This page is to document my interactions with Cal Poly Pomona with the intent of having them change my name and gender in their records. I began this endeavor in late May of 2005 and as of the last update of this page, Saturday, December 15th, 2007, at my word alone, in their central records they have granted me a change in my gender marker, but are still denying me a name change, and associated gender change as reflected in my name. At this time, for strategy reasons as I prepare a suit, I will not be updating this site much further until the matter is settled.

Directly below are links to the letters written back and forth between the university and myself. Following the list of letters, is a detailed history of events thus far:

   First letter to the university:  1st_letter_to_univ.html.
   First letter from the university: 1st_letter_from_univ.pdf.

   Second letter to the university:  2nd_letter_to_univ-a.pdf.
   Second letter from the university:  2nd_letter_from_univ.pdf.

   Third letter to the university:  3nd_letter_to_univ.pdf.
   Fourth letter to the university:  1st_letter_to_ortiz.html.
   Third letter from the university:  3rd_letter_from_univ.pdf.
   Fourth letter from the university:  4th_letter_from_univ.pdf.

   Fifth letter to the university:  5th_letter_to_univ.pdf.
   Fifth letter from the university:  5th_letter_from_univ.pdf.

   Sixth letter to the university:  6th_letter_to_univ.pdf.
   Sixth letter from the university:  6th_letter_from_univ.pdf.

June 7 (approx.):  I sent an email to the Assistant Registrar letting them know I would be dropping a letter by probably the next day. That email is available at the following link: OT-email06-07-05.html.

June 8:  I wrote a letter and hand delivered it to the Assistant Registrar whom I was interacting with regarding this matter. A copy of that letter is available at the following link: 1st_letter_to_univ.html.

Late June:  Received a phone call from this Assistant Registrar explaining that my request was denied.

A day or two later:  I received the letter of denial in the mail. A scanned copy of that letter is available at the following link: 1st_letter_from_univ.pdf.

Later in that summer:  I met with the Director of Judicial Affairs on the campus and he refused to aid me in this endeavor.

August 2005:  I switched over from living as an androgynous person to living as a female.

Over the next year and a half:  I sought to change my name in nearly every single aspect of my life. My financial institutions (banks and investment accounts), now bear my new name. This includes not only my off campus bank, but also my on-campus Federal Credit Union savings and checking accounts, including writing checks exclusively in my new name. I purchased stock on the NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchanges in my new name. I have had the change made with all of my credit card companies. As well, I changed my name within my federal financial aid records and with Sallie Mae—my student loan now bears my new name. My church records are in my new name and my tax deductible donations to my church and to the university where I received my undergraduate degree are all in my new name. My subscriptions to periodicals and membership in social and professional organizations are now in my new name. I purchased a life insurance policy in my new name. I am registered to vote and voted in several recent elections in my new name. I was called to serve jury duty in my new name. I changed my name with my friends, family, with my fellow students, all of my professors, and with my bosses and co-workers on the university campus. On campus, several campus web pages, in the interlibrary loan computer system, and on the computers in which I schedule my hours of work and on the papers I sign reporting my work hours, they have been
changed to bear my new name.

In nearly every aspect of my life I am going by Olympia Tveter, except with the DMV, Social Security, and in the university's main records. Social Security says that they want to see a school ID before they will change it.

Also in this time, I sought to research the legal nature of what I was requesting of the university, including changing my gender in their records and I prepared a letter requesting a name and gender change in their records and explaining the existing laws in these matters.

Jan. 1, 2007:  I completed a letter to the university requesting a name and gender change in their records.

Jan. 3:  The letter was sent by Certified U.S. mail to the Assistant Registrar and copy was sent to the Director of Judicial Affairs. A copy of that letter is available at the following link: 2nd_letter_to_univ-a.pdf.

Jan. 10:  At this time I had not yet received a signed notice that the letter had been received by the Assistant Registrar, only the one to Judicial Affairs, so I hand delivered a copy to the Assistant Registrar. A copy of that letter is available at the following link (it is the same as the Jan. 3rd letter, but the date is changed): 2nd_letter_to_univ-b.pdf.

