Capitalized, Proper Names vs. ALL-UPPER-CASE NAMES

10 Jul

Would a "rose" by any other name--including "ROSE"--still smell as sweet? [courtesy Google Images]

Would a “rose” by any other name–including “ROSE”–still smell as sweet?
[courtesy Google Images]

Elsewhere on this blog, one of my reader’s (“Sherah”) asked:


“Why do you use a/k/a instead of dba?”


In other words, why to I argue that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias (a/k/a, also known as) for the proper name “Alfred Adask”–rather than argue that “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies something like a “business” or legal fiction that is other than the man “Alfred Adask”?

It’s a good question.  I’ve answered it before in other posts and comments on this blog.  But, in my opinion, this question deserves to be answered again because it brings up an insight that’s important, but also so subtle that most people don’t immediately get it.  

It’s also good for me to revue my own theories from time to time to see if I still agree my previous conclusions.

More, I started out to write a reply to Sharah’s question that would only be a couple of paragraphs long, but it grew and grew until I had 2,200-word article rather than a two-paragraph reply.  So I’m posting this as an article.  

Sherah’s question is above.

My answer is below: 

“DBA” means “doing business as”.  If I use “dba,” I admit that the “business” or capacity known as “ALFRED N ADASK” in the “dba” is an entity or capacity that is not me and is something other than me.

I suspect that that entity with the all-upper-case name (“ALFRED N ADASK”) is a fiction that, in itself, has no God-given, unalienable Rights. Insofar as I act in a capacity (as the “business” or fiction) that has no unalienable Rights, I have almost no significant defenses against government regulation, harassment or even prosecution.

Because it (“ADASK”) has no meaningful rights, I suspect that that fiction/business is easily charged and convicted for various crimes. If I can be tricked or presumed into not only using “dba” as a fiduciary for that fictional business-entity, but also tricked or presumed to act as <strong>surety </strong>for that fictional business-entity, once the government charges and convicts the “entity,” it may be able to hold <strong>me </strong>personally liable for the <strong>entity’s</strong> alleged offenses.

Thus, by means of agreeing to and/or being presumed to act as fiduciary, and then as surety, for a fiction, I effectively waive my God-given, unalienable Rights and am easily convicted, taxed, fined, or even imprisoned.

However, I <strong>suspect</strong> that that if I expressly use “a/k/a” (“also known as”) rather than “dba,” I am declaring that there is no separation between myself (“Alfred Adask”) and “ALFRED N ADASK” (or, say, AL’s PLUMBING SERVICE”). By claiming that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an <strong>alias </strong>for “Alfred Adask,” I challenge and perhaps defeat the government’s hypothetical presumption that the “entity” named “ALFRED N ADASK” has an existence that’s separate from my own and is inferior to me in that “it” has no God-given, unalienable Rights that the government is obligated to recognize.

By claiming “a/k/a” (alias) I’m implicitly declaring that, like the proper name “Alfred Adask,” the “improper” name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies <strong>me</strong>, the living <strong>me </strong>that’s been endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the Declaration of Independence). When I use the “a/k/a” alias, I’m essentially saying that I do not represent any other entity as its fiduciary, agent or surety. I’m saying that no matter what name or description the government might associate with me, the government is at all times confronting a “man made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:26-28) who is “endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the Declaration of Independence).

That’s all I hope to achieve: recognition that I’m a living man endowed with God-given, unalienable Rights. If I succeed in that objective, I do not imagine that I have created a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. I do not imagine that I am guaranteed to win every battle with the government. I don’t even imagine that I can reliably defeat a traffic ticket for driving without a fastened seat belt.

What I do imagine and believe is that, in the status of man who is made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, I have a <strong>chance</strong> to win. In that capacity, I am good to go. In that capacity, I believe I can give the government a run for its money.

If push comes to shove, once I raise the “alias” defense, the government has two choices:

1) They must admit on the record that “ALFRED N ADASK” is some sort of entity or capacity other than that of a man made in God’s image who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights–and–despite my protestations to the contrary, I (“Adask”) have actually acted as fiduciary and surety for that inferior entity (“ADASK”) and <strong>can </strong>therefore be “legally” held liable for the offenses allegedly committed by the inferior entity “ADASK”. But they have to make that admission <strong>on the record</strong>. If they make that admission on the record, ordinary people who might otherwise dismiss my Adask-vs-ADASK hypothesis as nonsensical and dismiss me as an idiot or crackpot, will have reason to believe that maybe I’m not an idiot and maybe, just maybe, the “Adask-vs-ADASK” hypothesis is valid. If that result actually occurred, the whole, damned system would collapse. If I’m right, the gov-co can’t admit it expressly or implicitly on the public record.

