis Burgos?” Haynie asked.

“I don’t know who that is,” he responded. “My name is spelled in upper case and lower case letters.”

[wolfefan]

I wonder how he could tell that Haynie was speaking in all caps...

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe he was shouting?

[apedad]

The court shall order the name change unless the allegations in the petition are untruthful, the petitioner fails to give a thirty-day notice in the county newspaper, or there is no “proper and reasonable cause” for the name change. N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3).
“Proper and reasonable cause does not exist if the court determines that the request for a name change is made to defraud or mislead, is not made in good faith, will cause injury to an individual, or will compromise public safety.”

I can't see why the request was denied; the petitioners met the requirements and did not breach the "Proper and reasonable" exemptions.

The requests should have been approved.

[Michael P]

If the system puts everyone's names in upper case, and the humans involved know that is a limitation of the system rather than a reflection of some abstract truth, how is the request either reasonable or proper?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the court's position is that you can't "change" your name to be the same as it was before, and your name being recorded in a computer all caps doesn't mean anything.

[Jmaie]

"...you can't "change" your name to be the same as it was before..."

My name in the social security database was incorrect, the folks at the local SS office told me I had to legally change my name to my actual name before they could update their records. So if not legal to change my name to my current name...

[KenveeB]

That was an idiot SS employee, not a system problem.

[apedad]

If there was a technical limitation then that would have been a valid reason.

However, the reason posted was, "The district court denied the petitions … [in part on the grounds that] they did not seek to change from one name to another and the requested change would not affect any action or legal proceeding or other right, title, or interest. . . ."

IT was a proper and reasonable request because the request:

* was NOT made to defraud or mislead;
* was made in good faith;
* will NOT cause injury to an individual;
* or will NOT compromise public safety.

Since they met the exemptions, the requests should have been approved.

[Michael P]

The wording you quoted gave sufficient reasons for a request to be not "proper and reasonable", but did not say whether those are necessary reasons, or whether anything else could make the request be improper or unreasonable.

Changing your name to the same thing seems like it's not in good faith, though.

[ReaderY]

In order for a court to order a name change under the atatute, a petitioner first has to file a petition to change their name. That never happened here. Although the petititoners filed a document styled a name change request, it didn’t actually contain any request to change their name.

In order to deny a name change request, there has to be one to deny. There wasn’t.

The court probably should have dismissed the petition rather than denied it. But nonetheless the correct outcome was not to approve it.

[ReaderY]

To make the point clearer, suppose that the petitioners had petitioned to change their name to a different font from the one used by the printer that created their birth certificate. This makes it even clearer that no name change is actually being requested.

Just as font is not actually legally part of ones name, neither, in North Dakota at any rate, is capitalization.

[JCCC1]

This is probably the correct reasoning. If the name as reflected in the proceedings is the same both before and after, then no change has taken place or is requested.

However, plenty of absurd things happen in the world of legal fiction all the time, and if the petitioner states some sort of coherent reason for legally doing a NO-OP, then that would hardly be unique in the word of law -- or the world of *nix.

[Kevin Smith]

I would contend that such a non-change can be fairly presumed *not* be made in a good faith. Since it doesn't result in functional change in how the petitioner's name will be represented in any government or private system, it amounts to, at best, a waste of the court's (and the state's) time. At worst, if this is a sovereign citizen thing as it appears to be, the petitioner may think this entitles them to commit crimes since they will believe the courts no longer have jurisdiction and laws don't apply. And of course the potential for these crimes could trigger all three of the remaining exceptions

[rsteinmetz]

I would suggest the reason for the change was possibly fraudulent, the petitioners could (and probably intended to) deny they were the properly named if the name was not styled in exactly the same manner as they wished.

Some years ago my wife was an officer in a professional organization and one of her duties was to address member certain complaints. One of the members wanted the organization to change the name under which she was listed in their roster. She wanted the to spell her name with a heart in it, something most computers at the time couldn't do. The member refused to believe it wasn't practical.

[Ben of Houston]

I have to disagree. The request was fundamentally flawed, and it was dismissed in the same way as if the filing was missing critical forms. You can't change the name from one name to same name. Capitalization does not change a name, and accepting this would legitimize the confusion that these poor souls are experiencing.

Now, to be kind, perhaps the judge could have returned their filing fees, saying that this is unnecessary. However, that would be pure generosity after wasting the court's time.

