RSS

The Power of a Name

09 Mar

Most of my articles are conjectural.  My lines of conjecture are often curious, sometimes confusing, occasionally fantastic and, at times, even mind-numbing.  I try not to publish those articles that are mind-numbing.  The following article is an exception.  I hate to publish it because it seems “half-baked”.  The article contains an insight below that I deem valuable but incomplete.  Nevertheless, the insight (while a little “mind-numbing”) seems too intriguing to abandon until I can grab a little more clarity.

As always, my conjecture may be mistaken.  Even so, conjecture is justified and even necessary to unravel the mystery of how our legal system really functions.  I.e., when solving his own mysteries, Sherlock Holmes reportedly said, “When you eliminate every impossible explanation, whatever remains—no matter how improbable—must be the answer.”  That principle necessarily means that Holmes had to expend a huge amount of time and energy considering a large number of impossibilities and even absurdities before he could deduce the truth.  As legal reformers we must also chase down a bunch of rabbit trails before we actually see (let alone catch) a rabbit.

So.  Be vewy, vewy quiet.  We’re hunting wabbit:

A friend of mine (Tom) read an article by Kristen Cardozo on the subject of naming babies entitled “The Power of a Name”.  In that article, Ms. Cardozo wrote in part:

“The power of a name is as ancient as naming. All throughout mythology, examples can be found of secret names, names that had the power to destroy, and names that had the power to bring great rewards. . . .

“In our own culture, the Puritans named their children fateful virtue, and, in some cases, sin names, although they would never have labeled it magic. Nonetheless, a girl named Faith or Chastity was named so in the hope that she would live up to her name. The Puritans were trying to find an alternative to Biblical names, which they viewed as Catholic, or Jewish. . . .

“Jewish magical names are often the first initials of a spell. One of the most well known magical names is Agla, which stands for “Ataw Gebor Leolam Adonai”, meaning “Thou art mighty forever, Lord”. In Judaism, it is forbidden to say the name of God, which, of course, adds to the power of God’s name, and to the fascination with it. A branch of Jewish mysticism, Kabbalah, is dedicated to discovering the sacred name.

“Ancient Egyptians associated the name with the soul. It was believed that knowledge of a god or spirit’s name gave one complete power over that deity, and knowledge of a man’s name provided the power to do that man good or ill. A person could not exist without his name.”

My friend (Tom) read this last paragraph and had one of those Eureka! moments. He suddenly realized that ancient Egyptian principles concerning names may also apply in our modern courts.

His realization was partially based on his own courtroom conflict of several years ago when a judge asked for Tom’s name.  Tom refused to provide that name.  The judge huffed and puffed, threatened and cajoled, but when Tom wouldn’t give him his name, the judge ultimately dropped the case.  Tom was pretty much amazed and didn’t exactly know what he was doing back then.  So, when Tom read that “knowledge of a man’s name provided the power to do that man good or ill” and “A person could not exist without his name,” Tom thought he had finally found an explanation for the judge’s surprising dismissal of the case.

In today’s courts, one of the judge’s first acts is to ask the parties to the case to announce their names into the record.  Tom suspects that you must give the judge the name in which you are appearing in that court before the judge has power to proceed in the matter.  If so, then if you refused to provide your name, it might follow that the judge would be prevented from proceeding.

Whether the courts will be actually hamstrung if you refuse to provide your name is conjectural.  However, the ancient Egyptian principles are certainly true to this extent:  a “person” (party to a relationship/legal-fiction) can’t exist without a name.

Of course, a man—being made of flesh and blood—does not need a name to “appear”.  We see can see hundreds or even thousands of men and women every day as we walk or drive through cities or down a highway.  We don’t know their names, but they still appear along the sidewalks or sitting in automobiles we pass on the highway.

Men exist and can even “appear” by virtue of their physical reality.  Even if we don’t know the name of a particular man, we can sometimes describe his physical appearance with sufficient detail that he can be later found.  Police routinely show photographs or “line-ups” of possible suspects so that witnesses can identify a criminal who was seen, but not recognized by name.  (When you stop to think about it, the first object of any police investigation is to find the names of the various victims, witnesses and suspects.  Without names, can a criminal proceeding even begin?)

But a legal fiction (which has no physical reality) cannot “appear” without a name.  Without a unique name, you can’t even describe a legal fiction.  How tall was it?  What race?  About how old?  Male or female?  What weight?

A legal fiction has no meaningful characteristics or even existence without a name.  For a legal fiction, the name is the only evidence of its existence.  In fact, it might be argued that a legal fiction is its name.

For example, if you wanted to create your own corporation (legal fiction) to do business, what’s the first thing your state’s Secretary of State asks for?  The name of the proposed corporation.  If someone else has already created a corporation in your state with the same name that you’ve proposed, your application for corporate charter will be rejected.  So far as I know, within a particular state, each corporation must have a unique name.

No such requirement exists for living men.  We can have hundreds of “Robert Smith’s” living in the same State.  But we can still distinguish between all of them by their dates of birth, physical appearance, etc.  But how do you distinguish between two different corporations both named “IBM”?  I won’t say that such distinctions can’t be drawn, but they are certainly difficult—and non-existent or at least extremely rare within any state.

Therefore, if a “person” (legal fiction or party to a relationship/legal-fiction) won’t give the court its “name,” the court might not be able to proceed.  Like anyone else, a judge can’t “see” a legal fiction but he can see a living, flesh-and-blood attorney or fiduciary who expressly or implicitly claims to represent a legal fiction.  In a sense, if the living man “Alfred Adask” implicitly claims to represent the person/fiction “ALFRED N ADASK,” and no one objects, then the judge will presumably go along with that claim.

Again, it’s arguable that a legal fiction is its name.  Without its name being entered into a court record, a legal fiction might not appear or exist within that process.  No name; no appearance; no fiction; no existence?

If a legal fiction/”person” isn’t named and represented, that “person” can’t appear in court until it is “named” on the record—and represented by some living being.  Admittedly, it’s possible for courts to try someone accused of a criminal act “in abstentia” (while the defendant is “absent” from the court and perhaps not even represented by an attorney).  Even so, it seems likely that a defendant (“ALFRED N ADASK”) doesn’t/can’t appear until the living man (“Alfred Adask” or an attorney hired by “Alfred Adask”) gives “ADASK’s” name to the court and consents to represent that person in the case at hand.

I’m currently fixated on the ancient Biblical principle—“out of the mouth of two or three shall a thing be established”—still applies in modern courts.  I know that Black’s Law Dictionary defines “prima facie evidence” as that provided by one witness.  I suspect that “probable cause” (at least as that term was defined in common law) required a minimum of two witnesses.   I believe that the prosecutor in criminal matters has discretion to proceed or dismiss a case when there’s only one witness (prima facie evidence).  I suspect that prosecutors must proceed with criminal complaints if there are two or more sworn witnesses.

Why?  Because “out of the mouths of two or three shall a thing be established.”  If I (one “mouth”) report that somebody stole my car, the prosecutor may or may not seek to prosecute the case since I am only one witness.  If a second witness (second “mouth”) also testifies to the theft, the theft is apparently “established” and the prosecutor must prosecute that case.

So, I wonder how many witnesses it takes to “establish” a “name”.  Do you need only one witness (prima facie evidence) to provide a “name”?  Or must there be two witnesses:  1) plaintiff and 2) defendant—who both claim or admit the “name”?

Is it possible that one witness whose testimony is unrefuted is sufficient to establish the existence of a relationship, but two witnesses are required to establish the name of the second party to that relationship?

I’m not sure that Tom’s application of ancient Egyptian principles is precisely correct, but his and my speculations have at least clarified one important principle:  no legal fiction can exist without a “name”.  Unless clothed with a name, the legal fiction is not merely invisible, it is non-existent.

Again, it might be argued that a legal fiction is its “name”.

•  The Egyptian principle that the person does not exist without a name is easily applied to legal fictions, but application of that principle to the modern concept of “persons” is a bit more complex.  As I understand it, a “person” can be 1) a legal fiction (in which case, the Egyptiam principle is easy to apply);  but can also be 2) a party to a relationship between two or more “persons”.  All relationships are legal fictions.  The “person” who is party to a “relationship” must therefore be a kind of “legal fiction” or a component of a “legal fiction”.   It seems likely that the all-upper-case name (“ADASK”) signifies a person or legal fiction.

Without that name, the “person” or legal fiction may not exist or at least can’t appear.

All of which brings us back to the seemingly fantastic possibility that, if you won’t give the judge your “name,” the judge can’t proceed.

