A Respecter of Persons?

Tragedy, Comedy are “masks” or “personae” that we where IN RELATION TO others. (Photo credit: Phil W Shirley)

“A Woman Created in His Image” posted a comment on this blog.  I started to reply.  The reply grew and even began to touch on a few insights I hadn’t previously considered.  I thought my reply might be interesting to the general audience for this blog, so I’m posting my reply as an “article”:

 

Although there are multiple definitions for “person,” I understand the term to usually signify a man or woman in relation to some other man, women, men, women, institution, etc.  More, when you see one “person,” you must see two.  A “person” does not exist in isolation, but always in relation to that other man, woman, institution, etc.  Thus, if I’m a “person” in relation to you, then you are a “person” in relation to me.  Insofar as we both participate in a certain relationship, we are both “persons” whenever we engage in that particular relationship.   When we do enter into that relationship, we are expected to wear a “mask” or “persona” of the “part” that we are playing.

 

Pledges of Servitude?

Image via Wikipedia

A friend of mine (Rick) is facing charges for four traffic tickets.  He sent a copy of his defense to me.  It’s pretty good.  It’s not exactly what I’d do, but nothing is.

But I did notice one omission that struck me as potentially important:  In challenging the gov-co’s authority, Rick had denied that he’s a slave or subject to involuntary servitude (as prohibited by the 13th Amendment) but he neglected to deny that he had entered into a voluntary servitude (a fiduciary relationship) with the court, plaintiff, prosecutor, state, real party in interest, or even to the actual defendant “RICK DOE” (rather than “Rick Doe”) etc.

I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that the system relies on the presumption that each living man or woman (“Alfred Adask”) has knowingly entered into a voluntary servitude as fiduciary for the government, the plaintiff and/or the defendant identified by the all-upper-case name (“ALFRED N ADASK”).

I sent Rick an email reply that outlines some of my notions in greater detail–especially relative to pledges.  My understanding of “pledges” is rudimentary but growing. My email reply follows:

 

Somethin’ Funny’s Goin’ On

The Manta.com website includes a database of over 63 million US and foreign companies.  That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B).   Manta.com will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free.  If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee.

But since this article is about “funny” stuff, and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find.  You might be surprised.

 

English Freeman Video

Here’s a 16 minute video you’ll want to watch more than once.  Note that this is a single event–and in England, rather than the USA.  As such it’s not proof that whatever they’ve done will also work for you within The United States of America.  However, these English “Freemen” provide EVIDENCE that the People of the English-speaking world are beginning to regain control over 1) themselves; and therefore, 2) their government.

We are beginning to beat the bastards.

Watch here:  http://vimeo.com/10211543

 

Legal Entities

I’ve had two reports that the sections on “Parties” in both “Florida Jurisprudence” and “Texas Jurisprudence” both declare that the “courts of this state” can only hear litigants that are “legal entities”.  I haven’t personally seen the text of either FlorJur or TexJur to verify those reports that the “courts of this state” can only see “legal entities”.  However, I trust the two sources who independently made these reports and therefore decided to research the meaning of “legal entity”.

 

The Power of a Name

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.

 

A Critical Analysis of a “Demand to Quash”

The following “Demand to Quash” was written by an acquaintance who’s a good man and on the right track.  The demand is fairly well-written and contains some good case cites concerning fraud.  It’s a document that I, myself might’ve written, say, five years ago.  But today, I read the document as see so many elements that I regard as errors or omissions that it strikes me as extremely unlikely that this document will succeed in “quashing” a particular presentment by gov-co. Nevertheless, this document offers a lot of insight–if only into the comparative differences between my own theories and those of someone else.

 

The Power to Define and “this state”

For most of a year, I’ve been saying that the words are the “law of the law”. That is, I’ve realized that a intent of a “law” like “Thou shalt not kill” is determined by the meanings and definitions of the words and grammar that comprise the laws.

Broadly speaking, definitions are the “law of the law”. I begin to see that my observation that “words are the law of the law” was far more important and true than I’d supposed. I thought I’d created an interesting metaphor. I begin to see that the Good LORD may have guided me to stumble onto a profound and fundamental insight into how and where “this state” functions.

 

Notes on Names

Some people (including me) suspect that an all-upper-case name (like “ALFRED ADASK”) may signify an estate, an account or some sort of legal fiction that is an entity completely different from that of a man whose proper name is capitalized (like “Alfred Adask”). This theory has been around since the early 1990s (I should know, I started it with the “evil twin” series in the AntiShyster News Magazine). However, the theory has never been proven. Nor has it been disproven. The issue remains unresolved.

However, if the upper-case vs capitalized name hypothesis were proven valid, it would shatter much of the foundation for modern, non-constitutional “government”. After all, virtually every government ID is issued in an all-upper-case name (like “ADASK”) rather than the proper name of a man (“Adask”). If it was proved that the upper-case names (“ADASK”) were fictions and the licenses and other ID were being issued to such fictions, then we’d have proof that, as men (who were not engaged in commerce), we might have no obligation to obtain such licenses or ID.

 

“Alfred Adask a/k/a ALFRED ADASK”

080515

An email from a listener to my radio show:

For the second time of which I am aware, on Tuesday, May 13, 2008, you invited our attention to the point that we no longer pay our debts, but that we now only discharge them. If I correctly read and understand the legislation of March 1933, we do not even do that, We simply discharge obligations.