Feb. 5:  I received a letter of denial through the U.S. Postal Service. A scanned copy of that letter is available at the following link: 2nd_letter_from_univ.pdf.

Feb. 6:  I sought an audience with the Assistant Registrar regarding the denial, and over the course of that week a meeting time was negotiated.

Feb. 12:  I met with the Assistant Registrar and the Director of Judicial Affairs, with the Director of the Pride Center also present. Their last letter, which I received on Feb. 5th, had said specifically that because my FAFSA and student loan records were not changed, that only this as keeping them from changing my name in their records that then they would change my name in the university records. The letter also said that that if I showed the Financial Aid Office a social security card in my new name, that this would also be acceptable for them to change it.
     At this meeting, I showed the university documentation from the Social Security Administration revealing that they may expect school records to change first before they will change their records to a new name and, additionally, I disproved the claims of their last letter by showing them documentation from FAFSA and Sallie Mae, my student loan provider, that these records had been in my new name for over a year and a half. I showed the university hard copies of documents over the past year and a half in my new name with these organizations and I explained that immediately upon receiving their letter (which claimed that when they checked them that they were not in my new name) I contacted both entities and the name both records bore was still only Olympia Tveter. If they were to follow their last letter, seeing these documents, they would have volunteered to change my name at that time, but now, altering their former statement in the letter, they responded by saying that actually only one thing was keeping them from changing my name and that was some specific federal codes governing the university’s financial aid records (which they claimed required me to have a social security card in my new name).
     The meeting additionally resulted in them clarifying with me that nothing was actually keeping them from changing my gender in the records, and though they didn't feel any hesitation at changing my gender marker at that point, because name is such a major part of gender (as it is a signal of gender), they didn't feel that they should change my gender marker until they felt they could change my name. The meeting also clarified that there were currently no huddles to my employment records on campus being changed to my new name. Their last letter claimed that they needed the Financial Aid Office to change my name in their records before they would, when at this meeting they also admitted that once the Registrar changed my name, that it would ubiquitously change all university records, including employment and financial aid. That the financial aid office needed to change it first was a misconception.
     The meeting ended with the Assistant Registrar committing to find out and contact me in those following two weeks regarding which specific federal codes now prevented them from changing my name.

Feb. 28:  I received an email from the Assistant Registrar which specifically quoted the federal codes which the university believes keeps them from changing my name without a social security card bearing my new name. Specifically these codes were: Sections § 668.32 and § 668.36 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The specific email message is at the following link: AR-email2-28-07.html. At that time I responded with a brief email that I had received it and I sent copies to the D of JA and the PC. My specific reply message is at the following link: OT-email02-28-07.html.

Mar. 5:  I sent an email to the Assistant Registrar informing them that I would have a formal written response by Monday, March 12th. The specific email message is at the following link: OT-email03-05-07.html, and I sent copies to the D of JA and the PC.

Mar. 12:  I sought to hand deliver the letter to the Assistant Registrar, and copies to the D of JA and the D of the PC. The letter thoroughly analyzes the federal codes quoted to me, with the conclusion that the codes fully allow them to change, particularly, my name, and as well, I again requested that they change both my name and gender in their records. No one was in the offices when I went to deliver this letter, so I emailed it to them all. It is available at the following link: 3nd_letter_to_univ.pdf.

Mar. 13:  I tried once again to hand deliver copies and simply left the hard copies with clericals or at their offices.

Mar. 16:  Sent an additional note to the Assistant Registrar with some clarification. That email is available at the following link: OT-email03-16-07.html.

Apr. 2:  After approximately three weeks had passed since my last formal letter's delivery, I sent an email to the Assistant Registrar informing them that I had not yet received a response. I copied this email to the D of JA and the D of the PC. It is available at the following link: OT-email04-02-07.html.

Apr. 9:  I met with the Director of the Pride Center and over the course of that week a meeting was arraigned with the Director of Judicial Affairs.

Apr. 13:  I met jointly with the Director of Judicial Affairs and the Director of the Pride Center to find out more about the progress of the university in responding to my last letter. In all of these meetings and in the official written responses from the university, I am being addressed in my new name, and at this meeting, when I mentioned that graduating in my new name and gender was very important to me, I was told that in less official circumstances than in the university records, such at the graduation ceremonies, that they could announce my diploma in my new name and even have it put in the graduation literature in my new name, but that I could still not receive a diploma in my new name. And altering their claims yet again, it was conveyed that the university would want to see either a social security card, driver’s license, or court order to have them “officially” change my name. I mentioned that I had seen some recent changes to Broncodirect (the school’s main computer system) which apparently now allows a student to have multiple names in the university records and as such they could change my name, yet still keep my old name in the records if some other agency came and asked them about it. The response I received at that time was that these changes were CSU system changes and not the university’s doing. And lastly in this meeting, I was told by the D of JA that the matter is now in other people’s hands and that the letter currently being prepared was once again to deny me a change in their records and, in an act of finality, the letter is to say that the matter is now closed in their eyes.

Apr. 24:  After not receiving an official response from the university since my letter of March 12 (approximately a month and a half have passed) I wrote and delivered a letter to the university president, Michael Ortiz. I hand delivered it to the secretary in his office, Susan Gililland. The letter can be found at the following link: 1st_letter_to_ortiz.html.

Apr. 26:  I recieved an email from one of the president’s aids, letting me know that she had received my letter dated and delivered on April 24th and that she was working on my situation and would update me when she had any news. That email is posted at the following link: OofP_email_04-26-07-a.html. I sent a reply the same day: OT_email_04-26-07.html, and the same day, it was reciprocally followed with a reply: OofP_email_04-26-07-b.html.

May 1:  Still awaiting an update, on this morning I called and spoke with Marissa Martinez (the aid in the president’s office who had sent me the emails of April 26th). She told me that a package had been put together and delivered to the university president and that she would inform me when any new information about my situation becomes available.

May 4:  I receive an email from the campus’ Director of Diversity and Compliance, informing me that their office had now been made aware of my situation and that they were now looking into the matter. The email also said that their office would like to schedule an appointment to meet with me late in the following week. This email can be found at the following link: DC_email_05-04-07.html.

May 5:  I responded to the email of the previous day with some clarification. That email can be found at the following link: OT_email_05-05-07.html.

May 7:  I receive an email from the assistant to the Director of Diversity and Compliance. She requested the I give her a call to set up a meeting with the director for later in the week, I gave her a call early the following morning and set up an appointment for the afternoon of Thursday, May 10th. On this day, the 7th, I also had a brief series of very minor clarifying emails with the D of DC.

May 8:  Through the U.S. Mail, I receive a letter at my address, post-marked yesterday, Monday, May 7th, with the letter itself dated a week ago on May 1st. A copy of the letter is available at the following link: 3rd_letter_from_univ.pdf. The letter was sent by the Associate Vice President of Enrollment Services and oddly addressed to “Jarrod Clifford (Olympia) Tveter.” The letter is denying this person a name change from “Jared Clifford Tveter to Olympia Tveter” in the school’s records. Specifically it says that before they will change it to what the person desires, the person should show them some sort of proof of the name change in the form of either a driver’s license, social security card or court order and that they are basing this requirement on the “California Code of Civil Procedure section 1275 et seq.”

Upon looking up these sections, one finds that the codes lay out the procedures for how court ordered name changes are to be done and when. Specifically sections 1275-1279.6 lay this out. Of particular note is section 1275.5(a) governing when they are to be done, and which I quoted in my second formal letter to the university. It reads that a person may choose to go through the courts to legally change their name or one may also very well choose to legally change it at will, through common law (as I am). 1275.5(a) also puts four restrictions on whether one can use the common law option to change their name in California. As I do not fit into any of those four categories listed --- in accordance with these statutes, I can legally choose (as I am) to disregard the procedures in 1275 and those following it, and change my name through common law alone. There are no other restrictions listed, not a license or social security card either. Below I quote from my second letter:

“§ 1279.5 (a) reads, ‘Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e), nothing in this title shall be construed to abrogate the common law right of any person to change his or her name.[’] Subdivisions b through e preclude one from changing their name by common law if they are in state prison, on probation, on parol, or been a convicted sex offender. So if a person is not in any of these categories – which I am not – then they can change their name through common law.”

And if anything, if one reads further, 1279.6 requires that the university (who is involved in a business or service) does not discriminate and force a name upon someone based on a person’s gender, but use the name which they choose to use. In my case, I am a women choosing by common law to use a name for my life other than my birth name or married name, and they are refusing to acknowledge it.

From this, I can only logically conclude that the university is continually changing their story of excuses and continuing to throw me code after code apparently without reading them as acts of deliberate discrimination against me. Also, if one examines several court cases related to this code, one finds that this particular code was enacted as an “affirmation” of the common law right. In re Useldinger 35 Cal.App.2d 723 (1939) reads:

“The common-law right to change one’s name has not been abrogated by statute in this state and such change may be accomplished without resorting to legal proceedings, and as sections 1275 to 1279, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure were enacted in affirmation of that right and for the purpose of establishing a change of name as a matter of record.”

Lucidly here, the courts pronounce that these codes were “enacted in affirmation of that [common-law] right.” The codes are merely for recording purposes. By the common law, the only proof that is needed is my honest word, not a court order. This particular case concerned a man who had gone by a different than his birth name since age 12 and now at age 25 wanted to establish a more permanent record of it.

“More than 14 years before the filing of the petition petitioner had exercised his legal right to change his name to James J. Britt. Thereafter petitioner had consistently used and had been generally known by the last-mentioned name and it constituted petitioner’s “legal name just as much as if he had borne it from birth”. (Ray v. American Photo Player Co., supra, p. 314) The purpose of the petitioner in filing this proceeding was to establish a legal record of that which he had already legally done many years before.”

So, simply giving my word, by the common-law stands as being of equal validity as my birth name. I am going by Olympia in nearly every aspect of my life, and thus the university should acknowledge my will to use the name I have chosen for my life. My legal name is Olympia Tveter, somehow they think that the courts or some other proof than my word makes the name more acceptable to them. And when one looks at cases like In re McUlta, which is similar to this, name is basically irrelevant in so far as the law is concerned, the person and their self-determination and will for how they live their life is all that matters. The statutes are just to make a record of it.

It is also worthy to mention that this state case In re Marriage of Banks (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 631 which states that: “Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1275-1279, were enacted in affirmation of the common law right of a person to change his name without initiating legal proceedings and for the purpose of providing for the establishment of a change of name as a matter of record.” This makes it even more crystal clear that changing one’s name is actually a matter ONLY of common law, the common law is the legal name change. The court procedure just makes it recorded. As time goes on, later cases fail to reference these older cases and seem to even drift into beliefs that common law is not the legal way to change one’s name, but clearly from these earlier cases, the common law name change is the legal name change, the court procedure is just to make a record of it.

The federal case of Brooks Bros. V. Brooks Clothing of California (1945) 60 F.Supp. 442 affirms this: “It should be added that in California a person may without judicial proceeding, change his name, and acquire property and do business under it. Ray v. American Photo Player Co., 1920, 46 Cal.App.311, 189 P. 130; In re Useldinger, 1939, 35 Cal.App.2d 723, 96 P.2d. 958.”

Statute is simply to have a public record of it, and it is not prerequisite for legally changing one’s name. The codes are “in affirmation of that [common-law] right” and not to hinder it. The university is mistaken in their interpretation that because the procedures exist, that it must be followed to give them “proof”.

May 9:  I sent the following email to the D of D&C, informing their office of the letter received on May 8th: OT_email_05-09-07.html.

May 10:  I met with the Director of the Office of Diversity and Compliance. We discussed the situation, and she committed to speak with the CSU attorney with whom the university had been consulting and to speak with the Associate Vice President of Enrollment Services who wrote the denial letter received on May 8th to try to find out what the true core reasons were for them writing me a denial letter. She also committed to get back to me and meet again within the next two weeks.

May 11:  I sent an email to the D of D&C discussing possible concessions that the university and myself might together make to try to resolve the matter. That email can be found at the following link: OT_email_05-11-07.html.

May 14:  I sent an email to the D of D&C with some additional thoughts on compromises, and comments on both human rights and possible cracks in the law that the university might additionally be rationalizing with. This email can be found at: OT_email_05-14-07.html.

May 24:  The Director of Diversity and Compliance sent me a scheduled response after two weeks, letting me know that she is still looking into the matter and is expecting to have some more information by the beginning of the following week. She also asked for some clarification regarding the university’s computer system (BroncoDirect), if it still allowed multiple names. I sent two follow up emails that night and early the next morning with those clarifications that it appeared as though the system did still allow multiple names. Those emails can be found at the following link: emails_05-24-07.html.

June 1:  After not receiving any notice in from the D of D&C in the past week, I visited her office to receive an update on the situation. She told me that she had been very busy and was still looking into the matter but that because this was a relatively new matter for the university, that that was probably the real reason they’ve had trouble granting me the name and gender change. Still, I told her of some other possible cases which I thought the university might be using to rationalize denying me a name change and described how an argument might be made using some of the details of those particular cases, but also how such reasoning was on very weak ground. I also told her that, amid my own busy-ness, I would try to relay to her as soon as I could the names and numbers of those cases for her. The meeting was extremely pleasant and she said that that additional information would be good and responded that she would issue me an official typed response in the next few weeks.

June 4:  I receive an email for the D of D&C to ask me about a reporter who had that just called her. That email is found at the following link: DC_email_06-04-07.html. I sent the following response explaining that I had been in contact with several reporters and I also sent on to her the case names and numbers and my analysis of them which we discussed some of at the meeting on June 1st. That response email is at: OT_email_06-04-07-a.html. She responded with a brief email that she had received it. I called her later on about her first email that day, but she was in a meeting. Her secretary said though that to publically release information about my name and gender change status in the university records that I might have to write a letter and that probably an email would do. I told her to pass along to the director that I give my permission, but I also sent the following email: OT_email_06-04-07-b.html. Her secretary said that she would have her call me once she came out of the meeting.

June 8:  I recieve an email from the D of D&C asking if I can meet with her the following week. We enter into an email correspondance to set up a time.

June 10:  The Director of Diversity and Compliance and myself have a meeting in which she reveals to me her conclusion that although I may have the common law right to change my name, and the right to change my gender, the university is not required to honor those rights to self determination. She presented several reasons, which appeared to me at the meeting to be at their core are based on personal fears and not in law.

The first main reason she gave, was that according to a statement by the state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, they were not bound to honor common law name changes. Particularly she quoted to me the line which reads:

“Thus ‘validity,’ for purposes of a common law name change, means that one has the freedom to change one’s name and to use whatever name he or she chooses, qualified only by the proviso that the purpose not be dishonest. To change one’s name by the common law method is to exercise the freedom to unbind oneself from the given name or surname acquired through birth or prior assumption, and to identify oneself anew; it is not to unilaterally impose recognition or acceptance of the newly chosen name as an obligation incumbent upon others.”

Of greatest value to her were the words “it is not to unilaterally impose recognition or acceptance of the newly chosen name as an obligation incumbent upon others.” And because it is not “incumbent” upon them to honor my rights, that they thus have the freedom to discriminate against me based on whatever reason they have. In response to this I quoted several federal court cases which explained how a common law name change carries the exact same legal weight as a court issued name change --- and how even a court issued name change does not obligate people to recognize it unilaterally. I gave the example of someone I know on the university campus who is a very conservative Christian. His specific beliefs in God include that gender is something fixed and God assigned, so he still refuses to recognize me by my new name and gender. This is understandable. Even a court order could not force him to recognize it. And clearly the “nexus between the new name and the individual” in this case, this conceptual leap for him is just too big, and for the university --- clearly they have assigned certain documents to “prove” that conceptual leap for them. I was told in this meeting that it is not unreasonable to require proof and to determine what those forms of proof will be. But, by the numerous court cases concerning this matter, it is clear that as long as they can identify who I am, my name changed by common-law carries the same legal weight as my birth name.