•  I’m inclined to see a significance in a judge’s need to obtain your name that’s different from Tom’s current speculation.  As a kid, I watched movies about knights, Robin Hood and Roman warriors where some actor inevitably appeared with a message and claimed to “come in the name of Prince John” or “come in the name of Caesar” or some such.  Clearly, to come in such “name” was to come in the authority of Prince John, Caesar, etc.

I therefore suspect that when a kindly old judge asks, “Will you give me your name, sir?” he may be asking “Will you voluntarily consent to give me your authority to proceed in this matter?”  If both parties give the judge their names, both parties may have consented to give the judge a “jurisdiction” over the case which he apparently does not have inherently.  In other words, my speculation suggests that the court may not actually possess some necessary jurisdiction to proceed as an inherent power; that the court can only assume jurisdiction if both sides voluntarily consent to give their mutual authorities to proceed to decide the matter in question; that each side is presumed to have given the court its authority to proceed when it gives the court its “name”.   That’s all conjecture, but at least plausible.

This conjecture concerning the absence of a court’s inherent jurisdiction is consistent with the theory that most modern state courts operate in some private capacity rather than as true judicial courts under the judicial department created by the State constitution.  Under this theory, modern state courts function something like private arbitration services whose decisions can be binding—but only if both parties initially consent to be bound by the arbitration process.  If either party refuses to consent to a private arbitration process, the process cannot proceed.

Does something similar take place in our state courts if a defendant refuses to “give his name”?  If the defendant and/or representative for the defendant-person-fiction does not give the defendant’s name, perhaps the defendant cannot be deemed to have consented to “appear” and voluntarily participate in the court’s “private” (?) process.  If the defendant/person/fiction does not give its name, perhaps it does not give its authority for the court to proceed privately in whatever matter is before the court.

It’s possible that some mix of both my conjecture (based on authority) and Tom’s analysis (based on appearance) may apply.  Maybe the court needs a “person’s” name not only to make that “person” “appear” but also to grant the court authority/jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.

So there’s my half-baked theory du jour.  It’s not fully formed but it still offers a couple of intriguing possibilities (in my opinion, at least) that are worth your consideration.

Thanks for reading.

Al

About these ads
 
 

24 responses to “The Power of a Name

  1. Terrence

    March 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM

    It would seem to me that before a NAME can get to a court an agent must present that NAME to the court. So…. Is it proper to refuse to speak your name when an agent request or demands to know “your” name? If my name is my name can I be required to give it away?
    If by disclosing my name am I allowing my flesh to be seized?
    How long can an agent seize and hold/arrest flesh without obtining a name? Can an agent assign a name “jon doe” in order to accommodate seizure?
    How long can a human being hold out?

     
  2. adask

    March 10, 2010 at 9:06 PM

    All good questions. I don’t know the answers. Surely, if you refuse to “give your name,” you can expect some pressure from the judge which might even include sending you to slammer for contempt or some such.

    About 3 years ago, a “kindly ol’ judge asked me, “Would you please give me your name?” I was being sued for $25,000/day ($9 million per year). I advanced a number of defenses and I believe the “man or other animals” defense caused the Texas Attorney General to drop the case. But when the Judge asked “Would you please give me your name?” I replied, “No, I will not–but I’ll give you NOTICE of my proper name.”

    My belief at the time was that when the judge asked if I’d GIVE him my “name,” he was actually asking for my AUTHORITY for him to proceed. I still suspect that theory may be correct. Nevertheless, when I told the judge, No–I’ll only give you NOTICE of my proper name, the judge did not react and continued as if 1) I’d said nothing remarkable; 2) the judge didn’t understand what I’d said; or 3) the judge was a great poker player and was not about to show that I’d just hit a “hot spot”. The case was ultimately dropped and the gov-co, of course, never admitted why that happened.

    My point in all this is that there are ways of doing things that don’t necessarily have to be confrontational. Instead of absolutely refusing to give any name, a defendant might be able to provide NOTICE of his name. Maybe that makes a difference; maybe not.

     
  3. Margaret

    March 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM

    I’ve long pondered this very subject. It occurs to me that our names are also our PROPERTY, and as such, we are entitled to royalties every time a company, a politician or party, a bank or credit reporting company or government entity uses or makes money off of the use of our name/ personal information. Being paid for others using our name or personal information would transform current economic activity, wouldn’t it?