2) Rather than admitting that my hypothesis is correct (as per #1, supra), the gov-co could expressly declare that “Al, you really are an idiot and your hypothesis is absurd.” I’d take no offense. I would not mind (in fact, I’d be delighted) if someone could show me proof that my hypothesis is wrong. I wouldn’t even mind if the gov-co didn’t offer any proof, but simply declared that all this a/k/a and dba stuff was stupid and “ADASK” was just some stylistic device habitually used by government that, otherwise, has no legal significance. Great! That would mean that regardless of whether the gov-co called me “Adask,” “ADASK” or “Butch,” the government would have to recognize me as acting in the capacity of a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. That’s all I’m looking for. That’s all I want.

From my perspective, the previous two choices amount to “heads-I-win; tails-you (government)-lose.”

So long as gov-co is obligated to recognize me in the capacity of a man made in God’s image who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, I will gladly fight the gov-co in any judicial court that suits them. I will gladly meet and even fight them because, in my estimation, if they’ll recognize me in the capacity I’m claiming, it’ll be a fair fight. I have a legitimate chance to win.

But I might still lose. I might be fined. I might be imprisoned. But that’s the way the world is.

I’m not arguing that my preference for declaring “ADASK” to be an <strong>alias </strong>(rather than a dba) for the man whose proper name is “Adask” will guarantee that I (or anyone else who tries to emulate the strategy) will live happily ever after. I’m just saying that maybe this strategy can be useful, and if you study it a little and agree with my analysis, you might also want to try it. Or maybe not. It’s up to you.

A key to this strategy is Texas law that specifies what teachers are obligated to teach to students each year. At some point (1st grade? 2nd?) teacher must teach children the difference between common nouns and proper nouns. If I write the word “spot,” that’s a <strong>common </strong>noun that can signify a “spot” or stain on your clothing. If I write the word “Spot” (which is <strong>capitalized</strong>), that’s a <strong>proper </strong>noun–a <strong>proper</strong> name of a dog, maybe a man, or perhaps even a saloon. (“Let’s go to the Spot and have a couple of beers.”)

The problem is that, while Texas law mandates that teachers teach children how to distinguish between common nouns (“spot”) and proper nouns (“Spot”), there’s nothing in the Texas curriculum law to tell kids (or adults) what is meant or signified by the all-upper-case term “SPOT”. So what is it? Common noun, proper noun–or something else entirely?

Given that Texas curriculum law does not teach the significance (if any) of all-upper-case words like “SPOT” or even “ALFRED N ADASK,” we are each left to guess or presume the significance of the all-upper-case format. I might presume that the all-upper-case name “ALFRED N ADASK” is nothing more than an odd format that serves as alias for the capitalized, proper name “Alfred Adask” (which format is mandated by law to be taught to Texas children). But a judge might silently <strong>presume </strong>that the all-upper-case format for names like “SPOT” and “ALFRED N ADASK” is not being used as an alias for proper names “Spot” and “Alfred Adask”. Instead, the judge might silently presume that the all-upper-case format actually signifies a legal fiction, an estate, maybe a deceased entity, a bankrupt individual or even a U.S. person subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

However, once I expressly declare or otherwise introduce into evidence on the record that I understand the use of “ADASK” as nothing more than an <strong>alias </strong>for the proper name “Adask,” if the judge or prosecution wants to use “ADASK” to signify some entity or capacity other than that of the man who uses the proper name “Alfred Adask,” they’re going to have to expressly declare (perhaps under oath) on the record what that alternative capacity might be. If my theory about all-upper-case names is correct, they can’t admit the details of that theory on the record without destroying the whole, de facto, legal system. Therefore, they should be very reluctant to bring anyone into court who is likely to raise this issue and argument.

I don’t believe that “ADASK” is actually intended to be the alias for proper name “Adask”. Nevertheless, I can testify under oath that “ADASK” <strong>is </strong>merely an alias for “Adask”. Does that make me a hypocrite or blasphemer?

I don’t think so.

