RSS

Gangsters

27 Apr

Gang Wars [courtesy Google Images]

Gang Wars:  Two Gangs Face Off
[courtesy Google Images]

I’m going to start this article with a definition:  the term “gangsters” signifies a minority-group of people who believe they are so “special” that they are not subject to the law that applies to the majority.  These “gangsters” often justify their exemption to the law of the majority based on claims of racism, injustice, poverty, or even necessity as in “my baby momma hungry, so I steal sumpin’.”

If it’s true that “gangsters” are minority groups who feel entitled and justified to be exempt from the law of the majority, aren’t the police, in particular, and government in general also “gangsters”?

Don’t the police enjoy immunities from legal liabilities that would get most people thrown in the slammer or even executed?  Can’t the police get away with murder?  With lying on the witness stand?  With lying to suspects? To  falsifying evidence?  With initiating prosecutions against people for victimless crimes?  With enforcing fictional jurisdictions?

The whole idea of a “police state” makes the police seem special and entitled to break the law.  The American police state has been growing since the 9/11 attack in A.D. 2001 and subsequent enactment (without being read by Congress) of the “Patriot Act”.  As a result of the “Patriot Act,” government in general and police have enjoyed new “immunities” for violating the law.

What are those “immunities” if not evidence that the police are a “minority-group of people who believe they are not subject to the law that applies to the majority”?

How does the cops’ belief that they’re “special” and entitled to avoid accountability under much of the law, differ from the belief of gangs like the Bloods, Crips, and Mexican Mafia that they are “special” due to racism, poverty or even brute strength and therefore also entitled to avoid accountability under much of the law of the majority?

By the definition I’ve proposed for “gangsters,” the cops are just another gang.

What about Presidents who are supposed to only execute and enforce the laws but violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by legislating under the guise of executive orders?  They think the laws are for someone else.  They think they’re so “special” that they shouldn’t have to obey the law.  They’re gangsters.

What about Senators and Congressmen who broker laws based on political campaign contributions (bribes) rather than actually legislating laws by debating and writing the laws themselves?  These politicians think they’re so “special” that they shouldn’t have to obey the law.  They’re gangsters.

What about Supreme Court Justices who argue that the Constitution is a “living document” whose meaning is constantly in flux and subject to their “judicial interpretations”?

If the Constitution was ever intended to be a “living document” whose meaning was constantly changing with the times and left to be “discovered”  at any moment by the Judiciary, why does Article V of the Constitution specify the only process by which the Constitution can be lawfully amended?  Why is that amendment process restricted to the legislatures of the States of the Union or to Conventions of the people in each of the States of the Union?  Why doesn’t Article V mention amendment by judicial “interpretation”?  If the Constitution can be amended by the Supreme Court, Article V makes little or no sense.  If the Constitution cannot be amended by judicial interpretation, Article V is rational.

How can Article VI Section 2 reasonably declare that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” if the Constitution is a “living document” that can mean anything or nothing at all at any given moment based on judicial “interpretation”?   How can we have a “supreme Law of the Land” by which Judges in every State shall be bound” if that Supreme Law is subject to constant change in the twinkling of a Supreme Court judge’s eye?

What about Article VI Section 3 which mandates that all of the members of the legislatures of the States of the Union and of the U.S. Congress, and all of the officers of the executive and judicial branches of the US and State of the Union governments “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution“?  How can anyone be bound by the terms of a constitution that’s a “living document” and therefore subject to constant and unpredictable change on a moment-by-moment basis?  If the Constitution can be changed by the judiciary at any moment, isn’t taking an oath to be bound to support “this Constitution” somewhat like signing your name to a blank check for an amount that someone else can supply?

The Constitution of the United States was intended to protect the people of the States of the Union from the federal government in general and from tyranny in particular.  It’s therefore no surprised that the cops, presidents, legislatures and the courts are persistently amending or ignoring the People’s Law–the Constitution and other Organic Laws–to grant themselves immunities from being held liable to the People’s laws they once swore to support and enforce.

Insofar as the government declares that it enjoys immunities from being “bound” to obey the People’s Law (the Constitution, etc.), how is the government any different from a biker’s gang that claims to enjoy exemptions from the government’s laws because the bikers are tough, violent and wild?

Immunity from the law and exemptions from the law are both evidence of gangsters and the “special interest” mentality that all gangs embrace.

Insofar as the cops claim immunity from the People’s law, the cops are gangsters.

Insofar as the government claims immunity from the People’s law, the government is composed of one or more groups of gangsters.

The growing conflict between Blacks and police is the result of two gangs, many of whose members believe they are “special” and entitled to be exempt from the law.  The Blacks justify criminal behavior as necessary to survive in a racist world.  The cops justify their own criminal conduct by being forced to work in a world where criminals (like some Blacks) are constantly present.  The violence we have seen, and will see, perpetrated by each gang against the other is ultimately traceable to the idea that both groups should be above the law.  The cops kill Blacks who think they’re above the law.  The Blacks will kill cops who think they are above the law.

To the extent any of us claim exemption from liability under the law, that exemption will ultimately result in violence.  If we don’t want that violence, we need to stop exempting ourselves, our races, our cops and our government from equal liability under the law.  That principle applies to Blacks, to cops, to politicians and even to ordinary people.  We must all be equally liable under the law.  No immunities.  No exemptions.

 
65 Comments

Posted by on April 27, 2015 in Government as Gangsters, Immunity

 

Tags: , ,

65 responses to “Gangsters

  1. Mike

    April 27, 2015 at 8:32 PM

    Good Sir,
    You have presented a well thought out, well written and interesting article.

    I think it has been nearly one hundred and forty years since humans born in America were considered ‘people of the States of the Union’. Sadly, since the 14th Amendment, we have been ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government’. As more and more people learn the 14th is null due to its illegal and unlawful ratification, we may be able to go back to being of the States of the Union but I doubt the police state will ever let that happen.

    For me, I can only do my best to be able to stand before my maker when this is all done and leave the nonsense of the false political two party paradigm and police state to those that really are subject to the government.

    Thanks for the good work

     
  2. Phil Cali

    April 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM

    Ordinary ‘Whites’ can never be gangsters therefore were not referenced. Interesting.

     
    • Oliver Medaris

      April 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM

      Quoting this Gangsters article,” and even to ordinary people. We must all be equally liable under the law. No immunities. No exemptions.” What color are “ordinary people”? I feel ordinary, except I read the last line or two of the article. I understood it to be talking about people like me. I was born White. No gender or race confusion. Just sayin’…

       
      • Adask

        April 28, 2015 at 6:07 PM

        It’s not my intent to make any racial distinctions. My intent is to argue that all of us, even those who work for the government, must be subject to the very same laws. When the government starts passing “special interest” laws, they recognize and support the idea that some “special interests” can function as “gangs” who are above the law. I’m saying that we must all be equally subject to the same law–even the cops, even the courts, even the legislators.

         
  3. Damon

    April 27, 2015 at 8:58 PM

    Reblogged this on Awakestate.

     
  4. gary

    April 27, 2015 at 9:27 PM

    the confusion is easy to point out here: WHICH “Constitution”: The Constitution For The United States of America (several states of the Union), or the US Constitution: the Corporate charter for the United States, which, according to all their own ‘laws’, is located IN the District of Columbia?

    WHICH “Supreme Court”: the Supreme Court of the United States of America, (for the several states of the Union) or the US Supreme Court for the District of Columbia, aka the ‘United States’?

    The Constitution For The United States of America is an agreement between the states of the Union and the federal government for the states to take on the Revolutionary War debts of the ‘federal’ government, and has 13 amendments, the last being that no person with a title of nobility can be president or serve in Congress of several states of the Union styled The United States of America.