     
    • adask

      March 10, 2010 at 10:42 PM

      I’m not sure that our name is truly our “property”. There is something “property-like” about our names, but we can’t exactly claim to own them. Some have tried to copyright their names. I’ve never thought that strategy had much real value because what happens if one man named Robert Smith copyrights his name and there are 99 other men also named “Robert Smith”? Do the other 99 have to find new names or numbers or something? Must all names be unique? Clearly not.

      So I doubt that we can legitimately make charges against someone for using our “name” without permission.

      However, it occurs to me that while my name may not be exactly like “property,” my REPUTATION may be a form of property. If we could show that someone’s else’s use of our name ultimately caused injury to our REPUTATION, perhaps we’d have grounds to make charges.

       
  4. fulltime

    March 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM

    I don’t think our name is our property. We register at birth with the department of vital statistics here at california. They say they do NOT register people, they register names.

    Hint hint.

    The ‘title’ to the name is held by the state, birth certificate is prima facie evidence that the state is title holder to the name and all fruits derived from it. As you note there is something ‘property like’ that an interest holder or usufructee has. Makes me wonder.

    excise taxes? On the use of what exactly?

    We as principles to the name just abandon our interest. When we should be gifting it. To the treasury. And acting as beneficiaries to the name.

    More than one case has disappeared due to men correcting the ‘mistake’ that they were recognized as a name. Correct the matter and ask who has a claim on you the man, the addressee? As one consciousness must internally “identify” any outside entity before interacting with it, the choice of ‘what’ ‘how’ and ‘why’ one is ‘identified’ is redundant after someone addresses you.

    To be addressed is to be identified. Names are just a useful label. Actually the Vital Statistics office says the same about the BC, no value but a ‘Useful token’.

    The Lieber Code and later the 14th amendment laid out the means that it seems the administration of this plantation are run under to this day.

    Section 31 has an interesting concept.

    31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.

    The title remains in abeyance.

    The birth certificate is the title to the name and energy derived from it.

    Abeyance:
    State of suspension of the rights to a property or a peerage where there is doubt about the rightful owner.

    Who owns the Earth and it’s peaceful inhabitants?

    Who has stated these facts to those who would usurp ones rights? Just thinking. I am labeled a child on the states prima facie evidence of my name, If I so choose to be identified as it. As the Fourteenth Amendment abolished INVOLUNTARY slavery. I can still volunteer.

     
    • adask

      March 19, 2010 at 5:20 PM

      “Who owns the Earth and it’s peaceful inhabitants?” See, Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, YHWH created the Heavens and the Earth.” That first sentence in the Bible is not merely an introduction–it’s the primary and most important principle in the Bible. The act of creation of anything entitles the creator to perfect title to his creation. This principle lays the foundation for modern patent and copyright laws. Because our Father YHWH Elohiym created the whole heavens and earth, He owns the whole shebang. As Creator/”owner” he can do whatever he likes with his creation(s). Thus, the first sentence in the Bible is a statement of Title, of Ownership. All else flows from that primary principle.

      Another principle that we see repeatedly implied in the Bible is the idea that whoever NAMES something, effectively owns or has dominion over it. God let Adam “name” all of the animals over which Adam had “dominion”. After “Abram” entered into a new relationship with our Father YHWH Elohiym, God renamed him as “Abraham”; the man named “Jacob” was similarly renamed to be “Israel”. When the nation of Israel was taken captive by the king of Babylon, and Daniel and his three friends were later taken into the king’s service, they were renamed (“Daniel” became “Belteshazzar” etc.). The strong implication of this renaming process is that you are subject to the dominion or control of whoever names you. When you take a new name, you seemingly become subject to the authority of whatever entity “named” you.

      If this implication is valid, then if I, a man whose proper name is “Alfred Adask” were renamed by a governmental birth certificate, drivers license or So-So Security card to be “ALFRED N ADASK,” then I might also be presumed to have voluntarily consented to be subject to whatever authority issued that all-upper case name. I.e., “ALFRED” might be subject to the authority of “this state,” while “Alfred” might not.

      Whoever named you, owns you?

       
      • fulltime

        March 20, 2010 at 1:21 AM

        On my BC my mom, excuse me -‘the informant’ – informed on me, the named child, by prima facie evidence the birth certificate, a valuable token. Hmmm, maybe we can make some sense or something of this.