Another main reason she gave was that the university was not being discriminatory because their policy was consistently discriminatory against everyone, meaning that they applied the same rules with everyone. For instance, if anyone else was coming in, they would apply the same rules of proof regarding name and gender changes, regardless of the individual, and, thus, because of their consistency in their discrimination against everyone, their policy is not considered discrimination (see Baker v. Calif. Land Title Co. 349 F.Supp 235, 507 F.2d 895). But it is discrimination in relation to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (see Jech v. Burch (1979) 466 F.Supp. 714) and discrimination as it does “interfere with [and] oppress [a] person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her.” (Penal Code § 422.6 (a)).

As well, she also argued that if they did honor the common law rights of people to change their name and gender at will, well, then everyone might do it, and such an instance might become a security threat. It seemed that this reason was the core reason. All the rest of her quoting was hinged on the Lockyer analysis being a loophole which allowed discrimination based on whatever reason, or no reason at all -- the Lockyer report allowed them to arbitrarily set up whatever they felt like using as proof. This particular excuse of my name change being a threat to security and the stability of their policies is arguably not based on law but on personal fears. And though I can see how I might “ha[ve] no statutory right to require the State of California to participate” in a common law name change as seen in Lee v. Ventura County Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 510, though this case appears to apply to court issued name changes and not to personal control over the self and one’s life (see Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corporation, 85 F.3rd 407 (1996) and  Touchton v. Dover Corp./Rotary Lift Div., 319 F.Supp2d 1290 (2004).

So essentially, in summary, they claim the right to regulate how fixed people’s identities will be. They claim the right to universally limit people’s rights by drawing lines concerning their own nexus based on personal fears, because it is not “incumbent” upon them to. And thus they claim that their discrimination in reference to name and gender is legal. Much at issue is, how much can a government entity infringe on the rights of the people at a policy level based on personal fears?

Consider though the numerous references in court cases and even in the statement by the attorney general about ‘honesty’ and not being involved in fraud being a hallmark of the worthiness of the common law method of name change --- such statements speak to trusting in the freewill of the people. I can understand the possibility of having a ‘reasonable’ nexus based on personal fears, but when one considers the state codes and many court cases that say that at will name and gender self-determination is legal and needs to be honored, that honest, self-determination is something to be trusted, such words evoke that it is not the place of the university to take upon themselves the act of being a policeman of name and gender based on their own personal fears. Though this is what they are claiming.

Among minor things of note from the meeting, she mentioned speaking to one administrator who told her that they might be fined if the records didn’t match Social Security. I can only guess that this administrator was referring to Sections § 668.32 and § 668.36 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations which were previously quoted to me and which I debunked in my third letter to the university. Also, of note and which I mentioned, to her was that if you get a court ordered it isn't required that you get your social security card or driver’s license changed, which also brings into question that administrator’s logic.

When asked, ‘What about all the case law, statutory law, and the common law that says that my request for a name and gender change is legal?’ She once again referred to the quote by the attorney general that it wasn’t “incumbent” upon them to acknowledge and honor my rights. She said that I have the right to change my name to whatever I desire, but that are not required to honor that right, nor can I compel them to honor that right.

When I first came to the Registrar’s office approximately two years ago, they wanted to see a court order, then in their first letter to me they said they wanted to see a driver’s license or a social security card, then in the second letter they said that the only thing they needed to see was a social security card, now they are saying that a driver’s license, social security card, or court order will do. When I asked about this apparent inconsistency in their policies, that the policy seemed to change all the time. She said that of all of those letters written to me and interactions, those people were speaking out of line and should not have spoken for the “university,” and that their policy is that they will accept those three documents and certain immigration paperwork only, and that their policies are consistent, though she added that the university needed to make it much more clear to everyone that those are the policies applied to everyone equally.

And finally, regarding my change of gender marker, I was told at this meeting that the university maintained the position stated to me by the Assistant Registrar at the February 12th meeting -- that, because name is such a strong indicator of gender, they would only change my gender marker in the central records after my name was changed.

And so, as their refusals to grant my name and gender change are based on their various arbitrary constructions of a nexus, they appear to be wrapped in a paranoia concerning the altering of any policies to accomodate the rights of the people.