    The ‘US CONstitution’, the corporate charter for the ‘United States’, incorporated in 1871 as a Government in and for the District of Columbia, has a different 13th ‘amendment’, the ‘slavery’ amendment, the 14th ‘amendment creating the ‘US citizen’, which does not exist in the several states of the Union styled The United States of America, and a whole bunch of other corporate ‘amendments’ everyone jumps up and down about, including the 16th ‘income tax’ amendment. Those ALL exist ONLY In the United States, which every US and STATE code clearly defines as the District of Columbia, and sometimes includes the US territories Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Island and Puerto Rico, and apply ONLY to “US citizens”, clearly defined in all those same corporate ‘codes’ as ‘citizens’ of the District of Columbia and the US territories, and any “federal areas” within the STATES (STATE OF……. :fill in the blank, they are ALL “federal areas” located in the District of Columbia).

    Voting for a ‘president’ or congress member is ONLY done in the United States, as ONLY “US citizens” can vote, not American nationals, as all those ‘offices’ exist ONLY “within the United States” (TITLE 28, §1746), same as ‘drivers licenses’, wherein you MUST PROVE you have a “legal presence in the United States”, which it then goes on to clearly define as the District of Columbia…….

    Since the District of Columbia aka United States is located ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF the several states of the Union, all those cops work for the private corporations United States, STATE OF …..(fill in the blank), COUNTY OF …., CITY OF …….. (ALL US corporations), and are subject ONLY to the corporate charter “US Constitution”, NOT The Constitution For The United States of America, they can kinda do whatever they please…….

    None of this information is rocket science, and they don’t even TRY to hide it, other than in PLIN SIGHT…….gangs with badges, gangs without badges, they ARE all the same, as NONE of them follow the simple, relatively simple ‘law of the several states of the Union styled The United States of America, as it CLEARLY states at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, and NOWHERE does it say “except for policy-men, congressmen, poor black people, or poor white people, for that matter. Only ‘law’ I can find in the several states of the Union states the ALL MEN are FREE, as long as one does not transgress the natural, unalienable rights of another…….

    just doesn’t seem that complicated, just figure out WHERE THE HELL YOU LIVE, the United States, or the several states of the Union styled The United States of America ….. even the US Supreme Court ( the corporate one for DC) said that the United States and the several states of the Union are foreign to one another, as foreign as France and Venezuela…….

    as the senator says in “SHOOTER”: “..there are only the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots; you in, or you out, Boy?”

     
  5. Toland

    April 27, 2015 at 11:53 PM

    “Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.”

    – Thomas Jefferson, 1812

     
    • Henry

      April 28, 2015 at 7:25 AM

      “Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.”

      – Thomas Jefferson

       
  6. Amanda

    April 28, 2015 at 7:21 AM

    I’m suing the STATE for contract fraud- have been trying to get my suit into court for a year. I recently got stopped for no license and on 3/3 joined my suit to a counterclaim on the charges brought against me. No consent, except under duress (and noted as such), I spent 6 days and 5 nights in prison on a falsified contempt charge. I have court again on 5/5 (with the same judge that is named in my suit) and expect to appeal the “guilty” that this town court judge is sure to decide even though I have/will not plead anything and have in all instance separated myself from my fictitious legal entity(FLE), although I have claimed sole ownership and administrative rights over said FLE.
    Any suggestions, or simple support would be greatly appreciated.

     
    • Adask

      April 28, 2015 at 11:21 AM

      As you should know, I’m not a licensed attorney and can’t give legal advice “in this state”. More, it’s almost impossible to give any sort of suggestions without seeing the entire file of paperwork.

      Still, I will say this: I doubt that it’s enough for you (“Amanda”) to “separate” yourself from what may be your “fictional legal entity” (“AMANDA”). If it’s true that “AMANDA” signifies some fictional entity other than yourself, the system does not appear to presume that you (“Amanda”) are the fiction “AMANDA”. The court isn’t stupid. It does not presume you to be a fiction. As I read the system, the system presumes that you (“Amanda”) represent the fiction “AMANDA”.

      So, if all you do is “separate” yourself (“Amanda”) from “AMANDA,” you may be playing right into their hands. To me, the question is not whether you are “AMANDA,” but whether your represent “AMANDA”. So long as you only argue that you are not “AMANDA,” you leave the court to presume that you represent AMANDA–which I suspect may be exactly what the court wants.

      I don’t try to separate myself (Alfred Adask; a man made in God’s image, etc.) from what many believe may be some sort of fictional entity with the all-upper-case name of “ALFRED N ADASK”. I simply claim under oath that “ADASK” is merely an alias (also known as) for “Adask”. I don’t believe that’s true, but I can swear to it because virtually every juror who sees any form of identification with the name “ADASK” on it will presume that identification signifies me, the living man. Thus, it is absolutely true that I (Adask) am also known by others as “ADASK”.

      I don’t personally give a damn if they call me “Adask,” “ADASK,” or “Butch”. My primary concern is that, whatever name the system applies to me, they recognize me in all cases as a man made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) who is “endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (“Declaration of Independence”) who is acting “at arm’s length” and therefore not representing any other man, woman, fiction, beneficiary or entity, who is acting within the borders of The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.

      I’m not arguing that if I can achieve the status described in the previous paragraph that I’m guaranteed to win. But if that status is recognized by this “system,” I’m good to go. I have as many rights as I can currently imagine and claim and I can give the system a real run for my money.

      If I claim under oath that “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask,” I defeat the presumption that I (“Adask”) represent the fiction “ADASK” by claiming both names signify the same “man made in God’s image,” etc. If the court depends on the presumption that “ADASK” is a fiction, that presumption will be lost unless the prosecution can find at least one witness (and maybe two or more) ready to testify on the record that “ADASK” is not “Adask”–that “ADASK” is a fictional entity that “Adask” has voluntarily chosen to represent. That won’t happen.

      Assuming the Adask vs ADASK hypothesis is valid, the government will never admit on the record that “ADASK” isn’t “Adask”. So, once I claim that “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask” any presumption that “Adask” voluntarily represents “ADASK” becomes technically impossible. If the court depends on the existence of the fictional “ADASK” to proceed in the case, the court is screwed. Of course, the court can ignore the facts and law and proceed anyway and bet that I won’t take the case up on one or more levels of appeal. There’s no guarantees. But the trial court should recognize that, no matter how unlikely it may be that I will win on appeal, if I do win, the whole system that depends on the fictional “ADASK” will be badly and perhaps irreparably damaged.

       
      • Roger

        April 28, 2015 at 12:53 PM

        Yeah, it makes better sense to simply assert that the all-caps version of your name does in fact designate you, is an alias of you, an also-known-as of you, etc. – however one chooses to phrase it.

        As the following citation shows, the courts in Oklahoma agree with your claim, which makes it likely that other courts will also agree. Given that no court has ever upheld the argument that the all-caps version of someone’s name indicates a different entity than the normally capitalized version, it’s high time to try an approach that stands a chance of working.

        “Kostich has made the disingenuous argument that the IRS documents at issue here fail to properly identify him as the taxpayer. Defendant Kostich contends his ‘Christian name’ is Walter Edward, Kostich, Junior and since the IRS documents do not contain his ‘Christian name,’ he is not the person named in the Notice of Levy. The Court expressly finds Defendant WALTER EDWARD KOSTICH JR. is the person identified in the Notice of Levy, irrespective of the commas, capitalization of letters, or other alleged irregularities Kostich identifies as improper.”

        – Rosenheck & Co Inc v. IRS, et al, 79 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2715 (N.D. Ok. 1997)

         
      • Amanda

        April 30, 2015 at 5:49 AM

        Thank so much for your response! I am not denying the FLE I claimed sole ownership and administrative rights of it and all associated trusts, bonds, securities and accounts, in court. My suit is Amanda Lovell and AMANDA C. LOVELL vs Kyle Parkes et al and STATE POLICE, NEW YORK and all affiliated CORPORATIONS. Not one of the multiple lawyers that sent packets of legalese ever once addressed the contract fraud charge and in all instances tried to combine the two names. This suggests to me that herein lies the crux. I do not care about their “laws” and have never agreed to abide by them. The STATE is only a group of humans acting for their own benefit and have no right to enforce their corporate by-laws on me. or to profit off of my corporate entity.I believe in Natural Law only, with the right of all human beings to be free and responsible for their actions, The Constitution has floundered due to the complacency of most of us and it seems to have little to do with the current system. I have been on the quest for justice for almost thirteen years now and this is my last ditch effort, If this fails I will have to move, as this will prove to me that there is only tyranny left on this section of the planet. I agree that employees the STATE- police, lawyer or judge do not abide by the laws they have sworn to, as personal jurisdiction has not been established and obvious judicial bias exists. It is a town court though and I have put as many protections in place as possible and am really aiming for the appellate court. Any stand against the abuses of what is really a very sound structure has got to be of benefit. Thanks for all your efforts!
        Wish me luck, Amanda

         
      • localherog2

        April 30, 2015 at 2:49 PM

        Hi Alfred,
        I’m curious to know if you have ever come across these folks and their, for want of a better term, procedure involving ‘usufruct.’

        http://www.IAmSomeDude.com

         
      • Adask

        April 30, 2015 at 2:50 PM

        I’m not knowledgeable concerning that term.

         
      • localherog2

        April 30, 2015 at 3:04 PM

        I’m just going through the website but it’s my understanding that they found it in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. I’ve lifted this from the IAmSomeDude site…

        *** This premise is also evident through the words of Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison Sept 6, 1789 where in he writes, “I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;” that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.” ***

         
      • Colin

        April 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM

        I’m just going through the website but it’s my understanding that they found it in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. I’ve lifted this from the IAmSomeDude site…

        That website is bizarre; it seems like they’re building a very careful fantasy like a house of cards, by pointing at one source then another without ever trying to understand anything fully or in context. Those parts I looked at that deal with American law are grossly ignorant.

        “Usufruct” is an unusual term, but it is sometimes used in law (in real law, as opposed to the elaborate fantasy version you find on some websites). Basically it refers to a right to use or benefit from something, but not to destroy it or transfer it on. So for example, you could give someone a usufructory right to your car, which would give them the right to use it for their business but not to rip the stereo out or sell it to someone else.

        I had to google the word. Apparently it’s only used as a discrete concept in a very few places in America, particularly Louisiana. You could do the same thing in other states by just making a contract specifying the same terms.

         
      • Colin

        April 30, 2015 at 4:56 PM

        (Oh, and about the Jefferson quote–I haven’t read it in context, so grain of salt and all, but it sounds to me like he’s referring to the dead hand principle. Basically there’s an idea in law that because land persists for ever but individual people don’t, no one should be able to impose requirements that last forever on a piece of real estate. So you can leave your land to your kids on the condition that no one ever drink alcohol on the premises (with the land going to someone else if they break the condition), but you can’t require that their kids and their kids and their kids in perpetuity follow the same rules. It’s complicated, but generally you can’t impose conditions on land that last longer than the lifespan of any currently-living person plus X years.)

         
      • Colin

        April 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM

        Hi Amanda,

        I’m sorry to hear that you’ve invested so much time in the idea that there is a difference between “Amanda Lovell” and “AMANDA LOVELL.” There is not. The idea that a name in all-caps refers to someone other than the natural person is an urban legend. You will always, always, always lose arguments based on that premise, and you should be very careful trusting anyone who encourages you to believe this extremely bad idea. It’s just not true—there’s a reason why no one can show you a case where the idea won. It never works, ever.

        Not one of the multiple lawyers that sent packets of legalese ever once addressed the contract fraud charge and in all instances tried to combine the two names. This suggests to me that herein lies the crux.

        They’re going to conflate the two names because there is not any legal difference between the two names. Writing “Amanda Lovell” is the same thing as writing “AMANDA LOVELL,” legally speaking. (It can be a little different for companies, because you could incorporate one as “EXAMPLE CO” and another as “Example Co” and another as “ExAmPlE Co,” depending on the rules of the state where you’re incorporating. But that doesn’t apply to human beings, who are not corporations or incorporated at birth, despite the nonsense some people will push on you.

        I do not care about their “laws” and have never agreed to abide by them.

        Law is kind of like a truck. It doesn’t matter whether you care about it or agree to abide by it, it’s going to run you down if you stand in the middle of the road. There is no requirement that you agree to abide by the law, it applies to you regardless.

        Good luck with your case. I hope it resolves quickly and painlessly for you. You will not win it if your arguments are based on fantasy; try to use arguments that have actually succeeded in other cases.

         
      • Adask

        April 30, 2015 at 7:49 PM

        It may be that the all-upper case name (“AMANDA”) has the same meaning as the capitalized name (“Amanda”). It suits me fine, if that’s the case. Personally, I don’t care if government calls me “Alfred,” “alfred,” “ALFRED” or “aLfReD”–so long as they recognize me as a “man made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:26-28) who is “endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (“Declaration of Independence”).

        However, out of an abundance of caution and general distrust for government, I am concerned that by means of using a name format other than that of my proper name (“Alfred Adask”), the government may be able to deprive me of some of my rights. Therefore, I feel safest when I am identified by my proper name.

        Texas (and probably other states) have a law that describes what teachers must teach as part of the curriculum in each grade level of public schools. I’ve seen that law and read parts of it, but I can’t recall the name or cite for it. Nevertheless, Texas teachers are required by law to begin teaching children the difference between common names and proper names, common nouns and proper nouns in about the 2nd grade.

        Thus, (for those of you you mature enough to remember the Dick and Jane readers) the sentence “See Spot run” means “See the particular dog whose proper name is Spot, run.” However, if you wrote “See spot run,” there’d be no proper name or noun in that sentence so it might mean “See the spot (or stain) on your shirt is running or spreading”–but it would not mean “See the particular dog (whose proper name is ‘Spot”) run

        My first point is that “Spot” (being capitalized) is a proper noun, while “spot” is not a proper noun.

        My second point is that just as the teachers are required by law to teach children how to distinguish between the common nouns/names and proper nouns/names, it’s at least conceivable that the courts can at least presume by law that each adult Texan understands the difference between common and proper nouns.

        Third, I don’t know what the word “amanda” might mean, but it is definitely not a capitalized/proper-noun (“Amanda”) used to signify a particular woman.

        It’s been a long time since I read about the adventures of “Dick and Jane,” but I’m pretty sure that, while those readers taught children to distinguish between proper nouns/names (like “Spot,” “Dick,” and “Jane”) and common nouns (like “spot,” “dick” and “jane,”) they were completely silent on the distinct meaning of words like “SPOT,” “DICK,” and “JANE” that were written in all-upper case.

        So, while it may be true that “Amanda” and “AMANDA” signify the same woman, it’s also true that the word “AMANDA” is not a proper noun/ proper name.

        It’s also true that corporations typically have their legal names written in all-upper case letters like “AMANDA”. Whether there’s a legal requirement to use that format is not known to me.

        And, next time you wander through a cemetery, see if you can find a tombstone that bears a proper name (like “Colin McRoberts”) or if all the names of all the departed aren’t spelled in all-upper-case letters like “COLIN MCROBERTS”. I don’t know the reason why cemeteries seem to always use the all-upper-case format on the grave stones, but I suspect it may be that the name “COLIN MCROBERTS” signifies the last estate/remains of a formerly living man, while “Colin McRoberts” signifies a living man. Perhaps, if we found a gravestone bearing the name “Colin McRoberts” it would signify that someone had buried the living man in that grave and we should therefore dig him up.

        In any case, judging from the cemeteries’ conventional use of all-upper-case names, we can at least speculate that “Colin McRoberts” is the proper name of a living man, while the name “COLIN MCROBERTS” may be the name for the last estate (or remains) of a man who was alive but is now DEAD.

        If so, that might lead us to wonder why the names on virtually all of our government-issued documents (drivers licenses, passports, tax bills, utility bills, social security cards, etc.) are written in the all-upper-case format rather than that of proper names?

        Again, note that Texas teachers are required by law to teach children to recognize proper names and proper nouns. So, why is it that the state government that requires children by law to learn to recognize proper nouns does not, in fact, use proper nouns on most government paperwork? If I want a new drivers license, why can’t I get one in the proper name of “Alfred Adask”? Why must I accept a drivers license bearing the (improper?) name of “ALFRED N ADASK”?

        Government’s insistence that we use “improper” (?) names like “ADASK” is not unique to Texas. Every other state, county, city and even the federal government also appear to insist that we accept identification in a format other than that of the proper name we are required to learn by law in grade school. If there’s no distinction between the proper/capitalized name “Adask” and the all-upper-case name “ADASK,” why does virtually every governmental agency in the country insist on identifying me with the “improper” name “ADASK” rather than the proper name (which format children are required by law to know) that is “Adask”?

        If the all-upper-case name format has no meaning, why don’t some states, local government or government agencies issued IDs and documents in proper names? Where’s the harm?

        The fact that the upper-case name format appears to be universal for government documents is evidence that there may be reason for that format. If use of that format is universal, that suggests that the format must be required in order to treat people in some capacity that gives government certain advantages and may deprive people of some rights.

        Having published a magazine for 12 years, I know a little about typography. For example, I know that it’s harder to read text written in all upper case (like “THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPED OVER THE LAZY DOGS”) than it is to read written in conventional format that includes both upper- and lower-case letters (like “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs.”). Using the all upper-case format makes text harder to read, and also increases the probability of data entry error. And yet, government (and Harvard Law School graduates) insist that its use of the all-upper-case format is harmless, innocent and insignificant.

        That might be true, but if it is, it’s evidence of governmental stupidity. Why insist on using a text format that’s both harder to read and more likely to cause data entry errors? It makes no sense, unless there is some ulterior, unstated reason for that use.

        On the the other hand, it might also be a lie intended to deceive the people into accepting some sort of status that deprives them of one or more of their expected rights.

        I’ve seen the name on one Social Security Card that was written as a proper noun. I think I’ve seen one old drivers license that carried a proper name. But, otherwise, government’s use of the all-upper-case “improper” name format seems virtually universal. That universality tells me that the format is not accidental or innocent, but is intended to create an advantage for government and a correlative disadvantage for the people.

        As someone in government once observed, there are no coincidences; nothing happens by accident. Everything is intended. I don’t know exactly what the intent behind government’s use of the all-upper-case name may be, but that use is not just an “urban legend”. Government is almost certainly “up to something”.

         
      • Phil Cali

        April 30, 2015 at 8:19 PM

        Al, that is a brilliant dissertation on the subject of UPPER CASE designations. My take is that it IS significant in delineating a human from an artificial entity, of which the latter lacks the rights (inalienable) afforded the human. Thus, an artificial entity falls under the ‘State’ jurisdiction therefore subject to their evil whims (taxation, unwarranted traffic tickets, etc.). As you mentioned, THEY (‘State’) dismiss these claims because THEY, can. And THEY includes the corrupt judicial system backing the entire scheme.

        Poster ‘Colin’ (responding to ‘Amanda’) says that, “The idea that a name in all-caps refers to someone other than the natural person is an urban legend. You will always, always, always lose arguments based on that premise,…”. Well, he’s right that you will lose those arguments…but it does NOT mean there is no validity to the argument and the scheme behind it. Al, your dissertation illuminates this possibility and probability as well as can be described.

        Thank you.
        Phil

         
      • Adask

        April 30, 2015 at 11:20 PM

        Thanks for the compliment.

        But, one thing to bear in mind is that while the all-upper-case name might signify a legal fiction, that might not be the only possible meaning associated with that format. It could signify a legal fiction. Under other circumstances, it might signify the legal estate of a dead man. There might be several different possible “definitions” of the meaning associated with an all-upper-case name.

        It’s important to understand that there may be multiple definitions for the all-upper-case name because if you believe it only signifies a legal fiction, your might be surprised and confused if you see evidence that the all-upper-case name signifies the body/estate of a dead man, or maybe the status as citizen of the United States or some such, or maybe party to a relationship. If you see that an all-upper-case name signifies something other than a legal fiction/corporation, you might lose confidence in your belief.

        In other words, the possibility that the all-upper-case name format may signify several different classes of entities should not necessarily dissuade you from believing that it signifies one particular class of entities.

        It might be more useful to try to deduce what the all-upper-case name does not signify. Could it be that while that all-upper-case name may signify several different classes of entities, it never, ever, signifies a “man made in God’s image”?

        I’m not saying any of that’s true. I’m just saying that you should keep your eyes open for whatever clues might appear to the meaning of the all-upper-case format for names.

         
      • Toland

        April 30, 2015 at 8:33 PM

        …the word “AMANDA” is not a proper noun/proper name.

        Al, what is your source for this assertion?

        I’m not aware of any rule of legal consequence that excludes an all-caps name from being a proper name. If you know of such a legal rule, it would be a huge help to know where it can be found.

        Where did you find this rule?

         
      • Adask

        April 30, 2015 at 11:07 PM

        I think I saw it in a Cracker-Jack box . . . or maybe it is was in a Chinese fortune cookie . . . or, maybe, it was in the rules of grammar that tell us that the capitalized word “Amanda” is a proper noun while the word “amanda” is a common noun. Insofar as a proper noun is defined by the rules of grammar as “capitalized” (first letter, uppercase; the remainder, lower case), and a common noun is written without any capital letters, we are left to guess what the all-upper-case word “AMANDA” signifies. It’s not a common noun, but it’s also not a proper noun. I infer that it is, in fact, not a proper (capitalized) noun. Is it therefore an improper noun? A government noun? I infer that, whatever it is, it is not a “proper name” or “proper noun”.

        While you’re searching for “rules,” you might want to look for the one that allows our beloved government to replace the proper, capitalized nouns like “Alfred” (that we are taught by law to recognize) with all-upper-case names like “ALFRED” that diminish comprehension, increase data entry errors, and add to the people’s confusion. Perhaps you’ve also dived deeply into a box of Cracker-Jack.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 1, 2015 at 1:24 AM

        “aLfReD”
        HAHHAHhahahahahah. Good idea. This kind of “mixture” WILL Be used in my next set of paperwork, and in every word. Maybe it will be considered extraordinarily FEARSOMELY NONSENSICAL. Right Mr Colin? huh? Ain’t that right? HAHHAHhahahahahhah heeeeee hawwww

         
      • Colin

        May 1, 2015 at 1:36 AM

        It may be that the all-upper case name (“AMANDA”) has the same meaning as the capitalized name (“Amanda”).

        It may be that the sun will rise tomorrow, and it may be that 2+2=4, and it may be that water is wet. At some point you have to just say that a thing is true because the evidence is completely, 100% unambiguous. Lots of people have tried this argument in court, and they have all failed, and there are lots of courts who took the time to explicitly write that this argument is false. False. Not maybe false, or probably false. It’s just plain wrong. Why dance around it? It’s wrong, and not at all right.

        Third, I don’t know what the word “amanda” might mean, but it is definitely not a capitalized/proper-noun (“Amanda”) used to signify a particular woman.

        It does signify a particular woman. (Well, any woman named “Abigail,” but that’s true whether or not you capitalize it.) Failing to capitalize someone’s name may be poor grammar, but it doesn’t rob the word of any meaning. The word is completely understandable as a name, whether it’s in all caps, initial caps, or no caps. That’s true whether you’re in court, writing a letter, posting on Facebook, or whatever.

        I don’t know the reason why cemeteries seem to always use the all-upper-case format on the grave stones, but I suspect it may be that the name “COLIN MCROBERTS” signifies the last estate/remains of a formerly living man, while “Colin McRoberts” signifies a living man.

        No. In all caps or initial caps or no caps, it’s all the same reference. Most stone inscriptions are in all caps because it’s traditional, and it’s traditional because in stone capital letters are easier to read and easier to inscribe. I’m not just guessing, I used to do stone sculpture as a hobby and tried doing some inscriptions. It’s a pain in the butt, and all caps are a way to make it easier. Bigger letters, more straight lines and broader curves. That’s also why a lot of stone inscriptions use a “V” in place of “U”, because the sharp angle is easier to cut.

        All you have to do is look and you’ll see lots of stones that use mixed case, especially now that more stones are cut by machine (which can do lower-case letters easily). Just google it. That cursive mixed-case you see on some of those stones would be a real nightmare to do by hand, which I assume is why no one did it before there were machines to do it automatically.

        Let’s consider your theory, which has no evidence to support it whatsoever and is inconsistent with the fact that lots of graves are inscribed with mixed case. Are you saying that if someone wrote “John James” on a stone instead of “JOHN JAMES” people would think it referred to a living person? No, Alfred, they wouldn’t. No one would think the grave stone referred to a living person because it wasn’t in all caps. After all, do you look at those pictures of stones in mixed case and think they’re talking about living people?

        I’m sorry Alfred, but your theory just doesn’t fit with the evidence all around you.

        In any case, judging from the cemeteries’ conventional use of all-upper-case names, we can at least speculate that “Colin McRoberts” is the proper name of a living man, while the name “COLIN MCROBERTS” may be the name for the last estate (or remains) of a man who was alive but is now DEAD.

        No. You’re using one wild guess to support another wild guess, and neither of them are at all consistent with the evidence. If your theory would be true, there would be evidence to support it. Style books, grammar manuals, and practice guides would say, “Don’t spell a name in all caps, because it means a dead person or estate.” They don’t. All the people who want this theory to be true, all the effort they’ve invested in pretending it’s true, and no one has ever found any evidence like that. Alfred, it’s because it doesn’t exist. The idea is wrong. Not maybe wrong, or possibly wrong, just plain wrong. It’s totally inconsistent with the evidence, most clearly in that everyone who’s ever tried this theory in court has lost—and plenty of courts have taken the time to point out, in writing, spelling a person’s name in all caps doesn’t make any legal difference.

        When there’s no evidence to support your supposition other than your other suppositions, and explicit evidence that it’s wrong, doesn’t that answer the question? At what point would you consider just admitting the idea is wrong and moving on? What evidence would be sufficient for you?

        If so, that might lead us to wonder why the names on virtually all of our government-issued documents (drivers licenses, passports, tax bills, utility bills, social security cards, etc.) are written in the all-upper-case format rather than that of proper names?

        We don’t have to wonder. We know it’s not because there’s a difference between all-caps and mixed-case names, because when people have advanced this argument in the past they’ve always lost and plenty of courts have explicitly explained why.

        Every passport I’ve ever seen, from every country, spells the bearer’s name in all caps. Are you saying that every country in the world is in on some hugely significant legal trick that no one has ever bothered to write down? We’re way, way, way beyond the point where it’s reasonable to pretend this idea is true. There isn’t a lick of evidence for it, and there’s a ton of evidence against it.

        Again, note that Texas teachers are required by law to teach children to recognize proper names and proper nouns. So, why is it that the state government that requires children by law to learn to recognize proper nouns does not, in fact, use proper nouns on most government paperwork? If I want a new drivers license, why can’t I get one in the proper name of “Alfred Adask”? Why must I accept a drivers license bearing the (improper?) name of “ALFRED N ADASK”?

        Because using all caps doesn’t make something no longer a proper noun. It’s a style, like writing in italics or bold or underlined, and doesn’t change the nature of the word. Just like every court that’s ever considered the question has concluded. You can’t get your name written in mixed case on your license for the same reason you can’t get it written in purple ink or in italics or with hearts over the “i”. The style of the license is standardized and there’s no mechanism for personalizing how the name is written. And they’re probably not going to invest in making that possible since the capitalization doesn’t make a difference, as we know from the results of everyone arguing otherwise, ever.

        Government’s insistence that we use “improper” (?) names …

        You don’t have to think the use of all-caps names is proper. Your opinion is your own business. But legally, it’s not improper at all. We know that because people have tested the argument and it’s been resolved the same way every time—there’s no difference between JOHN JACOBSON and John Jacobson. Just the style of how you write it, not the substance.

        If there’s no distinction between the proper/capitalized name “Adask” and the all-upper-case name “ADASK,” why does virtually every governmental agency in the country insist on identifying me with the “improper” name “ADASK” rather than the proper name (which format children are required by law to know) that is “Adask”?

        Virtually every government agency uses black ink on ID documents, too. It doesn’t mean anything legally, it’s just the accepted style. Same with the capital letters.

        If the all-upper-case name format has no meaning, why don’t some states, local government or government agencies issued IDs and documents in proper names? Where’s the harm?

        No harm, and no reason to change the usual style. Why don’t they issue them in purple ink or Comic Sans? Same reason. It’s just now how things have always been done, and government agencies like to do things the way things have always been done.

        The fact that the upper-case name format appears to be universal for government documents is evidence that there may be reason for that format.

        Sure. Legibility. Tradition. Standard formatting that originated with old-school printing machines that couldn’t handle mixed case. Evidence that there may be a reason to do it is not evidence that your theory is true. And of course, there is conclusive evidence that your theory is 100% wrong. At what point do you weigh the lack of evidence for your theory against the lack of any documentation supporting it, as well as all the court decisions just flat-out saying that it’s wrong?

        If use of that format is universal, that suggests that the format must be required in order to treat people in some capacity that gives government certain advantages and may deprive people of some rights.

        I don’t think the use of black ink suggests that. The use of all caps isn’t any different. We don’t have to guess about any of this! We know that using all caps doesn’t have any effect on anyone’s rights, because people have argued that in court and lost every single time. If the argument always loses in court, then by definition using all caps isn’t actually affecting anyone’s rights.

        Having published a magazine for 12 years, I know a little about typography. For example, I know that it’s harder to read text written in all upper case (like “THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPED OVER THE LAZY DOGS”) than it is to read written in conventional format that includes both upper- and lower-case letters (like “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs.”). Using the all upper-case format makes text harder to read, and also increases the probability of data entry error. And yet, government (and Harvard Law School graduates) insist that its use of the all-upper-case format is harmless, innocent and insignificant.

        I completely agree that all caps are harder to read. And yet, people do use it. Again, we don’t have to guess about this! Contracts use all caps all the time for the most important sections. It’s harder to read, but it draws the eye and shows emphasis. And the whole Russian language is in all caps. I studied Russian in school, and the printed language is all capital letters. Very annoying to read, but nevertheless it’s how it’s done. Like contracts, like drivers’ licenses, like people SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET. Whyever they do it, it’s not because it makes a difference to anyone’s rights. We know that 100% from the court decisions and the total, absolute lack of actual evidence supporting your theory. (Do you really believe that the whole world could be part of a conspiracy to use all caps to deprive people of rights, and no one ever bothered to write down a style or practice guide explaining the practice?)

        That might be true, but if it is, it’s evidence of governmental stupidity. Why insist on using a text format that’s both harder to read and more likely to cause data entry errors? It makes no sense, unless there is some ulterior, unstated reason for that use.

        People do all sorts of goofy things for no better reason than that it’s always been done that way. One reason the important parts of contracts (like risk disclosures in investment prospectuses) are in all caps is that the people writing the contract have a legal duty to emphasize certain language. All caps is an acceptable way to do it, according to courts. I agree that it’s a stupid convention, because I agree it’s harder to read. But it does draw the eye to that language over other language in the document. Maybe that’s why licenses do it, I don’t know. But I do know, and you should know by now, it’s not for any substantive reason, because that argument has been tried and decided. It’s false.

        Alfred, a serious attempt to understand this issue has to balance the total lack of evidence for your theory against the absolute and conclusive evidence against it. If you aren’t willing to do that, why not?

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 1, 2015 at 1:59 AM

        Dear Alfred Adask,
        @ > And, next time you wander through a cemetery……………………………………………”
        The link below brought up something interesting. If it doesn’t work here, & for anyone who might want to check it out, just type in your search space, Civilly Dead. This will bring up a lot of things to check out. I never know until AFTER I submit a link on this blog if it will work or not. IF red letters appear, it should work.

        What is CIVILITER MORTUUS? definition of CIVILITER MORTUUS …
        thelawdictionary.org/civiliter-mortuus/ – 27k – Cached – Similar pages
        Definition of CIVILITER MORTUUS: Civilly dead ; dead in the view of the law. The condition of one who has lost his civil rights and capacities, and is accounted

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 1, 2015 at 2:53 AM

        According to Mager’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of English Usage, Prentice Hall, Inc. (1974), it is written, in pertinent part: “A name spelled in all capital (upper case) letters DOES NOT FOLLOW, inter alia, the rules for proper names in English Grammar.” According to U.S. v. Goldenberg, 42 L. Ed. 394, page 398, it is written: “The lawmaker is presumed to know the English rules of grammar.”

         
      • Toland

        May 1, 2015 at 3:44 AM

        Insofar as a proper noun is defined by the rules of grammar as “capitalized” (first letter, uppercase; the remainder, lower case), and a common noun is written without any capital letters,

        Of course. First letter uppercase means a proper noun, and no capitals means a common noun. We all agree on that.

        we are left to guess what the all-upper-case word “AMANDA” signifies. It’s not a common noun, but it’s also not a proper noun.

        Why not, exactly?

        I understand that you infer an all-caps name can’t be a proper noun. But does this inference have a legal basis one can cite in court?

        Do you have a source of greater legal significance than a Cracker Jack box or a Chinese fortune cookie to cite in court in support of the argument that an all-caps name can’t be a proper noun?

         
      • Henry

        May 1, 2015 at 4:54 AM

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
        FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
        Plaintiff,
        v.
        KURT F. JOHNSON,
        Defendant.
        No. 08-02325 JSW
        ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
        QUASH – DEMUR – BILL OF
        PARTICULARS

        Now before the Court is the motion entitled “motion to quash – demur – and/or bill of particulars” filed by defendant Kurt F. Johnson. Mr. Johnson argues that he is not a party to this lawsuit because the caption spells his name in all capital letters. This type of “name game” has been uniformly rejected by courts as frivolous. See, e.g. American Silver LLC v. Emanuel Covenant Communities, 2007 WL 1468600, *3 (D. Utah May 17, 2007) (characterizing the defendants’ argument – that using all capital letters in a name is different than using all lower case letters or capitalizing the first letter – as absurd); see also United States v. Bradley, 2001 WL 997428 *1 (6th Cir. 2001) (rejecting “frivolous tax-protestor arguments” including the argument that ‘Edgar Francis; Bradley’ is a natural born man of the State of Ohio, while ‘Edgar F. Bradley’ is merely a corporate fiction”); United States v. Gonzalez, 2007 WL 805992 *3 (4th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (concluding the defendants arguments alleging that because the indictment spelled their names using all capital letters that the government failed to properly identify them as “real, live flesh and blood Men” were completely frivolous); United States v. Lindsay, 184 F.3d 1138, 1144 (10th Cir. 1999) (concluding that the defendants refusal to review court correspondence on which his name appeared in all capital letters was an obstruction of justice and provided a basis for a harsher penalty). This Court also rejects Mr. Johnson’s “name game” as frivolous and, thus, denies his motion.

        IT IS SO ORDERED.
        Dated: September 26, 2008
        JEFFREY S. WHITE
        UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         
      • Roger

        May 1, 2015 at 5:30 AM

        @Henry

        Wait, is JEFFREY S. WHITE telling us he’s a legal fiction by spelling his name with all uppercase letters in this order?

        Lol.

         
      • Adask

        May 4, 2015 at 5:00 AM

        I don’t know what Jeffery White is telling us. I certainly don’t believe he’s telling us that he’s a fiction. A fiction can’t tell us anything. It has no volition or capacity for independent thought or action. A fiction can’t speak, write or read.

        In fact, a fiction can’t even appear in court–unless it is represented. Thus, it is conceivable that, IF “JEFFERY S WHITE” was the name of a fiction, that that fiction could appear and even seem to speak, IF it were represented by a living man whose proper name might be “Jeffery White”.

        LoL.

         
      • Roger

        May 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM

        Toland > “Do you have a source of greater legal significance than a Cracker Jack box or a Chinese fortune cookie to cite in court in support of the argument that an all-caps name can’t be a proper noun?”

        If there was such a source, do you think the “name in all-caps” objection would have a perfect record of losing in court? Of course not.

        So go to trial, tell the judge all about your Cracker Jacks box and Chinese fortune cookie, and see what happens.

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        May 1, 2015 at 4:54 PM

        What about stating by affidavit that the so-called STATE, COURT & or
        “PROSECUTOR” are acting in BAD FAITH….

        {the so-called “Judge” wouldn’t let me put the prosecutor on the stand..}

        seeing as to how “THEY” are ACCOMPLICES to MASS MURDER…

        and give aid and support to the Jesus hating terrorists who print the currency
        OWN THE MEDIA….and operate a crack house called “CONGRESS”
        who will give standing ovations to a Zionist Terrorist and mass murderer
        and flat out refuse to …

        https://hendersonlefthook.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/the-federal-reserve-cartel-part-i-the-eight-families/

        know the truth…

         
      • Toland

        May 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM

        Thanks for explaining Roger’s joke, Al, for those who didn’t get it.

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 30, 2015 at 7:13 AM

      @ Wish me luck, Amanda
      No. May “God” be with you. However, you most certainly are in a Court of Luck, at best. Have you ever read, Alfred Adask’s “Creed”? Just a suggestion here. Study it, & if you come to see what it MEANS, & you like it, then reword it to FIT you, e.g. name, male/female, etc., file it in the County Clerk’s Office as an Affidavit of, Amanda Lovell, get a certified copy, make copies of that, & Present that in any future ordeals. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED as ADVICE FROM, Alfred Adask. IT IS NOT. I am ONLY SAYING WHAT I WOULD DO. Anyway, “God be with you”.

       
  7. dog-move

    April 29, 2015 at 10:13 AM

    DEFINITION:
    CRIMES

    Chapter 874
    CRIMINAL GANG ENFORCEMENT AND PREVENTION

    874.03 Definitions.—As used in this chapter:
    (1) “Criminal gang” means a formal or informal ongoing organization, association, or group that has as one of its primary activities the commission of criminal or delinquent acts, and that consists of three or more persons who have a common name or common identifying signs, colors, or symbols, including, but not limited to, terrorist organizations and hate groups.
    AS PER STATE OF FLORIDA

     
  8. dog-move

    April 30, 2015 at 9:17 AM

    AND THEN THERE IS SECTION 6:

    (6) “Hate group” means an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against a person or persons or against the property of a person or persons because of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

     
  9. timmy

    April 30, 2015 at 10:41 PM

    Black’s, at least relatively recent editions before the current online one– clearly defined the CAPITUS name (or whatever it was called… don’t recall) as specifically signifying a diminished civil rights/legal status for an individual. Coming from the ancient Roman law (I believe) regarding slaves and indentured servants et al. Seems appropriate…

     
  10. Ted D. Roofer

    May 1, 2015 at 5:53 AM

    Dear COLIN, aka, Colin,
    3 questions. What is the difference in, District Court of the United States, and, United States District Court?
    In all paperwork I have seen, issuing FROM any Court, in the upper left hand corner, the Plaintiff/Petitioner’s name & surname IS in all caps, e.g., JOHN SMITH. IS the Court shouting, or, emphasizing?
    Why is the Plaintiff/Petitioner’s name, and, regardless of how many times it appears in the “body” of the paperwork, a proper Noun, e.g., John Smith?

     
  11. Ted D. Roofer

    May 1, 2015 at 6:04 AM

    Roger,
    @ Wait, is JEFFREY S. WHITE telling us he’s a legal fiction by spelling his name with all uppercase letters in this order?
    The Judge is also “the Court.” The Judge refers to the Court as, IT. E.g., I filed a Notice & Demand for recusal of Judge Ima Hardheart. Judge Hardheart denied the “Notice & Demand, saying the Court feels IT can be impartial & fair in this matter.

     
  12. katmanwon

    May 1, 2015 at 7:16 AM

    Hubris

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 9, 2015 at 3:09 PM

      katmanwon
      May 1, 2015 at 7:16 AM
      @ > Hubris
      I really did file a Notice & Demand for recusal of the Judge & gave valid reasons for WHY. I changed the Judge’s name in my comment to Roger. About a year later,he was removed from the “BENCH” altogether by the Supreme Court of the State I was in. This did not help me tho. He & his Attorney friend stole everything I had. EVERYTHING, via the stroke of a pen. This Judge DID refer to the Court as, IT.

       
  13. dog-move

    May 1, 2015 at 10:20 AM

    Where would one find the creed?

     
  14. timmy

    May 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM

    Colin: in re Gold Fringed Flags

    I would be interested in your comments, if you care to review and research this a bit:

    “MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE

    Martial Law Flag “Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

    President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides.”

     
    • Colin

      May 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM

      There are two immediate problems with the gold-fringed flag argument. One is logical, one is empirical.

      The logical problem is that saying that a military flag has X characteristics does not mean that all flags with those characteristics are military flags. All sparrows have wings, not everything with wings is a sparrow. So the excerpts you posted don’t mean that gold-fringed flags are military flags. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t, either, only that there’s no good reason to believe that a flag is a military flag just because it has a gold fringe. (And a lot of flags have gold fringes, even foreign flags, so it’s not like a fringed flag is at all unusual or requires special explanation.)

      The empirical problem is that lots of people have floated this argument in court. And they’ve always lost. Many courts have taken the time to say, explicitly, that this argument is bunk. You can find those rulings easily enough, but I’d be happy to look a few up if you’d like.

      When there’s no logical reason to think that a court’s flag is a military flag, and conclusive evidence that it isn’t a military flag, the question is closed. It’s not close, it’s not a mystery, it’s not a reasonable thing to think might maybe possibly be true. Any more than it would be reasonable to wonder if pigs can fly.

      Of course, a lot of people will tell you that the gold-fringed flag argument is true, or at least maybe true. When you hear that from someone, you should have serious doubts about their competence.

       
    • Henry

      May 3, 2015 at 6:10 PM

      “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides.”

      This is a misquote of Executive Order 10834. That is, it’s yet another lie from Patriot Babel, where facts and law don’t matter. Expect only word games and make-believe – and the mental gymnastics necessary to maintain them.

      Read the EO for yourself to see that this phrase does not appear, nor is any “fringe” even mentioned.

      http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10834.html

       
  15. Ted D. Roofer

    May 3, 2015 at 9:20 AM

    Colin, Please explain the following., showing below. Does it mean what it says? Was Eisenhower untruthful? Is the message below just more fearsomely nonsensical gibberish? Is it a fabrication?

    President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides.”

    Colin are you familiar with, Army Regulation 840–10? This Regulation in pertinent part says this gold fringed is only to be displayed, as far as Courtrooms go, in a MILITARY COURTROOM. Why dat? Thanks

     
    • Colin

      May 3, 2015 at 9:13 PM

      It’s a fabrication. As Henry wrote above, the Executive Order doesn’t say anything like that. Neither does the army reg, which says that the described flags are appropriate for display in a military courtroom but not that they can only be put in military courtrooms. Which is obvious–even a moment’s thought would tell you that an army regulation doesn’t specify what flags go in a civilian courtroom, so even if the army said, “These flags only go in military courtrooms” it wouldn’t mean anything.

      A quick google will show you many cases dealing with these absurd arguments. My favorite might be McCann v. Greenway (WD Mo 1997) 952 F.Supp 647, which said, “Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman.”

       
  16. Ted D. Roofer

    May 3, 2015 at 6:43 PM

    Army Regulation 840 – 10, Chapter 2-2
    9
    b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use
    in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes, the flag of the
    United States will be of rayon banner cloth or heavyweight nylon,
    trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches
    wide. It will be the same size or larger than other flags displayed or
    carried at the same time.
    (1) Four-foot 4-inch hoist by 5-
    (2) Three-foot hoist by 4-foot fly. This size flag will be displayed
    with the Army Field flag, distinguishing flags, organizational colors,
    and institutional flags of the same size. It will also be displayed
    within the offices listed in c below when no other positional or
    organizational flags are authorized.
    c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States
    is authorized for indoor display for each—
    (1) Office, headquarters, and organization authorized a positional
    color, distinguishing flag, or organizational color.
    (2) Organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or permanent,
    not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States.
    (3) Military offices not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the
    United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office.
    (4) Military courtroom.

    EACH MILITARY COURTROOM!! MILITARY!! MILITARY!! MILITARY !!!!!!!!!!!!

     
  17. Ted D. Roofer

    May 3, 2015 at 7:11 PM

    COLIN, aka, CoLiN mCrObErTs (?), per what YOU did SUBMIT, via the link you submitted, AND, in pertinent part. > NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and as Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Part I–Design of the Flag

    Section 1. The flag of the United States shall have thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white, and a union consisting of white stars on a field of blue.

    BUT !!!! MISTER COLIN !!! YOU OMIT THIS, > The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

    WITHIN THE DISCRETION, THE DISCRETION, THE DISCRETION of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

     
  18. Ted D. Roofer

    May 3, 2015 at 7:21 PM

    I apologize. My last message, May 3, 2015 at 7:11 PM, at this time, should have been sent TO,
    hEnRy, not Colin.

     
  19. timmy

    May 3, 2015 at 10:11 PM

    Thanks Colin. Interesting. Are you telling me info on the internet is not automatically reliable?? lol. I guess what intrigued me on this issue most is how the gold fringe somehow started trickling down to soldiers patches and now to cops as well since the Patriot Act. Someone is deciding this stuff, somewhere, for some reason. But I accept your analysis.