        If the valuable token is proof of surrendering the name, not the flesh but the name,
        to which any and all titled property must be held in, then the state does own all property. It would seem that claiming the name as identification is the issue. I can’t recall exactly was there a case involving the birth certificate not intending to be indentification?

        After all we live in a free country. We can choose or not.

        Nice biblical references, after all it is a census year? Didn’t Jesus applaud the one who gifted their life worth to the treasury? After all if a FRN is proof of debt we need to be claiming that on the front end, no?

        I wish I understood this looking glass system.
        Just thinking aloud.

        And I don’t think it matters how you spell it?
        UPPER lower or BoTh.

        A spell is magic is it not?
        Do you ‘respond’ to the spell?

        We can still claim to be consenting if we don’t respond also, as ‘Silence is Acquiescence.’

        We need to make them prove it.

        I accept your alleged authority upon proof of claim I am obligated to be recognized by a name.

        They will merely rephrase the question.

        Parry the wind high low.

        I think if we finally unravel the trust relationship and let them administer
        in peace we can get some work done
        in this america.

        We need to correct the mistake that we ARE the registered name, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

        We are many things but a name is a mere tool.

        A way to address another who is out of arms reach.

        Are we mere tools?
        Or do we use them for our benefit?

         
  5. Terrence

    March 19, 2010 at 6:13 PM

    Ah, I think I understand? If I do not answer when my name is called I can go along my way as a free man?
    At the same time I can not contract without offering a name. How could ATT send me a bill, “hey you, please pay your bill”? But me and ATT would be a voluntary, mutually consented contract.
    An officer of this state (I’m never sure how to properly write/use state, State, STATE) would demand a name then seize upon me for not disclosing a name. This state would later set me free (?) but would not return to me my things without a name and/or a receipt with my name.
    This story could go on and on. Would the remedy be to not reply to the calling of a name until the people once again declare and secure their liberty? Would I call out, !Alfred help me over here!, or !hey you, yea you, the one that used to be fit and trim until this state took it’s toll on you, help me fight it over here!? What has happened mankind? Simply wanting to be free and left in peace has allowed for his slavery. Is this state, State, STATE the enemy or the people that created it?

     
  6. fulltime

    March 20, 2010 at 1:28 AM

    Also, if a name is so important then it seems the receipt for the name, even if there are others with your name is the proof of the indemnification thru the public trust. Since all property is held in abeyance until we get a dejure, if and when.

    The name and birth date etc. are all filled in on a registered certified numbered form anyway. So there could be 10000 bob jones born on any day and it wouldn’t matter.

    All the further adhesion contracts, s.s. d/l merely add to the ‘identity’. Identity theft IS rampant remember? We stole our own names!

     
  7. palani

    March 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM

    Tying NAME to ACCOUNT … Hobbes Leviathan

    Subject To Names, is whatsoever can enter into, or be considered in an account; and be added one to another to make a summe; or substracted one from another, and leave a remainder. The Latines
    called Accounts of mony Rationes, and accounting, Ratiocinatio: and that which we in bills or books of account call Items, they called Nomina; that is, Names: and thence it seems to proceed, that they extended the word Ratio, to the faculty of Reckoning in all other things.

    a thing may enter into account for Matter, or Body

    it may enter into account, or be considered, for some accident or quality, which we conceive to be in it; as for Being Moved, for Being So Long

    we bring into account, the Properties of our own bodies

    we bring into account, consider, and give names,
    to Names themselves

     
  8. j

    March 20, 2010 at 10:30 PM

    is it possible that the de facto “government” pirated the property, land and lawful Governance by using squatter’s rights or adverse possession, and there is no LAWFUL claim or title of anything, anywhere?

     
    • adask

      March 21, 2010 at 2:04 AM

      Virtually anything is “possible”–except two things: 1) That our purported “government” is acting in a constitutional capacity; and 2) that our purported “government” is not guilty of institutionalized treason for the purpose of destroying The United States of America. May our Father YHWH Elohiym CURSE, DAMN and DESTROY the purported “federal government”.

       
      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 28, 2011 at 11:20 PM

        AMEN!!! with a resounding N

         
  9. strawmandan

    March 21, 2010 at 1:25 AM

    A judge/officer/prosecutor/etc asking for a name is attempting to get mandatory ‘in personam’ jurisdiction. Without it they cannot proceed. However, per contract law (highest form of law), “he who denies, admits.” it is simply an offer/presentment to contract. Response choices to any offer are: acceptance, conditional acceptance, silence/acquiecense or argument/denial. First two keep you in honor, latter two dishonor. Debtors dishonor, creditors honor. The former never win, the latter never lose. “Is John Doe in the courtroom today?” “Judge, I am here today AS (in the capacity of) John Doe, third party intervener, here to help the parties settle and close all outstanding charges…and to request ratification of the private contract which has been been settled and is accepted.”

    There’s much more to it than that, but is my understanding having studied the teachings of folks like Gordon Hall, Jack Smith and Brandon Adams of Creditors In Commerce. Hope it helps.

     
    • thomas

      December 24, 2010 at 12:51 AM

      Honor/Dishonor; The question is who’s honor/dishonor is it we or they? Should one find honor in what a select amount have done or dishonor and then go forth with a title of honorable when dishonorable should prevail, I say yes to dishonor and no to honor them as it may be. I will not honor any deception thrust upon man or like.
      If they were honorable a sign would be installed with the wording “FEDERAL TERRITORY”, yet instead they fly a flag that was put under your nose for how Long and that is suppose to be the warning of Federal territory?
      So let the truth be told, George Washington and every U.S. President only took a verbal Oat of Office not a signed one to the Office of President of the United States of America and No legislator or so called judge ever did and why, for it was a business plan set up by only taking the verbal oath as an EMPLOYEE, for George never qualified to take the Office of President of the United States of America and he knew it and all after the same. The date of time is July 4,1776 ratification of Articles of Confederacy confirmed Northwest Ordinance is Territory of U.S. until states are formed with boarders (first union) second Union states become Political Subdivision of U.S. for states of the first union cannot legislate, Articles of Confederacy stilll in place Article IV inhabitant, Citizen of United States of American mentioned once all other citizens of or in reverse are fiction of comity. Organic Law is the Law of the Land all four documents must be presented as a whole not in part along with title 1 all other titles are written for alleged government not inhabitants.
      Congress is in recess since beginning, Read the Organic Law , first and last paragraph of each to get a picture . Fed is limited to its territories only and all counties are a fiction to read that term it writes “county, means Parish,

       
  10. David Merrill

    June 27, 2010 at 9:19 AM

    Exciting stuff. My family bible dictionary describes names as “fossils of thought”.

    I spent $80 for a great book about the Name of God: Gerard GERTOUX’s THE NAME OF GOD Y.EH.OW.AH WHICH IS PRONOUNCED AS IT IS WRITTEN I_EH_OU_AH – Its Story:

     
  11. DAN GLASHO

    September 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

    My name is DAN GLASHO. Since all of my government documents print my name using all capital letters, I have started printing my signature in all caps. I guess you could say that I have accepted the identity of the the so-called “Straw man”. Question for Mr. Adask; If the gov-co comes after me and I have to appear in court, what happens to me as the “Straw man”? Can the court sentence the fiction? Just wondering.
    Regards, DAN GLASHO

     
    • adask

      September 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM

      If the all-upper-case name (“DAN GLASHO”) signifies some sort of legal fiction, that legal fiction cannot appear in court unless it is represented by a living man with a proper name like “Dan Glasho”. (It (“GLASHO”) can also be represented by an attorney.)
      If the theory of the all-upper-case name is roughly correct, the danger for the living man “Glasho” in representing the thing “GLASHO,” is that the thing “GLASHO” has none of the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the Declaration of Independence.
      Thus, if the defendant is “GLASHO” (a thing) rather than “Glasho” (a man), the court can treat “GLASHO” with enormous disrespect. If the man “Glasho” voluntarily represents the thing “GLASHO,” the man probably does so in the capacity of a fiduciary. That’s not so dangerous. But if the court can trick the man (“Glasho”) into not only representing the thing (“GLASHO”), but also serving as its (“GLASHO’s”) surety, the man can be in big trouble. The court can find the thing (“GLASHO”) guilty without regard to any of the protections and rights that normally accrue to the man (“Glasho”), and then sentence the man (“Glasho”) to pay a fine or go to jail instead of the thing (“GLASHO”) that was convicted.
      I.e., IF this theory is valid, by means of using “GLASHO” to signify a thing, and getting the man (“Glasho”) to not only represent the thing, but also to consent to be surety for the thing, the man can be effectively stripped of his God-given, unalienable Rights. The court can jail a man as if he were a thing.
      Assuming the theory is correct, both entities (the man and the fiction/thing) must exist. The fiction (“GLASHO”) can’t appear unless it’s represented by the living man (“Glasho”). The courts et al do not presume you to be a fiction. They presume you to REPRESENT a fiction. The court NEEDS the man (“Glasho”) to represent the fiction “GLASHO”.
      So, by claiming that your true name is “DAN GLASHO,” you confuse the process–perhaps to your benefit. You apparently deny that “GLASHO” and “Glasho” are two different entities. If there aren’t two entities (a man and a fiction), then the court would seemingly be hard-pressed to proceed. I.e., if there’s no man (“Glasho”), then there’s no one to represent and/or act as surety for the fiction/thing (“GLASHO”), and that thing can probably not be made to appear or be tried, convicted, sentenced, etc.
      On the other hand, if there’s no fiction/thing (“GLASHO”) present but instead, only the man–then, in theory, the court must try the man and afford the man all of those God-given, unalienable Rights that could not be claimed by or for the fiction/thing.
      I have personally used a similar strategy. In A.D. 2002, I was arrested on Texas and extradited to Missouri for two alleged felonies. The allegations were based on fraud. In fact, I have never been actually convicted, tried, or even charged with a crime–but I was nevertheless exposed to a potential sentence of 5 years for each felony count.
      I waived extradition hearing, but signed my waiver “at arm’s length” above my signature to signal that I was agreeing to be extradited in an non-fiduciary capacity (I did not represent any thing; I agreed to go to Missouri strictly as a man). Beneath my signature I wrote “True name ‘Alfred Adask’ a/k/a ‘ALFRED ADASK'”. I essentially claimed that “ADASK” was merely an ALIAS for my true name “Adask”.
      The Dallas court judge signed and sealed the extradition waiver and thereby recognized that “Adask” did not represent “ADASK” and more, that “Adask” and “ADASK” identified the same living man.
      When I arrived in Missouri and the Missouri court looked at my waiver, they realized they couldn’t proceed against a man. They didn’t have brains enough to know how to prosecute me. I didn’t have brains enough to know how to force them to release me. I spent 344 days in a level-5, maximum security jail. Then the court ordered me released without ever being charged, tried, convicted or even given a probable cause hearing.
      It’s hard to point to 344 days in jail as a victory. But it was. I could be a convicted felon today, but I’m not because I was able to control and qualify my signature in a way that eliminated the dichotomy between “Adask” and “ADASK”.
      There is reason to suspect that the modern courts can’t try anyone; that the modern courts can only “see” and try “legal fictions”. If that’s true, once you eliminate the fiction and/or refuse to represent it, the courts may not be able to proceed against you.
      Bear in mind that all of this (except for my personal experience on Missouri) is conjecture and theory. Just because this theory sounds plausible and has seemingly been implemented successfully in my own case, does not prove the theory is valid. More, just because I was able to make the theory work once with a particular set of judges, does not mean that you’ll be able to make the theory work with another set of judges. Because of the changing personalities of the persons involved in one case as opposed to another case, when it comes to law, it’s always a crapshoot. If a particular judge is too ignorant to understand the all-upper-case-name theory, you’re going to lose. If a particular judge is so corrupt that, although he understands the theory, he doesn’t give a damn, you’re going to lose.
      The system is dangerous. Don’t suppose that any theory is a “silver bullet” that works every single time you confront our adversaries.
      Nevertheless, I believe your strategy is on the right track. I think my strategy was better, but who can say? If you really understand the all-upper-case name theory, your ability to simply argue it persuasively may be enough to cause the “bad guys” to simply drop cases against you rather than risk having to explain the all-upper-case-name theory on the record.

       
      • DAN GLASHO

        September 29, 2010 at 2:13 PM

        Valid points. Thank you.
        Regards,
        DAN

         
  12. DAN GLASHO

    October 13, 2010 at 12:27 PM

    Dear Alfred. This name issue may be something important, or maybe it isn’t. Just in case it is, could the following Affidavit be filed with the Clerk, and then hand an exact copy of the following Affidavit to the judge prior to entering a plea?

    NAME, AND NON-FIDUCAIRY STATUS AFFIDAVIT
    UNDER OATH

    I the undersigned do hereby certify, swear or affirm, and declare under penalty of perjury that my lawful name is “Danial Edward Glasho”, written with both upper and lower case letters as written on my original Certificate Of Live Birth.

    At arms length, with all expressed rights reserved, I reserve my common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not knowingly, intentionally, or voluntarily entered into. And furthermore, I do not accept the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.

    In addition, I am not in a fiduciary capacity. I have not knowingly, intentionally or voluntarily consented to represent, or be answerable for another’s debt, default, or miscarrage.
    ___________________________________

    Would this unattach me from the straw man (if there really is one)?
    Thanks, Dan.

     
    • adask

      October 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM

      My response turned out to be longer and even more insightful than I’d expected. So I’ve taken you email and my response and turned ‘em into an article that’ll be posted on my blog’s home page in the next hour or so.

       
  13. Bobby Goodwin

    November 5, 2010 at 6:58 PM

    Hi Albert. On the subject of names; A “name” is so important that Yahweh made it a Commandment concerning His own name. He said we were not to take His in “vain. The Hebrew word used in the Commandment for “vain”is “Shav” (shaw-v’) which has a number of meanings including “falsely” (See Strong’s Concordance of the Bible Hebrew Dictionary). Yahweh’s name is written in Hebrew is the four letters Yod – He – Wah – He – which is equivalent to the English consonants YHWH. (referred to as the Tettragramaton). In order to pronounce the sacred name in English we add the vowels “a” and “e”. The name Yahweh is pronounced yah-way.

    When some people attempt to enforce their own name in courts, they are many times threatened by “Contempt of Court” charges. Here in Arkansas, contempt of court charges are only allowed for “Courts of record”, which eliminates Municipal courts. See the law below:

    ARKANSAS TITLE 26 § 16-10-108.
    (a) Every court of record shall have power to punish, as for criminal contempt, persons guilty of the following acts and no others:
    (1) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior committed during the court’s sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority;
    (2) Any breach of the peace, noise, or disturbance directly tending to interrupt its proceedings;
    (3) Willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued or made by it;
    (4) Resistance, willfully offered, by any person to the lawful order or process of the court; and
    (5) The contumacious and unlawful refusal of any person to be sworn as a witness and when so sworn a similar refusal to answer any legal and proper interrogatory.

    (b) (1) Punishment for contempt is a Class C misdemeanor.
    (2) A court shall always have power to imprison until its adjournment.
    (3) When any person is committed to prison for the nonpayment of any such fine, he or she shall be discharged at the expiration of thirty (30) days.

    (c) Contempts committed in the immediate view and presence of the court may be punished summarily. In other cases, the party charged shall be notified of the accusation and shall have a reasonable time to make his or her defense.

    (d) (1) Whenever any person is committed for a contempt under the provisions of this section, the substance of his or her offense shall be set forth in the order or warrant of commitment.
    (2) Nothing in subdivision (d)(1) of this section shall be construed to extend to any proceedings against parties or officers, as for contempt, for the purpose of enforcing any civil right or remedy.

    (e) A person punished for contempt under subsections (a)-(d) of this section shall, notwithstanding, be liable to an indictment for the contempt if the contempt is an indictable offense, but the court before which a conviction may be had on such an indictment shall, in forming its sentence, take into consideration the punishment previously inflicted.

    Albert – I don’t know about your own State, but it may be something to consider. If the judge threatens you, ask him “Is it a civil or criminal contempt charge, your honor?”

    Bobby G

     
  14. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 28, 2011 at 11:41 PM

    I wish I could remember where in the Holy Scripture the “Inspirer” of those scriptures said as the Hebrew translated into English: “I place my law above my name.” Anyway,Yashua(Jesus) said re: prayer, Greek translated into English, pray thusly “Our Father”…..

     
  15. Wynes7Helf

    June 4, 2012 at 5:27 AM

    In the 1920s women’s fashion changed to lighter clothing and varying hemlines and mulberry bags s no longer matched. Women carried beaded purses with silk or satin lining. Beaded belts, bracelets and necklaces complemented the outfit. If you couldn’t afford to buy the latest in beaded fashion accessories, you made your own. The “liberated” women of the 1920s were known as flappers.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,022 other followers