[OtisAH]

Great news! You don’t have to search for or guess at the reason. The reasoning for denial, and upholding it, are in the excerpt above! Neat, huh?

[KenveeB]

I think the holding was that there wasn't actually a request for a name change, because they weren't changing anything.

[Currentsitguy]

If he really wanted to go full UNIX, he'd have changed his name to SHANE LANCE NULL.

[Currentsitguy]

Or better yet change his last name to

"SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'YATES'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'"

[Eugene Volokh]

Obligatory xkcd reference. Let's go Bobby!

[Ben of Houston]

Who actually names a table "Items"? Haven't any of y'all heard of Hungarian Notation?

[TwelveInchPianist]

?? This is a well-formed query. You need an initial unmatched quote.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The petitions seem to have qualified for approval, particularly if were established that (1) some electronic searches are case-sensitive and/or (2) the state assigned all-caps names to the petitioners.

If there is a strong argument against the petitions, the provided decision did not identify it.

[ReaderY]

Again, suppose the petitioners didn’t like the font their name was printed in on their birth certificate and filed a name change request to change the font?

The fact that employers may reject a resume in an ugly font doesn’t vest the font with legal significance. They have no obligation to use the font on their birth certificates when giving their names in in their interactions with others. Same with the capitalization.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You contend that 'font and capitalization are the same' is a sound argument concerning the case-sensitivity issue?

These apparently were pro se petitions; a better effort might have illuminated the 'were these petitioners treated in an unusual manner by the state' and 'what is the concern underlying the petition' issues. But an argument that "JOE" and "Joe" are always the same for all (including legal and practical) purposes is unpersuasive.

[David Nieporent]

You contend that 'font and capitalization are the same' is a sound argument concerning the case-sensitivity issue?

You contend that it's not?

But an argument that "JOE" and "Joe" are always the same for all (including legal and practical) purposes is unpersuasive.

Joe and JOE are always the same for all purposes.

[Life of Brian]

Joe and JOE are always the same for all purposes.

I always take care to triple-check my thinking any time I find myself agreeing with the Rev, but here he's spot on. "Joe" and "JOE" would not necessarily end up in the same position in a case-sensitive sort, as one simple example.

[David Nieporent]

Can you actually think of a single real world example of anyone ever (on purpose) doing a case-sensitive sort of people's names?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Joe and JOE are always the same for all purposes. "

One of my former partners, whose practice involves information technology and intellectual property, advises me that that assertion is a falsehood. He told me (after considering the point for a few seconds) that case-sensitive searches are less common than case-insensitive searches but regularly encountered in some contexts.

I plan to rely on that description of the situation unless a persuasive argument to the contrary emerges. I therefore perceive that 'font and capitalization are the same' is an unsound argument.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He told me (after considering the point for a few seconds) that case-sensitive searches are less common than case-insensitive searches but regularly encountered in some contexts."

Holy shit, if I do a search for 2+2 it skips right over 4! You've broken the universe, Arthur!

[TwelveInchPianist]

You know, Arthur, given your inability to understand the use-mention distinction I'm not surprised by your confusion.

[loki13]

So, there's actually an opinion. Which is linked.

The Court's reasoning is pretty simple- it's not a name CHANGE. And there's a prior case on the issue (Petition of Dengler).

"In Dengler, we concluded the name change statute 'contemplates a change from one name to another, and not a change from a
name to a number.'" So, pretty simple.

Also, FWIW, the poor trial court had to deal with this already several times (this decision was already res judicata).

Anyway, as a purely factual matter, this is the same old BS (all-caps, or copyright, or old fringe) that so-called natural born citizens are always trying to pull. It has nothing to do with legal rights; it's just because sometimes (for convention, because it's always done that way and attorney copy-and-paste) legal documents will use all-caps to refer to parties. So insanely stupid.

[Michael P]

"that so-called natural born citizens are always trying to pull"

Next thing we know, they'll be petitioning courts to declare they are eligible to be President!

[loki13]

Ugh, brain freeze. Sovereign citizens.

[ReaderY]

An obvious motive for such a name change is to become immune from legal process. Nearly all court documents use capital letters to specify parties’ names. If they had been allowed to change their name and were sued in any court that uses all caps to identify parties (i.e. any court likely to have jurisdiction over them), they could simply ignore it and argue that someone else was being sued, not them, because their names have lower case letters.

Rather a clever dodge if you think about it, if they had been able to get away with it.

[Sarcastr0]

Form over function is the main trick those folks pull. Even if the change were allowed, I don't think for a moment courts would buy their 'it's not me' excuse.

And despite failing over and over, these types keep thinking this time it'll work. Magical thinking - the idea that aesthetic and sympathetic correspondence have some kind of purchase on reality.

[OtisAH]

“Do not congratulate.”

There is nothing clever about the sovcit movement.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think there's more to the story.

What reason did the petitioners give for the change?

If every time my name appeared beside others it was all in caps, with everyone else's in normal capitalization, it would drive me nuts, and probably make me a target for stalkers.

[KenveeB]

The "more to the story" is that it's a common argument of sovereign citizens and other fringe groups that when the government puts your name in all caps in a legal document, they're creating a state-assigned ID distinct from your regular self and using the all-caps means they somehow haven't properly served you, etc. It's nothing nefarious to these particular people. A lot of government documents list names in all caps as a way of making them stand out and standardizing the look of them, and conspiracy theorists have assigned a big hidden meaning to that.

[Roger S]

In Windows, you can rename a file to change the case, even though most functions treat it as equivalent.

More to the point, you can rename a file to its true name, and Windows does not give a stupid error message telling you that the operation was unnecessary.

[abhudd47]

It is ridiculous that one needs permission from the government to change my name anyway. I get why the government needs to maintain a record, why a person needs to file a NOTICE with the government in order to use the new name in legal situations (so that past, present and future legal issues can be adequately connected to the right person). But what a person's name is has no bearing on anything the government has any legitimate authority over. I swear name change laws in America are getting almost as bad as the countries where you can only name your children from a government approved list...

[David Nieporent]

It is ridiculous that one needs permission from the government to change my name anyway.

One doesn't. All one needs to do, legally speaking, is adopt a new name. The problem is that most entities won't accept that without documentation.

I get why the government needs to maintain a record, why a person needs to file a NOTICE with the government in order to use the new name in legal situations (so that past, present and future legal issues can be adequately connected to the right person).

Well, generally speaking, that is the way it works. Unless you do it with fraudulent intent, you're fine.

[Longtobefree]

Don't you hate it when the most important parts of a story are glossed over?
What were the PRONOUNS?!

[MatthewSlyfield]

There were no pro nouns. They only used amateur nouns.

[weibullguy]

I’m confused. Is the author attempting to gaslight us into believing there are no case insensitive file systems for the Unices, no case sensitive file systems for Windoze, or both?

[tkamenick]

Yeah, given how these nutso latch on to the tiniest thing, we're all better off if there's not a judicial ruling that Yates and YATES are two different names. Better for everybody involved to keep it clear that they are the same name.

[Squire Al]

When you file a Complaint in the USDC of New Jersey, probably other Districts as well, using the electronic filing system you have to enter the party name in all CAPS as an initial matter. Frankly, I have no idea why but if you don't, and I have made that mistake on occasion, you get a nasty response from the Clerk pointing out your mistake and reminding you to do it right in the future.

I believe it is some sort of system requirement but I would be happy to hear a fuller explanation if there is one.

[David Nieporent]

You beat me to this observation. NY district courts don't require that (well, not SDNY, EDNY, or NDNY; I'm not sure about WDNY), but NJ does. There's of course no good reason, except that the people who designed CMECF are sadists.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Data entry into systems that only accepted CAPS was so much easier and quicker. It reduced the keystrokes necessary and also reduce typographical errors. I saw one industry study, back in the 90's, that suggested moving from an all caps to case sensitive database cost a company about 30-50% more time in data entry and quality assurance time. Sounds about right given that each incorrectly entered keystroke takes something like 100-1000 times the amount of time to correct further down the workflow.

[David Nieporent]

But all-caps (or ALL CAPS) is much less readable. So you make the data entry easier on the front end, but the use of the data harder on the back end.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And most text is entered once, read many times.

[Somebody]

Anyone else disappointed in the clerk who typed this up for just doing their names on the first page in Standard Case and nOt TyPiNg LiKe ThIs?

[Somebody]

aMy Jo YaTeS, sElF rEpREsEnTeD…
*spongebob picture*