     
    • Colin

      May 3, 2015 at 11:53 PM

      Someone is deciding this stuff, somewhere, for some reason.

      I don’t see any evidence for a conspiracy at all. Some patches have a yellow border, some don’t. I think the only decision being made is by whoever designs the uniform, when they decide whether or not the patches need to be set off visually from the uniform.

      Again, think it through with your objective mind, not the conspiracy theory-seeking mind. If there was some nefarious reason for putting fringes on flags and patches, what would it be? Fringes are meaningless. They don’t create or destroy jurisdiction. They don’t make a court into a military court or admiralty court. They don’t give power to the UN or NAFTA or space aliens.

      Between “it’s a conspiracy” and “it’s just one of those things,” there’s only evidence on one side of the scales.

       
      • localherog2

        May 4, 2015 at 1:32 PM

        That is bunk. So, by analysis of your “objective mind,” you’ve come to the ground-breaking conclusion that they are there because they are pretty.

        I’ve been reading these from a distance (so to speak) but, as a recent newcomer to this forum, it seems pretty clear to me that Colin’s role here is as a gatekeeper – to make sure that questions are kept to a very, very narrow path of inquiry. I hope I’m wrong but that is my initial impression.

        Finally, for the past 10 days or so I’ve been going through the IAmSomeDude site and there is some incredible stuff here. For those that don’t have the time to explore it, in a few days I’ll post a synopsis of the pertinent points.

         
      • Colin

        May 4, 2015 at 4:01 PM

        Thanks for responding! I wasn’t clear, so I’m glad I have a chance to clear up the misconception. My conclusion is not that flags have fringes because they’re pretty. My conclusions are:

        A: I don’t know why flags have fringes. Maybe because they’re pretty, maybe because they save the flag wear and tear, maybe because it’s just one of those random traditions like making flagpoles in courtrooms out of wood instead of metal, I don’t know.
        B: There’s no evidence whatsoever that it’s because of a conspiracy, such as that American federal courts are actually military courts or maritime courts or UN courts or whatever.
        C: There’s lots of very strong evidence that it’s not a conspiracy. Most obviously, whenever people try to make this point in court, the courts respond, “No, the fringe has no meaning.” The argument has never worked.
        D: So even though I don’t know exactly why flags have fringes, I know that it’s not because of a conspiracy. Again, both because of the lack of any evidence (or even logical argument) for such a conspiracy, and the strong evidence against such a conspiracy.

        A lot of people want to believe in these conspiracies. I think part of it, and maybe a small part, is that it’s fun. Like people arguing over what exactly caused the billy goat curse on the cubs. Realistically they know there’s no real curse, but they enjoy arguing about it. The problem with the fringe-style arguments is that real people get hurt when they read online that it’s true, and get deceived.

        I’ve been reading these from a distance (so to speak) but, as a recent newcomer to this forum, it seems pretty clear to me that Colin’s role here is as a gatekeeper – to make sure that questions are kept to a very, very narrow path of inquiry. I hope I’m wrong but that is my initial impression.

        Yes, you’re wrong. I try to be a very logical thinker, so I tend to winnow arguments down: if this is true, then how can we tell? What proof is there for it? What proof is there against it? That tends to reduce questions down to the core elements. It’s frustrating for people who want to believe in magic fairy tales about law, because they want to toss out casual imaginary stories without really carefully considering whether they’re true or not. But at some point, you have to do that! Otherwise you’re not engaging with the real world, just competing to tell the most exciting campfire story.

        But having said that, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm for people to tell such stories. Have at it! I’m going to challenge them because I think it’s morally good to resist spreading nonsense by asking critical questions and highlighting contrary evidence. If that’s a problem for you, what does that say about the factual strength of your beliefs? For example, why can’t you identify good evidence for the fringe argument, or find a problem with the evidence against it? And if you can’t do either of those things, are you unhappy with my criticism because it’s probably wrong, or because you don’t want your beliefs challenged?

        Finally, for the past 10 days or so I’ve been going through the IAmSomeDude site and there is some incredible stuff here.

        We agree on that! Absolutely, 100% incredible. Except I mean it in the sense of “not at all credible.” It’s weapons-grade bolognium. But I hope you do come back and post your thoughts on it. I really enjoy these kinds of conversations. Assuming Alfred doesn’t mind, of course. It’s his front porch, after all.

         
  20. Ted D. Roofer

    May 4, 2015 at 12:52 AM

    There were 2 ways of Amending the Constitution. Look them up for yourself.
    The 2nd mode of amending was only to be used for expediency during times of war or national emergencies.
    The Congress shall propose and if three-fourths of the State Legislators ratify the proposal, it then becomes an Amendment to the National Constitution.
    This 2nd mode does not require the People in Convention to approve the Amendment.
    The 14th Amendment WAS ” adopted under the conditions of the 2nd mode,&, at the point of a bayonet.
    Some cases about “Military Jurisdiction”, & Martial Law are, Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall,(71 US) 18 L.Ed.281. Page 302 says something interesting.
    Also, Ex parte White, 66 F.Supp.982; Griffin v. Wilcox, 21 Indiana, 370, page 376;
    There is a difference in meaning of, Public Law, &, Public Policy, aka Public Necessity.
    Today, we are under, Public Policy “law”.

     
  21. Cody

    May 4, 2015 at 9:58 PM

    CAPITUS DIMINUTIO…iT’s iN bLACk’S

     
    • Colin

      May 4, 2015 at 10:01 PM

      As an ancient Roman doctrine. What’s the relevance to modern law?

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 5, 2015 at 1:32 AM

        cOlIn,
        @ > As an ancient Roman doctrine. What’s the relevance to modern law?
        What goes around comes around. There is nothing new under the Sun.

         
    • Henry

      May 5, 2015 at 12:30 PM

      Even in ancient Rome, where “capitis deminutio” was relevant, this legal term had zero to do with the gubmint writing your name in all-caps.

      The Romans used only uppercase letters for everyone’s name, at all times. Lowercase letters weren’t adopted until centuries later.

      So we can throw the “capitis deminutio” argument into the same trash bin as all the other lies from Patriot Babel.

       
  22. Ted D. Roofer

    May 5, 2015 at 12:52 PM

    Hi Henry,
    What were the “last names” of, all the people in the Old Testament, e.g., Moses, Jeremiah, Esther, Elijah? What about Matthew, Mark, Luke, &, John? Thanks for your answer, if you do answer

     
  23. dog-move

    May 12, 2015 at 7:48 AM

    Good Question. Can you help me on this one Ted?

     
  24. Amanda

    June 8, 2015 at 5:21 AM

    To those who replied to my comment, I apologize for not responding. I found this website too based in the STATE’s “law” and religion, which is as much a hierarchy as the STATE and equally distasteful to me . It is NOT urban legend that the FLE is how we are controlled and I am making headway, The judge recused himself and I am getting a trial. At the last hearing the STATE’s defense lawyer was there which suggests that the trial will be solely on my claim against the STATE. I have refused to acknowledge the STATE’s right to press charges as well as any court procedure that gives the STATE unequal rights, including extensive paperwork, incomprehensible language, or rules.
    I’ve also found if you are going to court and don’t want to be there, simply refuse to give a plea. They can’t do anything except adjourn. And that a piece of advice no lawyer will ever give you, As to how I have obtained my information- through experience (12 years mucking with the courts) and constantly sifting through information, I wish everyone the best with all their efforts as the more of us that acknowledge and stand up against the injustice , the more the word will spread. I believe in the core of the spirit in us all and continue to appeal to that in each being I meet- in and out of the courtroom. Peace and Love

     

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