Sadly, I am not up on my Hebrew. The only definition I could find for militia was מיליציה-which didn't include a definition of people. The author is your second article divined that people meant militia, and build her argument up upon a false belief-a delusion.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/am.html
(Image not shown due to low ratings)
Images were hidden due to low ratings.
your citation is not very convincing. Out of over 1800 uses of "'am", only one the website reports was used to mean Army-and no context was provided. Context is important. But not withstanding the issue of context, an Army doesn't have to be a militia.
In contract law, the use of uppercase letters is optional-not mandatory. In fact, the 9th circuit has held the use of uppercase may not be enough (In re Bassett, 285 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2002)). It applies to warrantees, not specifically corporations-and doesn't have to be uppercase. So this uppercase latter corporate person argument falls apart, it applies to warrentees. Furthermore, even if you were to still entertain that flawed theory about a corporate person, you would still fail to meet part B of the UCC even with the capital letters. Since the sovereign citizens cite the Uniform commercial code, here is what is actually written:
UCC § 1-201. General Definitions.
(10) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.
UCC § 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties.
(1) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this Article on parol or extrinsic evidence (Section 2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
(2)Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."
(3)Notwithstanding subsection (2)
(a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer'sattention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and
(b) when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goodsor the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; and
(c) an implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.
(4) Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the provisions of this Article on liquidation or limitation of damages and on contractual modification of remedy (Sections 2-718 and 2-719).