Answering For Another

Q&A (Photo credit: opensourceway)

I’ve suspected that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signified an entity other than me (“Alfred Adask”) for over 15 years.  I still can’t prove that suspicion, but I’ve seen nothing to disprove it—and I’ve been looking persistently.

I know that “Alfred Adask” (“Adask”) is a proper name that signifies a man who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the “Declaration of Independence”).  I presume that “ALFRED N ADASK” (“ADASK”) signifies a fictional entity that can have no such God-given, unalienable Rights.  Thus, whenever “ADASK” is on trial, it has no significant rights and can usually be found guilty by the gov-co with minimum effort.

 

The Collective Entity Doctrine

Collectivism vs. Individualism (Photo credit: Lily Zhu)

For over a decade (and for reasons I’ll explain in another post later this week), I’ve understood that “democracy” is a collectivist form of government fundamentally identical to communism and socialism.  I am therefore more than a little intrigued by the terms “collective” and “collectivist”.

So, imagine my surprise when (last week) I stumbled on an A.D. 1988 Supreme Court case that dealt with the “collective entity doctrine”.   I’d never before heard of the term “collective entity” in American law and I had no idea that there was a “collective entity doctrine”.  That surprised me.  I don’t know about a lot of things–in fact, most things are unknown to me.  Nevertheless, given my interest in collectivist forms of government, and given that the term “collective entity” has been used by the Supreme Court in at least 9 cases since A.D. 1974, I’m almost amazed that I hadn’t previously heard of this doctrine.

In fact, according to the Braswell v. US case (below), there are at least three other cases (including the earliest instance, Hale v Henkel in A.D. 1906) which did not actually use the term “collective entity” but helped lay the foundation for what came to be called the “collective entity doctrine”.

Thus, the “collective entity” concept has been recognized in American law for over a century, but I just heard about it last week.  Apparently, I didn’t get the memo.  Nevertheless, I’m amazed by my own ignorance.  How could I not have heard of that concept before now?

 

The All-Upper-Case Name and the New World Order?

Image via Wikipedia

When I was a child, in order to read, I first learned my “abc’s”: 26 peculiar symbols that, in combination, could spell out words like “dog” or “cat”.

Then, as if 26 letters were not enough, I had to learn that each of the first “small” letters I used also had a corresponding “large” letter–its “capital” or “upper-case” form.  Now I had a total of 52 different symbols to learn to recognize, sound out, and write.

If there were no difference between word written with lower-case letters (a, b, c) and words written with both lower-case and upper-case (A, B, C) letters, why bother having upper-case letters?  Why have both “a” and “A,” “b” and “B,” and “c” and “C,” if the each the two letters in each pair didn’t mean something significantly different?

In the case of mixed upper- and lower-case letters–like “Cat”–we learned that when the first letter of a word was capitalized (upper case) as with capital “C,” the word was a proper noun/ proper name.  In this example, “Cat” might be the nickname for a woman named “Catherine” or it might be the name of a town (“Cat, Idaho”).  The capitalized word  was a “proper noun” that signified a particular man, woman or place.

The word “cat,” on the other hand, was a common noun used to signify a class of entities such as felines.

Clearly, capital letters are important in communication.  They help to eliminate ambiguity.  Without capital letters, when I write “fluffy” am I using the word as an adjective to describe the quality of an animals fur?  Or am I using the word “fluffy” to signify a particular cat?  The mix of lower- and upper-case letters expands and clarifies our language, making it more versatile and efficient for communicating a broad spectrum of knowledge and information.

However, if I write the word “fluffy” in an all-upper-case format (“FLUFFY”) the meaning becomes confused, ambiguous.  Am I using “FLUFFY” as an adjective to signify that the fur is “fluffy”?  Or am I using “FLUFFY” to signify the proper name (“Fluffy”) of a particular cat?

Here are two sentences to illustrate the enormous  value of capitalization:  1) “The cat I saw was fluffy.”  2) “The cat I saw was Fluffy.”  In the first sentence, the speaker saw one of a multitude of cats whose fur appeared to be “fluffy”.  In the second sentence, the speaker saw a particular cat whose name was “Fluffy”.  The two sentences are virtually identical except for the presence of a single, capital letter.  That single capital letter completely changes the meaning of the sentence.

 

“What is the NATURE of the person or individual you’re seeking?”

I’m convinced that this system’s Achilles Heel may be our ability and right to ask insightful questions.

For example, in response to my earlier article, “Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT?,” John Peter posted the following comment:

“It might be to our advantage to listen carefully to lawyers in courtroom proceedings. I have reviewed the videos of the OJ Simpson trial and observed the following. One day judge Ito asked the question ” Is the defendant in the courtroom”? Johnnie Cocoran, the attorney replied with honor by asking the following question: From the recorders Log- “What is the nature of the PERSON or individual that you seek ?”  Everyone knew that OJ was not in the courtroom at the time and the question was not brought up again. Could the answer lie in the understanding of the word “nature”?

 

Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT?