Why? Because, if I produce any form of government-issued, photo ID, the name on that ID will be spelled in the all-upper-case format (“ALFRED N ADASK”). If I show that ID to a jury and ask them if that’s my name on the ID, I guarantee that virtually every member of the jury will look at that ID, the photo and my name and say, “Yes, that’s your name.” Thus, I am “also known as” (a/k/a) “ALFRED N ADASK”. I am also known <strong>by others</strong> as “ALFRED N ADASK”. Thus, if needed, I can swear under oaths that “ALFRED N ADASK” is an alias for the proper name “Alfred Adask”

Once I introduce my sworn declaration into the record that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias for “Alfred Adask,” so far as I know, the rules of evidence require that the judge and/or prosecutor will be forced produce at least one (and probably two or more) witness(es) ready to swear under oath that, no, “ALFRED N ADASK” is not an alias for the proper name “Alfred Adask” but is, instead the name of something other than the man made in God’s image who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights and whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”.

In my fantasy world, I really look forward to such a court-room moment. I can only dream of seeing the looks on the jurors’ faces if they find out that the name on my ID does not signify me–and, by implication, the all-upper-case names on their drivers licenses and creditor cards do not signify them. The result should be a “<em>saaay, whuuut?</em>” moment when 12 jurors begin to understand that the whole system is some sort of racket.

One other point: if you use the “dba” (doing business as) strategy, you admit that the “business” and you are <strong>two separate entities</strong>. You may suppose that “forcing” the court to admit that you are not the “business” (or some legal fiction) and therefore see the case against you dismissed. The judge will smile (or perhaps even giggle) because he’s not stupid. He <strong>knows</strong> that you are not the “business” or legal fiction. He <strong>relies </strong>on that separation. The business/fiction has virtually no rights. You, the living man or woman could have many rights. The question is not whether you are the “business” and/or “fiction”. The question is whether you <strong>represent </strong>that “business” or fiction.

Under the hypothesis I’m advancing, I see the whole system as based on the <strong>presumption</strong> that I (“Adask”) have voluntarily consented to <strong>represent </strong>a virtually rightless fiction (“ADASK”) and be held liable for whatever fines or penalties are imposed on the fictional “ADASK”. When I declare that “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask,” I have challenged that presumption that I represent “ADASK”. I’m not denying that I’m the fiction. I’m denying that there is a fiction. I’m denying that I represent a fiction. If my hypothesis is correct, by declaring the name “ADASK” to merely be an alias for “Adask,” I’ve put the government in a position where they must swear on the record and in front of a jury that “ADASK” is a fiction or something other than the living man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”

I’m not saying that “ADASK” is <strong>not </strong>”Adask”. I’m saying (swearing, if need be) that I (“Adask”) am also known by others as “ADASK”. I’m saying that “ADASK” <strong>is </strong>”Adask” and is therefore the man made in God’s image who’s endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”.

Assuming that my hypothesis about the difference between capitalized, proper names (like “Alfred Adask”) and all-upper-case names (like “ALFRED N ADASK”) is correct, once I declare “ADASK” to be a mere alias for “Adask,” the gov-co may not be able to refute my declaration on the record and therefore, may not be able to proceed against–at least not easily and not without some serious risk or exposing the whole racket.

In broad strokes, that explains why I prefer to argue that “ADASK” is an alias for “Adask” rather than a dba.


Posted by on July 10, 2016 in Names, Upper-case name


Tags: , ,

32 responses to “Capitalized, Proper Names vs. ALL-UPPER-CASE NAMES

  1. Blonddbythelight

    July 10, 2016 at 10:08 PM

    First off, if you look in a legal dictionary, proper name is not First, Middle, Last name. Proper name is first name only. Yeah, they don’t teach us that in school, go figure. And don’t get confused with English grammar and legal terms/definitions because legal legal terms/definitions for the most part, are vastly different in non-attorney day to day usage. Take a gander at 18 US Code 1342 FICTITIOUS NAME OR ADDRESS. That’s a real eye opener. Twice it says you must use proper name…

    A friend of mine who is a retired district court judge challenged me one day. He challenged me to find the legal definition for last name. I could find no such definition. Which struck me as very strange, after all, aren’t the ones who create all these legal documents attorneys? Why would they use the term Last name when it’s not legally defined? Sure, there’s surname defined. But they don’t use the word surname, do they? In my opinion, I believe surname is short for surety name. And I believe that “Last name” is the death knell. What am I saying and/or agreeing to when I enter a name into the “Last Name” line, when I don’t even know what the legal definition of it means? But that’s another story.

    My Aunt Betty was an English teacher for decades. I asked her one time if there was any exception whatsoever where a man, woman or child’s name would be in all capital letters. She said absolutely not. I asked her about the names on tombstones in cemeteries. She said those are not living people, dear. lol

    The United States Style Manual clearly shows that a name in all caps is an organization, corporation, partnership, as well as Judge Hillman and Company who recently helped revise the Uniform Commercial Code. The all capital letter name is a legal name of a registered organization of which the State must keep records of the organization. Period. That’s what the revisers of the UCC said in black and white. And they flat out said it in a video as well.

    On top of that, Vital Statistics swears they don’t register people, they only register the event. Think about this very carefully. If they’re simply registering an event and not people, (not you), then how can that possibly be you that they are registering? After all, are you a people or are you an event?

    Birth Certificates and Certificates of Live Birth have State file numbers, book entry copy numbers, registration numbers, etc. Clearly, if Vital Statistics says they are not registering people, and I’m a people (not an event), then it’s not me that’s being registered.

    This is how I would differentiate between the living and the legal name of the registered organization:

    John of Wales, Bretagne, Hamburg (Whatever place you or your ancestors are from) (See more about this in the US Style Manual)

    as opposed to:

    JOHN LEE DOE State File Number #XXX-XX-XXXX

    The attorneys normally will style the defendants as JOHN DOE et al. Is this how they get away with it?

    Black’s Law 5th Edition: Et. al. Et al. led el l . An abbreviation for et alii, “and others.” The singular is “et alius” (q. v.). It may also mean “and another” in the singular. The abbreviation et al. (sometimes in the plural written et · als.) is often affixed to the name of the person first mentioned, where there are several plaintiffs, grantors, persons addressed, etc. Where the words “et al.” are used in a judgment against defendants, the quoted words include all defendants. Williams v. Williams, 25 Tenn.App. 290,
    156 S.W.2d 363, 369.

    So, does the Et. Al. meaning other, or others….include you? I’ve never seen an et alius in the singular, I’ve only ever seen the plural…Fascinating

    Remember, the government has no privity with the people. But the its can have privity with the whos if a slick interface is interjected betwixt the two…

    I could go on about this for days but as long as we answer to or say we are a legal organization, we are the surety for it. And that is the worst possible position to be in! That’s why I’m considering a name change which will surely change my status.

    There is much more to be said, but I’ll leave it at this beginner level for now. I have no wish to confuse people.

  2. Blonddbythelight

    July 10, 2016 at 10:16 PM

    P.S. To clarify on the et. al. thing…Where the words “et al.” are used in a judgment against defendants, the quoted words include all defendants. Williams v. Williams, 25 Tenn.App. 290,
    156 S.W.2d 363, 369.

    So what does it mean when there is only one defendant listed? Get it? The quoted words include all defendants. Again, why would the attorneys use that when there is only one defendant? They will use A/K/A if one is also known as another name. So what’s up with this et. al. on top of an A/K/A?

  3. tommy glen

    July 10, 2016 at 11:54 PM

    it may not be a bad thing to use the dba and place one’s self in the arena of commerce. when then confronted by the commercial goons… one may say that one has no contract with GOON.INC, and that should be the end of the conversation. commerce requires a contract between 2 parties for the tango to be lawful…not legal…but lawful. GOONS sometimes get that confused.

  4. Danny Edwards

    July 11, 2016 at 5:42 AM

    Hello, Al, Danny Edwards here, on Texas.

    I have read your work off and on for many years now, I know Dessie Andrews at Austin also, I am on the Lake LBJ area.

    Back on July 06, 2014, I did a “Rejection of Appointment Statement” as per Texas Business Organization Code Ch. 5, sec. 5.205, sent it to the Texas S.O.S.

    My reason for doing so, is I have a lawn mower repair business and I do not collect the sale tax, and I do not have a “resale and use tax form” filed with the Comptroller.

    After some back and forth with the S.O.S. and the Comptroller (to keep it brief) I received, from the sos my original Rejection letter, back and on the back, bottom right of my original they put a label on top of a label, and by taking using magnifying glass, holding it up to a light, I can read … “Pay to the order of Texas Comptroller/Secretary of State, State of Texas, then a number … 7/07/08/2014/5:08 PM, then under that … Register No.: 552388900001, then under that there is a Bar Code, and under that is the number 5523889000015, the top label can not be removed without destroying the bottom label with all the printing on it.

    With my original document being returned, received an email from the sos, at the bottom they wrote 1. ” Our records do not show an entity by the name shown on the filing instrument” (wherein I ask for all the different spellings of my name, and for a non registered trade name of Cut-Rite).

    There is a lot more to this “story”, too much to go into here.

    The Comptroller made a run at me back on June 11, 2014, at my shop, presented to me a “Notice Of Tax Sale At Public Auction, in the amount of … $171,383.11, there assessment for un-collected sales tax. They put their locks on the business, keep me locked out for three month, then I got back in, they never had a auction (again too much to tell here), … but I have not paid, made any deals with them, I am operating my shops as I did before, still do not collect their sales tax.

    I have run this by others, trying to get some sense of this, but no one has a clue, thought you may have, from what you did with them a few years back, on the Col. silver issue.


  5. Danny Edwards

    July 11, 2016 at 5:49 AM

    I forgot to tell you … at the top of my document to the sos I put: From: a, man, as defined in Genesis 1:26-28, Dannie/Danny Randall Edwards c/o 612 Sidney Rowe, Near 78639, Kingsland, Texas

    To: a woman, Nandita Berry, Actor for Texas Secretary of State P.O. Box ….

  6. palani

    July 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM

    The author is the one responsible for whatever he creates. He performs this act with a power he calls authority. As he is the one who performs the action of creation he also becomes responsible for that creation. Now if he chooses to name his creation with ALL-CAPS that is certainly his choice. When presented with any document that might confuse his creation with me I find it a reasonable practice to flip that document over and endorse the back. I would submit that this is what I have to do in order to cash a check so it seems reasonable that the endorsement method should work the same for any document that MIGHT be a check. At any rate the autograph will not be in ALL-CAPS.

  7. Jack Wasson

    July 11, 2016 at 7:43 AM

    Great article I have Copyrighted my AKA use fee is 100,000 in lawful money of account. also have brought forward homested deed in my name as an asign . this removes them from corp.state, county jurisdiction also intend to get a state a state citizen. Im 85 born a couple years before rosenfelt stold our money/ alas/ so soon old and so late smart// Jack

  8. Peg-Powers

    July 11, 2016 at 8:55 AM

    Your clan name is your family or lineage name through the SIRE (your father) which, historically, has become your “last name”. Bobby of “Smith”, James of “Jones”, etc.

    “Yes, sir (Sire); no, sir”, are words expressing respect.

    It is wise to have a good idea about your true lineage, heritage, culture……just as those who call themselves “jews” do and who also practice nationalism, self interest, and isolationism in order to protect and propagate themselves as a race, religion, or group.

    • Blonddbythelight

      July 11, 2016 at 12:16 PM

      Peg-Powers, we have completely different views on this, I will respect your opinion, here is mine:

      My clan name is my clan name and last name is not my clan name, otherwise it would say clan name instead of last name. Not everyone comes from a clan. Stating that this happened organically or historically is a non-answer! Attorneys don’t just throw in undefined legal words on forms, period!

      And I refuse to apply words to us that are used for animals such as sire, kids. And equally despicable is female, male, which applies to determining the sex of animals. Even being called a human being, person, individual, child pisses me off because the governments own Title 1 US Code SS 8 says the definition of human being, person, individual, child are all descendants of apes! This Title 1 SS 8 is possibly the beginning of the despicable animals statutes/codes Alfred refers to when they speak of animals other than man or man and other animals. This is in black and white how we are viewed by the US government! Which trickled down to States, Counties, Cities… 1 U.S. Code § 8 – “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
      (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species HOMO SAPIENS <–(My emphasis) who is born alive at any stage of development.

      No wonder the administration hates Christians so much, we don't believe we were evolved from apes or ape-like species! I can no longer say that I'm a human or human being, because that is a straight up admission that I am an animal. Pity the poor fools who say they want Human Rights…Do you think the ASPCA will be their champion? LOL

      I was brought up calling people sir or ma'am. I was taught that was a great sign of respect. Then due to extensive research, I found it was the exact opposite. When one is addressed as sir, (it's actually a military term) it really means you are commander over that sir, in station/life. And ma'am, short for madam/e? I am not a madam, I don't run a whorehouse. Just imagine if we were all conditioned to believe that if we called someone an asshole that it was a sign of great respect…until we found out otherwise. The intent behind believing that sir, ma'am, asshole, does matter, but we'd be viewed as fools nonetheless until we stopped being ignorant, corrected ourselves and stopped embarrassing ourselves.

      Anyway, just my opinion

    • palani

      July 11, 2016 at 5:48 PM

      Big John of Blackbriar. The last name is the manor. A manor is also a trust or a household. In the several States of the U.S. of A. the manor is said to be the township.

