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

23 Dec

English: The Russian alphabet, upper and lower...

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.

Without the use of both upper-case and lower-case letters, the written language becomes much less easily understood and error-prone.  Given that a mix of upper- and lower-case letters enhances communication, why would any intelligent person choose to write in all lower- or all upper-case letters?

All the way back in first and second grade, I was taught that most words were written with lower-case letters, but some special words (proper nouns) were “capitalized” (written to include one upper-case letter).  But no one taught me about words written in all-upper-case letters.  In fact, after completing high school and some college, no one ever taught me what significance, if any, was attached to words written in all-upper-case letters.

For most of my life, I understood that proper nouns (or proper names) like “Alfred Adask” signified a particular man.  I assumed that words written in all-upper-case letters (like “ALFRED ADASK”) signified the same particular man as “Alfred Adask”.

I made that assumption because:  1) no one ever taught me anything to the contrary; and 2) I trusted my government, my schools, and my fellow man.  Surely, if there were some significant difference between “Alfred” and “ALFRED,” someone would’ve told me–right?  My teachers, my parents, my government–somebody would’ve told me what “ALFRED” meant, if it didn’t mean “Alfred”–right?

But no one ever told me . . . no one ever taught me . . . a thing about all-upper-case names.  In retrospect, some one should’ve at least taught me that I would one day encounter all-upper-case names that did not conform to conventional rules of grammar–but that those all-upper-case names were merely a format that government had chosen to use, but nevertheless meant the same thing as a capitalize, proper name.

But no one ever taught me that the all-upper-case name meant something different from the capitalized name, nor did they teach me that that the all-upper-case name meant the same as the capitalized name.

After 14 years of formal education and another 52 years of reading and writing, I have yet to discover any official source or authority that explains that “ALFRED ADASK” and “Alfred Adask” either signify the same man, or signify two different entities.

In retrospect, it seems just as odd that no one ever formally told me that “ADASK” means the same thing as “Adask” as it is that no one ever told that the true significance of an all-upper-case name like “ADASK”.  The official silence concerning the all-upper-case name seems universal and therefore extremely suspicious.

But about 18 years ago, I began to suspect that if the word “cat” meant something different from the word “Cat” then, contrary to my presumptions, perhaps the word “CAT” also meant something different from the first two forms.  The only places where I could see words and names were all-upper-case were on gravestones and in government documents like drivers licenses, credit cards, bank accounts and the names of corporations.  I began to suspect that “ALFRED N ADASK” was something other than “Alfred Adask”.  I first published those suspicions in my magazine (the AntiShyster).  I’m still exploring that hypothesis and publishing my current suspicions here.

Whatever the all-upper-case name signifies remains uncertain–at least to me.  I think part of the reason for that uncertainty may be that the all-upper-case name can signify a dead person (as in a cemetery), a legal fiction (like a corporation), an estate or an account.  So long as we were looking for a single meaning to attach to the all-upper-case name, our search was confused by finding several meanings.  While the all-upper-case name format may signify a number of different kinds of entities, the one common denominator for that name format is this:  Whatever “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies, it does not signify me–a man made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals (as per Genesis 1:26-28), who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the Declaration of Independence), who is one of the People of The State of Texas (as per The Constitution of The State of Texas) and whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”.

Until recently, I presumed that “ALFRED N ADASK” signified a “thing” that is other than me.  However, after I saw an FBI report on Dennis Craig that identified ‘DENNIS CRAIG BYNUM” as a “SUBJECT” (see, “Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT“), I’ve begun to consider the possibility that that all-upper-case name may not signify an entity or thing other than me, but may instead signify me (a flesh and blood man) in the degraded capacity of a “SUBJECT” rather than a “man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights”–who is therefore a sovereign.

I still don’t know if “ADASK” signifies an entity other than me, or if “ADASK” signifies me in the capacity of a subject rather than sovereign.  If I’m called on to identify myself, I intend to refute both possibilities and assert that I am a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain, God-given, unalienable Rights, one of the People of The State of Texas and whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”.

Having said all of that, here’s a video from a lady in Canada giving her take on the all-upper-case name.  I don’t agree with all of her conclusions, but she might be right and my disagreements might be wrong.  However, she and I absolutely agree that the all-upper-case name is a disability that is imposed upon us by our governments for the sake of exploiting us.

video    00:07:13

The idea that the all-upper-case name signifies something other than “Alfred Adask” is not absurd.  We were taught the difference between “cat” and “Cat” when we were kids.  It’s not unreasonable to suppose that “CAT” has another, completely different meaning.

Insofar as virtually all government-issued IDs, licenses, bank accounts, and court cases are denominated in terms of all-upper-case names, at the local, state and federal levels–it seems clear that the all-upper-case name is not an aberration.  It can’t be an accident, because virtually all governmental entities within the US appear to rely on the all-upper-case name.  If there was no significance to that format, some states or agencies would use the format of capitalized, proper nouns to signify a particular man.  But, so far as I know, none do.  Insofar as the all-upper-case name format seems to be “universal” (at least in the US), someone high up in national government must be enforcing that format for a reason that we do not yet definitely understand.

If the omnipresence of the all-upper-case name in the US is suspicious, the fact that the same format is also used in Canada only heightens that suspicion.   Are we to believe that the Canadian government also “accidentally” and “innocently” use the all-upper-case format?   I’m willing to bet that the laws of England, Australia and most other countries that communicate with our alphabet will also find all of their government-issued documents issued to names written in the all–upper-case format.  If my bet is correct, it implies that the all-upper-case name may have a global significance as one of the hallmarks of the New World Order.

Insofar as we see videos like the one above, it becomes clear that awareness of the significance of the all-upper-case name is not only catching on in the USA, it’s also gaining traction in Canada–and probably other countries as well.

After 18 years of pushing this idea, it’s finally catching on.  Those 18 years are an illustration of how long it takes for an idea to begin to penetrate into a society.  And it’s also an illustration of the importance of persistence.

In those 18 years, I have never seen a single denial from an official or authority that the all-upper-case name means anything other than the capitalized, proper name of a man.  The government’s silence on this issue is profound.

IF the all-upper-case name is merely a conventional government format that signifies nothing beyond the proper name, you’d think that we “patriots” have by now become such a prolific pain in the ass regarding this issue that someone of authority in government should say, “Look, you freakin’ idiots–the all-upper-case name and the capitalized, proper name mean exactly the same thing!”  The all-upper-case name issue is not only gaining traction in this country, it’s going international.   If it’s a mistake, why doesn’t some authority say so?

On the other hand, IF an all-upper-case name like “ALFRED N ADASK” does signify something dramatically, and even dangerously different from the capitalized name “Alfred Adask,” the government can’t dare admit it.  This would explain their silence.

But what’s that old maxim about the relationship of silence to fraud?

Didn’t the Supreme Court say something like, “silence equates with fraud when there is a moral or legal duty to speak”?   If we ask questions of the government and the government refuses to answer, can that refusal be equated to fraud?  Can the government’s current silence on the all upper-case name be charged as evidence of government’s determination to defraud the People?

We shall see.

We’re gonna get answers.  Even if those answers consist only of silence, we’re gonna get answers.


Posted by on December 23, 2011 in Fascism, Fraud, Government as Gangsters, Names, Tyranny, Video


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

32 responses to “The All-Upper-Case Name and the New World Order?

  1. dasanco

    December 23, 2011 at 4:47 AM

    Actually, I went to an American [public] school in the 60’s and was taught a word (or collection of words) in all capital letters was reserved exclusively for a title.

    TITLE, persons.
    1. Titles are distinctions by which a person is known.

    3. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

    Though SUBJECT is a credible presumption, I would think TRUSTEE or AGENT might fit our role a bit better.


    • David Merrill

      December 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM

      That is right on! Adask, albeit I do not recognize it like Miller or Black(smith) is the family nomen or title. Alfred Norman ADASK. Look at the international conventions for consuls:

      Below we find a quote from Colonel HALL but I don’t believe that is anything more than internet rumor. I have looked for several of those famous quotes. If you can tell me a page number I might look again though:

      But let’s pretend it is true; at least in substance. Consider the observation that headstones at the cemetary are all upper case. Debt = death. Mort = death. Gage = promise, ergo mortgage = death-promise. Debt = death ergo Death(or) = debtor. This is constructed by being in debt. The debtor is spelled like on a headstone. Encryptions are all upper case and so it is outside the conventions Alfred Norman learned in school. Like the STOP sign. It is a Notice but it is impractical to put the instructions in English on a STOP sign. Paratixis.

      Here is a description of how we can become the title, we are the trustee for the agreement and the agreement is the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. We being the TRUSTEE are fiduciary responsible to settle the charges. At least we start to describe a convention. It is mentioned pretty clearly in this case:

      The relationship goes like this. Alfred Norman is what (typically) your parents named you when they welcomed you into your heritage (TITLE). Your true name is Alfred Norman.

      Look at that – your “name” in Blacks Law Dictionary is the same as your Legal or Full Name. That is why it is in quotations. The other convention would be italics. That means that the Name in Black’s is for special use (by attorneys). So according to attorneys your name is Alfred Norman Adask. Just like you have been taught all your life. It is the name of the Person, not the Man. In other words if you know your name is Alfred Norman then you open up the option of discerning whether you want to contract as the Trustee Alfred Norman Adask. If you have not signed anything yet, then you can Refuse for Cause the presentment without accepting the trustee position and becoming responsible for settling the charges against the ALFRED NORMAN ADASK constructive trust.

      The deeper description of the ALFRED NORMAN ADASK would be found in the scope of Cestui Que Vie. If you are incompetent (do not know your name for example) then you default out of the law of the land into admiralty. After seven years of Lost at Sea though, you are legally declared dead and the estate defaults into the state. Ergo vessels and ships with ALL UPPER CASE letters. Insurance, limited liability comes from bottomry and is admiralty jurisdiction – Delovio v. Boit (1815).

      This is a fascinating topic! Thanks for sharing Alfred Norman.

      If you are entrenched in your past ignorance by a signature, you might try dispelling the oath-mongering. Titles come from oaths of office in this constitutional republic – endorsement of private credit from the Federal Reserve. See the remedy at Title 12 USC §411 from §16 of the Fed Act sometime.

      The clearer example though is that Robert E. RUBIN was announcing his resignation by the 5:00 O’clock News!

      I recall chatting with you from there!

      • Adask

        December 24, 2011 at 8:40 AM

        I enjoy writing this blog. I sometimes take a little pride in what I’ve written. But what really delights and even amazes me about this blog is the quality of comments that I sometimes receive.

        David Merrill’s previous comment is an example of the quality work that goes into some of the comments on this blog. It takes time and effort draft such a lengthy comment. It takes time and effort to illustrate that comment with several links to outside sources.

        I don’t agree with every comment, but I understand and appreciate the effort, sincerity and concern that motivate most comments. And I am grateful.

        This blog has value. Not simply because of the texts I’ve posted, but because of the comments posted by readers.

        You folks make me proud.

      • Virginia

        December 25, 2011 at 1:42 PM

        Thanks brother Alfred for such thought provoking articles! Brother David, this is excellent information, thank you! My question is, how does one redeem FRN’s? I’ve heard of this before, so if you or someone else has good, reliable information on how to do this with electronic deposits, that would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to email me at


  2. Mike

    December 23, 2011 at 5:20 AM

    Thanks Al. Another thoughtful post. The thing that most caught my attention however was the quote on fraud. That bunch of D.C. lawyers in black robes has confessed that there may be a legal OR MORAL duty to speak when asked. I wonder if we need to focus more on using moral reasoning rather than attempting to find legalese to support our efforts in courts. Perhaps we can quote that case in our paperwork and/or court hearings to turn the debate to the morality of imposing a name upon us that creates a legal disability. Can one become a successful plaintiff solely on the grounds that an immoral legal disability is being imposed in violation of the Declaration of Independence statements regarding Creator bestowed rights?

  3. Al Thompson

    December 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM

    I looked at this video and it doesn’t sit right with me. Your comments on the ALL CAPS is correct. The only place in any English style manual it accounts for ALL CAPS is in the naming of a ship.
    i.e. USS LOVE BOAT. But this lady says that we are the creditors. She may think that, but the true system is simply a slave state arrangement. Al Thompson is the surety for AL THOMPSON.
    While it very well may be in Admiralty, the problem is that none of this is disclosed and it is the “Government” that does this and not the man or woman.

    Since you brought this up, I wonder if you have notices how the Constitution in Title 28 has almost every noun capitalized. Not too many people have brought this up, but it makes the writing unintelligible. The twisted use of the English language in so-called “laws” makes the writings unusable.

    But I think our biggest problem is that we give too much authority to things that are written down. Writings become a type of god or idol and they take on an authority that they don’t deserve. In my opinion, the information in any writing must be supported by other facts.

    After studying this nonsense for over 20 years, I’ve concluded that it is all bull shit. I really don’t know what it means, the government won’t disclose it, so I simply try to forget about this crap. They make up their own rules anyway, so let them live by their own rules. After a certain amount of time, people like me are just going to lose interest. Even discussing this nonsense is like having seen a football game; where the refs. cheated, and then try to discuss the merits of the players in the game. It’s just too stupid.

    At this point in my life, I use written information as a secondary source of information. Each writing has to be tested as to it’s veracity. That’s why I say the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is utter nonsense. They were only intended to give people the impression that they were free, when the fact is that it is a bankruptcy, tax, and slave document.

    Reading this junk sucks the life out of men. My suggestion is to work around it and get out of the
    way when the whole thing collapses.

    Al T.

  4. Rog

    December 23, 2011 at 2:41 PM

    Alfed, are you familiar with this?

    Somewhere between 1913 and 1921 Colonel Mandel House wrote these comments in his journal, ” the President is to perpetuate the slavery of Americans. By design we have been kept bankrupt and insolvent by an ancient, evil system of pledging. Central Banksters have been profiting at our expense for over 70 years.

    Tom Gambill
    Fri Sat 17, 2010

    Subject: Colonel Edward Mandel House confessions

    1913 to 1921 (exact date unknown): Colonel Edward Mandel House to Woodrow Wilson found in Wilson’s personal diary/logs

    “Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that’s you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America.”

    There you have it. I must take exception to Al Thompson’s “Just work around it” advice, for most folks, at least. This stuff is being imposed on you like it or not. There are those of us who manage to fly below the tree line and that generally means a lower standard of living and countless headaches just trying to live in this mess. And it IS worth it- to us. But for most trying to make a living the knowledge of this is of no consolation. To put a roof over their heads, food in the pantry, a way to get to work etc. participation in this fraud is essential-it is, seemingly, the only way. Until a critical mass is brave enough to stand up publicly and say ENOUGH! it will not change. It isn’t a matter of “their” system, it is a matter of OUR freedom. Sadly, freedom has become anathema to many seeking security in an unsure world. I don’t know the solution. Education moves too slowly to be effective for time is running out. Quite often paradigm shifts are, unfortunately, swift and violent. My advice? Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

  5. pop de adam

    December 23, 2011 at 4:50 PM

    If everthing you own or possess is tainted through the use of FRNs to purchase it and somehow there is a priority claim making these subserviant to “public policy” or “continuance of government”. What was the purpose of joining with such a government? Most believed it was to secure our person or property. Does a government that betrays this founding principle have authority or only power? We gave them the power and authority in exchange for security, and in exercise of the former destroy the latter.

    Alternatively, We allow them to use our faith and credit, in the fine print the exercises of creditors creates the coresponding debtors, but in this exercise the original creditors become the debtors, nullifing eachother, but this scheme is not played out this way.

    I realize Al you have a spiritual streak, I find myself on the fence in this regard. You could argue that the Vatican and Catholic Church are but a metamorphisis of the Roman Empire, It would explain alot when you look at the architecture of places like D.C. Are these neo-greco-roman artifrices only an affirmation of their respect of that power or an actual manifestion of it? We can find fasces on the walls of congress, does this mean they enjoy fascist tendencies? So much is made of excluding others not like us, painting others in less than flattering colors, this is often done with the purpose of belittling the citizen that goes against the grain, making him less than a man, someone who can be rightfully enslaved or destroyed.

    If God created everything who created God? If we are all of the same stuff and you see God in one man, you should see God in all men, even the “bad” ones, we can only guess at God’s ends.
    Is “Good” the goal of God? Who are we to even venture a guess as his creations. The “Perfect Liar” would constantly be placing themself in quandries where each of their actions would contradict the one before it. The thief does’t help himself to some thing because he believes it worthless and no one will notice, he does it precisely because it has value, so even in this michief there is some honesty. We can point out that in this nation we are to be a part of government, yet by the way the courts can violate this and place us outside the protection of the law, we see they contradict this concept. If I am an “outlaw” this suggests there is no agreement/allegience and they should let me be, but will they? As I am the “outlaw” they take this as a que to agress upon there will be no remedy for me and no consequence for them. Contradiction again and again, over and over. Dominion over men should be left to the creator, if it isn’t, the domination of people should be a sin of the highest order. I’m sure everybody can find a religion or cult that seems to be outside of the norm or just odd. These to will surely have concepts that leave others saying to themselves “How did they possibly come to these conclusions?” or “Wow, I think that is just crazy!”

    In conclusion, those who believe in government, really are no different than those that choose a Faith to follow, however they don’t question the “cult of governments” use of enforcers. Can you imagine a Buddist enforcement officer or a Hare Krishna agent?

    Keep at it.

  6. derick

    December 23, 2011 at 10:14 PM

    If the all-upper-case name is a fiction and your goal is to prove this, you are attempting the impossible. The government remains silent on this because it puts the burden of proof on those that make the claim and it is impossible to prove that wich does not exist.

    Im not saying there isnt something to all of this but the fact remains that this system is based on voluntary participation.

  7. jqmobile

    December 24, 2011 at 8:33 AM

    I thought ALL CAPS helped to cause problems in some surname structures…typically irish;
    ie McNally or Mcnally so all caps MCNALLY gets rid of those problems

    good article.

  8. David Merrill

    December 24, 2011 at 10:22 AM

    Thank you! The complexity of the encryption is immense without a key. But with a key, the patterns fall into order. I think one of the major useful keys is “Mnason” or rather “one Mnason” meaning it is not a name but a title – MASON – thinly encrypted by a completely unorthodox “n”. That may be better on the Christmas thread though. It is the “name” of the Cypriot Jew who supported Paul’s lie that the ship did not stop in Cyprus, where Paul bought expensive Roman citizenship papers that proved him in treason against Israel…

    I believe that I can convince you of at least one or two more doubtful points in my above posting by pointing out the major active constructive trust in America, and the “admiralty” nations of western law you mentioned above. IN GOD WE TRUST c. 1863. When Alfred Norman, the man signs to be the trustee for ALFRED N. ADASK on the paycheck (endorsement) by scribing “Alfred N. Adask” this completes the trust of the United States Note. At that same time “shock testing” for the Federal Reserve System (elastic currency) was underway under the Crown – Crown Dominion Notes in Canada where apparently by the Parliament defrauding itself (like that was an accident!) reserve banking began, based on the US Notes in America! Look at Footnote 4:

    The Canadian Parliament never jailed itself over the dishonesty and fraud, reserve banking on a national level, while America stayed on the emergency fiat without ever doing any fractional lending (reserve banking) – See Title 31 U.S.C. §5115 until 1913:—-000-.html

    In 1913 Congress passed the Fed Act and elastic currency between bankers upon a twenty-year charter:

    Of course that meant that the banks were going to run the Fed in 1933 to get their gold and gold certificates – the proverbial horse race (Remember Wichita!!) with one horse but two unwitting owners betting on a time-shared horse.

    Ergo the Bankers’ Holiday in April 1933. This is where FDR allowed the public into the new Federal Reserve Trust, a new layer under the IN GOD WE TRUST formed for the fiat US Notes in the same 1861 Emergency:

    “…which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms,”

    So if you wonder where you signed on think of that naked contract you have been signing on the backside of your paychecks. You have been endorsing private credit from the Fed instead of redeeming lawful money by demand. In 1934 your remedy was modified to accomodate FDR’s gold seizure:

  9. Ummer

    December 25, 2011 at 7:50 AM

    Hmmm my message about uncials an St Jerome and the 18th century individuals, Jean Mabillon and Scipione Maffei didn’t get through.

  10. RFL

    December 25, 2011 at 11:39 PM

    Read the book Fruit from a poisonous tree by Mel Stamper it will explain everything you need to know about Capital Letters for your name. It is a Mask.

    • David Merrill

      December 27, 2011 at 5:41 PM

      Yes. A Mask! Person is a facade – a mask. The persons we construct are constructive trusts.

  11. Virginia

    December 28, 2011 at 12:54 AM

    A mask, as in a theatrical play! How can one get rid of it though? It’s obvious that we as babes did not choose it, nor our names, so how can this be forced upon oneself and still be valid? Or does the validity of the legal person just lie in wait for us to be old enough to start using it (since we are all indoctrinated as children), so it gets consented to by the living man/woman? Can there be an end to this legal person?


  12. Vindex Dogood

    December 28, 2011 at 7:59 PM

    “Capitis Diminutio Maxima”

    As Black’s Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one’s natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method by which the State causes a natural person to “volunteer” himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn’t willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used. The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for “inventory” control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner’s manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory.

  13. Hermes

    December 29, 2011 at 8:13 AM

    Hopefully this finds kind ears.

    There is a gent from Canada named Dean Clifford. He has just went on a national tour and was well received. He has a different take on this all together. He has learned by getting arrested a bunch on how this all seems to work in court.

    He argues at the end of the day, as a being of the land you lower yourself merely by showing up. (its rather obvious for anyone to see in Canada, a bit more nuanced in USA, but the governments are foreign TO THE LAND (foreign territories you mention Adask) but we are naturally OF the land. His overarching strategy is never to go to court. Tactics include use presumption as they do and force them to rebutt all your theories. See where they are willing to fight and where they retreat. But that is deeper into his lectures. Basically the answer to your question is simple. Both persons exist, one as a natural man and the other a legal fiction. This much we know. But how does it all work?

    His first video has it as your birth certificate is the only “receipt” you have with their signature that holds some value, its the only government document NOT SIGNED BY YOU. You’ll never get back you certificate of live birth as that is basically collateral in a trust. But it’s not the trust that has a bunch of money in an account that you can raid and then go to jail over. No it is a public trust in government and you are missing the key. In a trust there is a beneficiary, executor and trustee. The only real rule is trustee can’t be beneficiary or executor. When you entered into this public trust you did so as beneficiary and executor to the governments role as trustee.

    This trust is represented by this all cap spelling. Now here is where it gets interesting. Now that we are in a trust with government it has pulled the old con games and convinced us that inside this trust we switched roles, like we’ve walked across a looking glass and now we are not beneficiarys and executors but trustee’s to governments codes. It presumes this of course! Your role, should you choose to accept it is to follow the maxims. Its a roman system and court is basically a trust hearing.

    If you don’t assume the role of executor then the judge will happily play it for you and since s/he is paid by the “govt” then its govt getting away with playing the role of judge executor. Call this out and they scurry! He’s has some interesting stories and as a young man has learned through a baptism in fire. He says he only stumbled upon how this all really seems to function in the last 1.5 years as he decided to completely ignore all ties/sever them with “the crown.” But they came a calling, so he was forced to figure it out…

    I’m simplifying the heck of his wonderful presentations and I’ve had zero coffee, so forgive me any errors and just check out the horses mouth.

  14. Ummer

    April 24, 2012 at 3:17 AM

    Hey Alfred… what does GOD mean as opposed to God?

    • KAI

      April 24, 2012 at 7:17 AM


      I’ve already said too much…

    • Adask

      April 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM

      I don’t know. I believe the upper case words were used in the early Bibles written in English as a form of emphasis or respect. I don’t understand the Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek languages, but I doubt that they all had an upper and lower case capacity 2,000 to 4,000 years ago. I could easily be wrong, but I doubt that the the distinction between “GOD” and “God” appears in the most ancient biblical texts. I assume that those distinctions were added by translators who translated the original texts into Latin, English, French, etc. But again, I don’t know that to be true. Perhaps you can cast more light on the subject.

  15. joebobanana

    August 15, 2012 at 12:41 AM

    You own nothing. Slaves aren’t allowed to own property. “Eminent domain”, and “asset forfeiture” settle that question. Enforced lethally if necessary, and often, whatever “rights” you thought you had, don’t exist. The US government has given itself the power to assassinate, or indefinitely detain American citizens. Eliminating due process by precedent, the US government has taken the role of domestic enemy. In the FEMA camps, you’ll get a bar code tattoo, Nothing to capitalize.

  16. Harold

    August 15, 2012 at 1:18 AM

    “You own nothing.”

    I don’t get this. Seems to me that I own quite a few things (most of which I admittedly don’t need), at least according to the usual dictionary definition of this verb. You seem to be using another kind of definition. Care to share it with maybe an explanation of why it should be preferred over what’s found in the dictionary?

    • KAI

      August 15, 2012 at 7:14 AM

      If you owned it, it couldn’t be legally taken from you (for not paying your tithe, called taxes, its all canonical when you get down to the roots of this). You’ve contracted into voluntary slavery which is the point to the 14th amendment, US CITIZEN status. You had the People status before that civil war…

      You have rights of use…but not even rights to benefits since you are presumed trustee of the trust set up in that all caps name. Notice them of your beneficiary status including the US DEPT of Justice and get the US TRUSTEE to discharge for you as intermediary/fiduciary.

      Get your docs in order and get out while you still can.

    • Adask

      August 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM

      It’s probably not true that “you own nothing”. However, it probably is true that you own legal title to nothing.

      There are two fundamental forms of title to property: 1) legal title (right of actual ownership) and 2) equitable title (right of use).

      When both forms of title (legal and equitable) are held by a single man, he is said to have “perfect title” to the property (although there are other terms to signify one man holding both legal and equitable title). For example, if I hold both legal and equitable titles to a house, I have both the right of ownership (including disposal) and the right of use (living in) that house.

      But, as a hypothetical and over-simplified example, suppose I own the house but choose to rent it to someone else. In very broad strokes, the renter would have equitable title to the house (right to use it and living in it) but would not own it. Because I rented the house to the occupant, I would still have legal title (ownership) but I would no longer have equitable title.

      Other people, seeing the renter living in the house that I own, might presume that the renter actually “owned” the house he lived in. That presumption would be false. Because he could use the house (had equitable title to it), even the occupant might be fooled into thinking he “owned” the house–when he did not. The renter might “own” the EQUITABLE title to the house, but he would not “own” the LEGAL title to the house.

      In fact, there is strong suspicion that our modern property laws may parallel the hypothetical (and imprecise) example I just presented. It appears possible that LEGAL titles to most of our property (land, homes, cars, even computers, etc.) may be held by the Federal Reserve and/or the federal government while we, at most, acquire only the EQUITABLE titles to our various properties. The net result is that while we may think that we own our homes, land, cars, etc., we don’t really. Yes, we have a right to USE them, but we don’t really own them. We are reduced to a nation of sharecroppers living on someone else’s land, in someone else’s homes and driving someone else’s cars–even though 99.99% of the people have no clue that don’t truly “own” their presumed “properties”.

      The implications are huge.

      For example, the purpose of a court of LAW is to determine LEGAL title to property. If neither of the parties to a civil suit have or even claim to have the LEGAL title to whatever property is in question, the case will be heard in EQUITY rather than at LAW. At LAW (a function of LEGAL title) everyone–including the judge–is bound by the LAW. In EQUITY (what remains after legal title is removed), the judge is only bound by his alleged CONSCIENCE. As a result, the judge can rule any way he damn pleases. If he doesn’t like your race, your politics or your parents, he can rule against you. In equity, the judge can come up with all kinds of seemingly irrational or even unconstitutional decisions (EQUITY is the basis for “judge-made law” and “judicial activism,” etc.).

      When you drive “your” car, you can be stopped and given a traffic ticket for not having a drivers license, not fastening your seat-belt, or not having insurance. Even if no one is damaged by your omissions or errors, you can be held liable. Why? Because you’re driving a car that is owned by “this state”. Look at the name on the license plate. Does it say “TEXAS” or “FLORIDA” or “ILLINOIS”? That’s who owns LEGAL title to “your” car. As the true “owner” of legal title to “your” car, “this state” can set whatever terms it likes for the operation of ITS vehicles.

      Suppose you were a high school junior who wanted to use your dad’s car to take your girlfriend to the prom. As the apparent “owner” of the family car, dad could set whatever rules he wanted as a conditions for you to USE (have equitable title to, figuratively speaking) “his” car. If dad said, no cigarette butts in the ash tray, be home by 12:00 midnight sharp, no scuffs in the paint, and a make sure there’s a full tank of gas–you’d better follow every one of dad’s rules or you’ll be back to taking your girlfriend out on dates on your bicycle.

      Figuratively speaking, the same thing appears to be true relative to “your” car. You have only equitable title to “your” car. You have the right of USE but not true OWNERSHIP. As a result, the true owner of “your” car can subject you to all sorts of PRIVATE law that holds you liable to obey a lot of rules and regulations that would not apply if you owned both LEGAL and EQUITABLE titles (PERFECT title) to your car.

      A similar analysis probably explains why the government can tell you how high the grass can grow on “your” lawn or how many junk cars you can store in “your” back yard. I know a couple of senior citizens who’ve been ticketed for not having painted “their” house. The wife–about 70 years old–was ultimately JAILED for not having painted “their” house. Why? I believe the answer may be because it’s not really “their” house. They merely have equitable title to the house, but don’t truly own it. The true owner of legal title (“this state”) allows the two senior citizens to live in that house (even though they repaid the mortgage long ago) as holders of equitable title to the house–provided that they obey all of the rules and regulations the true owner (“this state”) imposes on the use of the “state’s” property.

      We do own something in this life: EQUITABLE title. But we seldom own LEGAL title to anything.

      One exception: intellectual property. As the author/creator of my various articles, I OWN them. I hold both LEGAL and EQUITABLE titles to my writings, my radio shows. I am truly a dangerous man because I am not a mere sharecropper. I actually OWN LEGAL TITLE to my writings (I hold true copyright–which is not the same thing as the copyright you get from gov-co). I write, therefore I am.

      Another exception: patents.

      Another exception: anything you create. For example, when Ford builds a new car, by virtue of the act of CREATION Ford owns PERFECT title to the new automobile. That perfect title is evidenced by the Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin (creation)–the MSO. When the man buys the new car, what does he actually buy? The car? The steel, plastic, rubber and fabric? No. He buys the TITLE–the MSO–the seemingly inconsequential piece of paper that conveys the PREFECT RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP to the car. And then what’s he do with that TITLE? He pays “this state” an additional fee (tax, title and license) to take the PERFECT TITLE to the car, keep the legal title for itself (this state) and give him (the 1st buyer) mere EQUITABLE title to the vehicle he initially OWNED.

      Now, because he no longer holds legal title to “his” car, the purported “owner” is subject to whatever rules and regulations the holder of LEGAL title wishes to impose on the operation of ITS (this state’s) vehicle.

      Now, virtually every time the car’s driver is hauled into court on a traffic ticket, the judge will rule against the driver (who holds only equitable title) and rule in favor of “this state” (which holds legal title). The driver will lament because it all seems so unfair. But it’s only unfair because the driver is too ignorant to understand the difference between LEGAL and EQUITABLE titles and therefore ignorantly presumes that his right to USE “his” car equates with actual OWNERSHIP of LEGAL title to “his” car.

      Because he’s ignorant, the driver thinks he’s an “owner,” when he’s really just a sharecropper. Because he doesn’t understand the concepts of “title” and “ownership,” the driver doesn’t know what he owns and doesn’t own, doesn’t know his own status, and in a sense, doesn’t even know who/what he is.

      If this astonishing analysis is roughly correct, the amazing thing is that hundreds of millions of Americans have been bamboozled and deceived into this system of bondage without even suspecting that they’re no longer “free”.

      If the analysis is roughly correct, I can’t imagine that this state of national deception could’ve taken place except as evidence of spiritual warfare.

      The nation has been enslaved with its own consent based on its own ignorance.

      All is not lost, however, We fell into this trap with our own ignorance. We can walk right out of this trap if enough of regain sufficient knowledge.

      • LocalHero

        December 14, 2014 at 4:56 PM

        You’ve got it backwards. It’s true that you own legal title to some things but that is a far cry from actually owning something..

  17. Harold

    August 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

    Thanks for a great answer, Alfred. Special notice goes to this:

    “All is not lost, however, We fell into this trap with our own ignorance. We can walk right out of this trap if enough of regain sufficient knowledge.”

    However, posted by KAI:

    “Get your docs in order and get out while you still can.”

    Since they have failed to get our guns, and the anti-gun propaganda push is starting to look like a lost cause, the NWO’s backup plan is for their opposition to simply quit the fight voluntarily and get out (“while you still can”, etc). This they most likely intend to accomplish through economic means.

    • KAI

      August 15, 2012 at 1:40 PM

      i am beneficiary to my estate now, not trustee and not executor. i have made this clear to those who need to know this. I dare them to test the DNA on the ecclesiastical deed poll. I am alive…

      Funny thing, Capital one sent me a bereavement notice for a credit card that the fiduciary is handling. It was high strange…it was addressed to me and said sorry to hear you died…we will work with probate and fiduciaries to get paid. Ignore the next two statements that go out..

      Let me say it this way and maybe you see what i am getting @ here. Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil…stop participating and see the whole picture…can’t make u…thanks for listening.

      • KAI

        August 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM

        meant to get back to the alive/dead thing.

        the estate is dead not the living man obviously. we are assumed dead as it is…i let them know, well thanks for holding my estate and trust WHILE I WAS LOST @ (HOLY) SEE, but the divine man is here to reclaim his title…thanks! your born with perfect title and you can perfect it at any point as Adask says, but you need knowledge. Keep huntin brother…

      • Virginia

        August 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM

        Kai, can you contact me to tell me more please. My email is Thanks and blessings!

  18. KAI

    August 15, 2012 at 2:57 PM

    VIRGINIA – your email doesnt work, returned undeliverable…

    here is basically my email to you.

    The website with the info is:…gentlemen named James Thomas McBride set this up and is the first man to get recognized using this process. He only went live on the net maybe 4 months ago, 5 tops (and he fought for 3 years to get it recognized). My docs were all submitted under the Venus Transit at the beginning of June. I am finding odd things as the process works through. In the end your entire credit score/profile becomes marked in the public realms as PRIVATE! :) I’m not quite there yet.

    A sister website I find MUCH better at explaining things is here:

    Join that site and the keys are immense! I’m not sure how long you’ve been trying to reclaim your status, but it took me about 5 years of research roughly then at the beginning of this year, I leaped head first and have had been surprised over and over at how things really are. This is truly a war for your Spirit that “they” want you to forget about.

  19. owlmon

    September 16, 2012 at 4:03 PM

    Playscript writing is used in fictional writings by playwrites and the names of the fictional Actors are always in Dead fiction all caps format…The RCMP use that as posted in the 5th Writing style guide on their defunct website you can still find on…I also have a transcript from court weherein the judge admits the court uses legal fictions for it’s convenience..The Business incorporations Act also demands an all caps names for Corporations…Philip Staufen in BC Supreme court trying to get ther court to creat an ID for him…The Judges admits they use the legal fiction name to increase the jurisdiction of the court and for it’s convenience,,,

  20. Wooten Dwydell Simpson

    May 25, 2016 at 10:34 AM

    Hey man, This was an excellent page for such a difficult subject to discuss.I look forward to reading many more great posts like these.Cheers.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s