•  This article might be one of the most important I’ve ever written.  I haven’t proofread it yet.  They’ll be grammatical and logical errors.  But I’m publishing now, about a half hour before I start tonight’s radio show because I’m going to talk about this subject and I want folks to be able to download “something” that will help them to see and understand the hypothesis I’m advancing.  Although it may turn out that the hypothesis I’m advancing is mistaken or even silly, for right now, I think this hypothesis just might be enough to damn near break the existing “system”. 

•  Sometimes the Good LORD lets me “see”.  Not always.  Not perfectly.  Not completely. But I sometimes “see” a lot. And when I do, I know it’s a gift from the Good LORD.

For example, in A.D. 2005, I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000/day ($9 million/year).  I read the relevant laws defining “drugs” and “medical devices” and I instantly “saw” that those laws 1) only applied to animals, and 2) violated my freedom of religion.  I knew from the first moment that that understanding was of great importance and that the Good LORD had brought me to that understanding—that He had allowed me to “see”.  I devised a religious freedom defense and the Attorney General (after investing 6 years and most or $500,000 in the case’s investigation and pretrial hearings) simply dropped the case.

So far as I know, that victory is unprecedented.  Call every “patriot” you know and ask he’s heard even a rumor that another “patriot” has stopped a case where a state Attorney General had invested 6 years and $500,000.  There are no other such victories by any “pro se’s”.

 

Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT?

•  This article might be one of the most important I’ve ever written.  I haven’t proofread it yet.  They’ll be grammatical and logical errors.  But I’m publishing now, about a half hour before I start tonight’s radio show because I’m going to talk about this subject and I want folks to be able to download “something” that will help them to see and understand the hypothesis I’m advancing.  Although it may turn out that the hypothesis I’m advancing is mistaken or even silly, for right now, I think this hypothesis just might be enough to damn near break the existing “system”. 

•  Sometimes the Good LORD lets me “see”.  Not always.  Not perfectly.  Not completely. But I sometimes “see” a lot. And when I do, I know it a gift from the Good LORD.

For example, in A.D. 2005, I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000/day ($9 million/year).  I read the relevant laws defining “drugs” and “medical devices” and I instantly “saw” that those laws 1) only applied to animals, and 2) violated my freedom of religion.  I knew from the first moment that that understanding was of great importance and that the Good LORD had brought me to that understanding—that He had allowed me to “see”.  I devised a religious freedom defense and the Attorney General (after investing 6 years and most or $500,000 in the case’s investigation and pretrial hearings) simply dropped the case.

So far as I know, that victory is unprecedented.  Call every “patriot” you know and ask he’s heard even a rumor that another “patriot” has stopped a case where a state Attorney General had invested 6 years and $500,000.  There are no other such victories by any “pro se’s”.

But that victory was not me.  The Good LORD had His hand all over that case.  He let me see.  He bought me time to put pieces together.  We didn’t win because we were smart, we won because we were blessed.

Part of the reason I know that’s true is that there have been “man or other animals” laws on the books as far back as A.D. 1906, but I’m the first layman and first layman or lawyer to go public with the meaning of those laws.  I’m first guy (outside of the government) in over a century to read the “man or other animals” laws and realize their spiritual and political implications.

 

Capitis Diminutio–more on the All-Upper-Case Name

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

Here’s a well done video from someone else who’s also persuaded that the all-upper-case name identifies some entity or capacity other than that of a living man made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image and endowed by his Creator with “certain unalienable Rights”.

I don’t absolutely agree with everything in this video.  I’m sure that the video’s author doesn’t absolutely agree with everything I believe, either.  At least one of us–and probably both of us–have more to learn.  But for the moment, we both agree that the all-upper-case name “may be hazardous to your (political) health.”

The point is that the all-upper-case name theory is being increasingly explored and advocated by other people.  The “lunatic fringe” (of which I’m a card-carrying member) is growing thicker every day.  And sometimes, the “lunatic fringe” becomes the “cutting edge”.

7 minutes:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5I21wE-h_g

 

More on the All-Upper-Case Name

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

For at least 15 years, I have subscribed to the theory that the names “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED N ADASK” usually signify not only two different entities–but two kinds of entities.  I know that that “Alfred Adask” is the proper name for a living man (me).  I strongly suspect that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies some sort of estate, account or legal fiction–something other than the living man “Alfred Adask”.

Some people think that theory is nonsense and I don’t much blame ‘em.  After 15 years of embracing that theory, I still can’t prove it.  But on the other hand, after 15 years of advancing that theory, no one has (to my knowledge) disproved that theory.

Here’s an email from one of my radio and/or blog audience that questions the theory.  My email reply follows.

 

“Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK” acting “at arm’s length”

Image via Wikipedia

Dan Glasho posted the following inquiry on my blog concerning the significance of difference between capitalized (“Dan Glasho”) and all-upper-case (“DANIEL E GLASHO”) names:

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 miscarriage.

 

Meet Your Strawman

The attached is a high-quality, animated video that explains the nature of your “strawman”–the legal entity identified with an all-upper-case name like “ALFRED N ADASK”.  I don’t absolutely agree with every contention, but I agree with at least 95%.   The video is excellent because it shows how these insights are beginning to penetrate into the body politic.    5 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko