Is it legal to pretend to be the British monarch? Is it legal for John Doe, in the UK, to claim to be king of the UK and insist on being called His Majesty King John II? I'm not asking about impersonating the actual monarch (e.g. claiming to be King Charles III), but keeping one's real name but calling oneself King or Queen.
It depends where one does this. In the UK, I believe it is a crime to falsely claim to be the monarch. Lady Jane Grey was beheaded for doing so. The charge was treason. In any other places it is probably not a crime, but might be viewed as evidence of insanity. A comment mentioned Emperor Norton who lived from 1818 to 1880, largely in the US city of San Francisco. He proclaimed himself &quot;Emperor of the United States&quot;. He was treated as a piece of &quot;local color&quot;, not as a criminal. According to the Wikipedia article on him (linked above): Norton had no formal political power; nevertheless, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments that he frequented. Some considered him insane or eccentric, but citizens of San Francisco celebrated his imperial presence and his proclamations, such as his order that the United States Congress be dissolved by force and his numerous decrees calling for the construction of a bridge and tunnel crossing San Francisco Bay to connect San Francisco with Oakland. Though Norton received many favors from the city, merchants also capitalized on his notoriety by selling souvenirs bearing his name.
Napoleon was never a prisoner of war, since he surrendered, as you say, after the conclusion of hostilities. If a label is necessary, he was probably a prisoner of State; but the important point was that in Rochefort he surrendered not, as in 1814, to the Allied Powers but to the British Government specifically: he dictated a letter on 13 July 1815 to George III including the lines "I come, like Themistocles, to throw myself on the hospitality of the British people. I put myself under the protection of their laws". (Since the French government had declared several of Napoleon's followers traitors and written to one of his staff "The interests of the State and the safety of his person make it absolutely necessary [for Napoleon to leave France as soon as possible]" and the Prussian and Russian governments would cheerfully have hanged him [no citation, but the behaviour of the occupying armies leaves little doubt], it is probable that this was less a grand gesture and more a necessity.) It is clear from his correspondence that Napoleon was envisaging some sort of genteel retirement like that of his brother Lucien, who was living in a country house under the supervision of a single police inspector; but this was never realistic, and the captain of the Bellerophon wrote specifically "I have no authority to agree to any such arrangement...I cannot enter into any promise as to the reception he may meet with" [from the British Government]; Napoleon decided to surrender nevertheless. It is interesting that Lord Liverpool (the Prime Minister) decided not merely not to imprison Bonaparte in the Tower as the newspapers were suggesting, but not to allow him to set foot in England: whether this was to avoid legal complications or to prevent a possible rescue attempt will never be known. But is is clear that after 15 July 1815 Napoleon had placed himself entirely in the power of the British Government, to be imprisoned or dealt with as they pleased. [Quotations as in Cordingly's Billy Ruffian, since it is to hand; but the best treatment of those days is Gilbert Martineau's Napoleon Surrenders.]
You didn't bother to state who this appeal is with or even where you are but I'm almost certain I know the answer. Just once. If the appeal is denied, you may be able to appeal to a higher body such as a higher court or an ombudsman. However, any group or court allowing the same appeal ad infinitum until you get what you want would be farcical.
The UDHR does not create enforceable rights. It is aspirational and not self-executing. This said, calling a legally recognized relationship a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" does not inherently violate the UDHR any more than using the Mandarin or Swahili word for marriage instead of the English one would. A marriage is just a bundle of rights and responsibilities, the UDHR does not tightly constrain what must be included in that bundle, and it is surely the substance rather than the mere terminology that matters for determining if rights have been violated. Something fairly described as marriage must be available to all, but a rose by any other name would be just as sweet. Civil law countries already distinguish between legal marriage, which basically is a "civil union" and religious marriage, which is deinstitutionalized.
To paraphrase the Princess Bride: "I don't think those words mean what you think they do". The "truther-activist", "sovereign citizen", and "Citizen vs. Human Being" concepts will only hurt you. It has never succeeded, to my knowledge; It has failed multiple times. Let me tell you a little about myself to illustrate what I mean: I am a software developer (and it seems from your profile, you are at least somewhat computer inclined, so this will hopeful make sense to you). The business side of the company I work for think that myself and my team write "magic code", and having the system do whatever they ask for is just a matter of pressing enough buttons in the correct order. It totally insane, and it completely analogous to what you are propose. The court is a carefully designed system, and you don't have the power to make arbitrary changes to it. Certainly not through the "arbitrary button presses" of "legal fiction". Some things to note Legal fictions are never summoned. People are. Organizations are. See initial paraphrase with regards to "legal fiction". Your legal fiction has not been summoned, you have. You will be appearing as yourself, not a straw man. I'm sorry to break it to you, but whomever you have heard this from is wrong, and in the most best case scenario, they are confusing what they want to be true for reality. If they have received any money from you in relation to this opinion, then they are almost certainly a scammer and a liar. If you insist on going further with this nonsense, then you WILL lose, regardless of what actual facts you have. My condolences. Now, to answer the question you asked: Yes, you can file a monition for discovery before first appearance (but not before pleading). You can file by mail, and in some jurisdictions, online. Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/goingtocourt/caseBasics.shtml.
By changing the name, the filmmakers are signaling that the character in the movie is not acting the way the real-life person acted. It is not uncommon for historical fiction--which is basically what the "Moneyball" film is--to combine historical characters for narrative purposes, or to invent new characters to drive the plot. If you see a movie where Henry V stops to talk to Joe Welshman, a common soldier, before a battle, you assume that Henry V was at that battle, but you don't assume that the soldier is a historical person whose words with the king happened to be recorded on a nearby tape recorder. So, if you watch a movie where some characters have real people's names, like Billy Beane, and others have invented names, like Peter Brand, you don't necessarily assume that Brand represents a one-to-one correspondence with one real person. More likely, his part represents things that were done by multiple people, or were done in a different way that is not as narratively convenient. As you say, if you read the book, you will recognize the character--but you will also recognize the changes, and understand why the name was changed.
Presumably you mean "and make untrue accusations of wrong-doing". In the US, defamation involves statements about a legal person, and a place, government or government body, or industry is not a legal personal (a specific business can be, however). In the course of "defaming" a city, you might end up defaming a supposedly fictitious individual who bears a striking resemblance to a real person, for example a made-up New York real estate tycoon named Ronald Rump who runs for president. Or you could defame the "police department of Bug Tussle" which in fact is composed of only one person -- that is, you refer to a group but the group is so small that it actually refers to an identifiable individual. See this answer regarding defaming people in fiction. Okay, it's not actually true that a government can't be a legal person. The fact that in the US a government can't sue for defamation would be rooted in the First Amendment, and is surely embodied in case law that is lurking. In Canada, governments have had more power to pursue critic via defamation suits. In Ontario, Halton Hills (Town) v. Kerouac 80 O.R. (3d) 577 (2006) says that "a government may not sue in defamation". I expect that there is some such ruling in the history of US law.
I emailed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the USA asking this and received the reply: "There is nothing to prevent you from marketing antiques in the UK while present in the US." I also contacted a relevant US attorney and received: "There’s nothing in your question which would implicate Colorado or US law. If you're a UK citizen, and the sale is happening in the UK while you're in the US, then the US has anything to do with it. So as long as the UK doesn’t have any problem with it, the US will not." So I would conclude this question fairly answered.