June 17:  I sent the Director of Diversity and Compliance a shortened version of the above summary. That summary is at: OT_email_06-17-07.html.

June 20:  I sent a follow up email to the D of D&C. It is available at: OT_email_06-20-07.html.

June 21:  My campus medical records at the University Student Health Center were changed to my new name and gender. I went in and showed a copy of Penal Code section 422.56 to my doctor and she knowing that I had lived as a female for approximately 2 years, recommended that I get my medical records changed there. So I did. I obtained a printout of the change for my own records, scanned it and it is available at the following link: h-ctr_06-21-07.pdf.

July 2:  I receive a letter in the mail from the Director of Diversity and Compliance in which I am granted a change in my gender marker in the school’s central records, but still denied a name change. (A scanned copy is available at: 4th_letter_from_univ.pdf.) I see this is major progress for them, that they have at least granted me a change in my gender marker from M to F. The main arguments of the letter is that their practices regarding name changes are the same for everyone and thus it is not discrimination. As well, they purport that they have this freedom to deny common law name changes because, they claim, it is not “incumbent” upon them too. I will be preparing a rebuttal letter in the next several weeks.

July 30:  To inform the D of D&C of my intent to respond to the letter I received on July 2nd, I sent the following email: OT_email_07-30-07.html.

Aug. 30:  I delivered a response letter to the office of the Director of Diversity and Compliance. The letter can be found at: 5th_letter_to_univ.pdf. As it may prove helpful for anyone reading this site who is seeking to understanding Common Law rights, I have included a copy of the Report on Civil and Common Law mentioned in the 5th letter. I found it immensely revelatory regarding the severe validity and superiority of the Common Law regarding this issue of name change. The Common Law is part of the blessings liberty mentioned in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution and particularly the Common Law is to keep the government from acting in tyranny over the people. The link is at: report_on_civil_and_common_law.pdf.

Oct. 10:  I receive a response from the university, once again denying me a name change, this time predominately based on “nationally cognizant issues of national security, identity theft, and fraud.” That letter can be found at the following link: 5th_letter_from_univ.pdf.

Oct. 11:  I delivered a response letter to counter their claims and hand delivered it. A copy of that letter can be found at: 6th_letter_to_univ.pdf.

Nov. 14, 2007:  I receive a response letter from the university regarding my latest petitions and reasoning with them. They once again deny me my name change in the central records. The letter can be found at the following link:  6th_letter_from_univ.pdf.

Today, December 15, 2007:  The University continues to claim that in the central records, they have the exclusive right to control, against my will, my name designation and gender designation as reflected in my name, and thus that I do not have the right to be officially and publically addressed by the name and gender I have chosen for my life, nor to graduate from the university as such. To quote Common Law Pleading: Its History and Principles, by R. Ross Perry:

   The vital principle of all systems of law is that a remedy must be given for the violation of every right. Our English law expresses this truth in the Latin words ubi jus, ibi remedium (whenever a right exists, there exists a corresponding remedy). This maxim has been freely translated by Lord Coke thus: “The law will that in every case where a man is wronged and endammaged that he shall have a remedy.”1 Chief Justice Holt uses even terser and stronger language: “It is a vain thing to imagine there should be a right without a remedy, for want of a right and want of a remedy are interchangeable.”2
   “...The ground of law is plain, certain, and indeed universal, that where any man is injured in his right by being either hindered in or defrauded of the enjoyment thereof, the law gives him an action to repair himself.”3
1  Co. Litt. 197 b.
2  Ashby v. White, Ld. Raym. 938; s. c. 1 Smith’s Leading Cases, 342; s. c. 1 English Ruling Cases, 521.
3  Per Holt, C. J. Ashby v. White, English Ruling Cases; 525; s. c. (House of Lords) 1 Bro. P. C. 47.

I have been hindered and thus injured by this university in the enjoyment of my rights. They admit that it is my right, but claim that they do not need to honor that right, that they have the right to hinder my enjoyment thereof. Clearly though, when a right is hindered, there must be remedy, to demand that right and compensation for its related injury.