      A county is composed of a body politic of cities, villages and townships. It should come with no surprise then that there are no People in any county. I know. I have looked high and low around here and have failed to discover any People in this county or the next adjoining.

      • Blonddbythelight

        July 11, 2016 at 8:35 PM

        Personally, I have a problem with my property being referred to as a situs on the tax roles, because it falsely and very conveniently presumes and assumes I am running a commercial business out of my homesteaded property when I am not. Isn’t it grand to be defaulted to the worst possible position ever?

        Please kindly point to where manor is lawfully defined and also legally defined as a last name, trust or household.

        See, I am under the impression that using my proper name ie. first name (not to be confused with proper grammar, proper English or legal quackery) by itself, is of a much greater status. For an example, see how Prince William signed his offspring’s birth certificates, as William. That’s it and that’s all. No middle name. No last name. Just. William. IMHO, even attaching my first name to a physical place, such as donna of Bretagne versus using a last name of Jones, Smith, etc. actually changes our status for the better. See the US Style Manual for the key to this!

        I suggest all read it asap.

      • tommy glen

        July 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM

        it is all very confusing…by design. i have come to the place where i just autograph everything with my ‘first middle’ in my own hybrid of print/cursive but not without the qualifying stamp

        all rights reservered w/o prejudice

        to show that i am not, and will not be, surety for the LEGAL FICTION name at the top of (or somewhere on) the document.

      • palani

        July 12, 2016 at 5:49 AM

        “kindly point to where manor is lawfully defined”

        manor (n.)
        late 13c., “mansion, habitation, country residence, principal house of an estate,” from Anglo-French maner, Old French manoir “abode, home, dwelling place; manor” (12c.), noun use of maneir “to dwell,” from Latin manere “to stay, abide,” from PIE root *men- “to remain” (see mansion). As a unit of territorial division in Britain and some American colonies (usually “land held in demesne by a lord, with tenants”) it is attested from 1530s.

        township (n.)
        Old English tunscipe “inhabitants or population of a town;” see town + -ship. Applied in Middle English to “manor, parish, or other division of a hundred.” Specific sense of “local division or district in a parish, each with a village or small town and its own church” is from 1530s; as a local municipal division of a county in U.S. and Canada, first recorded 1685. In South Africa, “area set aside for non-whites” from 1934.

  9. Peg-Powers

    July 11, 2016 at 4:16 PM

    I am in total agreement with what you say, Blond, and wish I had said it as well. I appreciate your fire. We are dealing with a beast system.

    We should be able to explain WHO we are and WHERE we originated and by WHOM… Alfred has said. And our words should be our words, not theirs! Our words need to be the truth. I have been harping for years about the difference between man/woman and “human”. And if “they” (the private esquire bar attorneys) have omitted certain definitions in their practice, it is for their own evil purposes and delight, and we are obliged to provide our own and do so with authority.
    One can waste an entire life quibbling over their UCCode and their USCode and their ever-changing definitions.

    As has already been hinted at above, the “event of birth” is entered/registered into an Admiralty Tontine Trust (insurance), and doesn’t expire until a “death certificate” is issued.

    Perhaps the “ma’am” is simply the one with the mammary, the wom (b)-man. I could make a poor joke here —but will abstain.

  10. Peg-Powers

    July 11, 2016 at 9:51 PM

    Forget the “Style Manual”. That’s their guideline and compass.

    It is you who lives by the Spirit of truth.

    • Blonddbythelight

      July 12, 2016 at 12:14 AM

      Exactly. The US Style Manual is [one of] their guideline and compass. And that’s exactly why we must all read it.

      Do we want to be like a salmon swimming upstream, banging our heads against rocks, trying to avoid bears or simply swim along with the current? Which one is easier? Which one causes us less damage, physically, emotionally, spiritually?

      Point being, we can fight for a trillion years and at the end of the day, nothing has been changed


      We can use their own guideline and compass against them. I mean, hey, it’s their manual, not ours. But the beauty is, we can inform ourselves as to how they are required to operate and what their chit really means.

      • moon

        July 12, 2016 at 9:33 AM

        “Chit”…had to search for a definition of that word.

        In a recent encounter with gov-co, signings of my letters to specific “officials” using “AT ARM’S LENGTH” and “aka”, patterned after Al’s way of signing, seemed to gain much respect for me among those who would peddle the chit. IMO, research and testing of the ALL CAPS situation is well worth the effort.

  11. Blonddbythelight

    July 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM

    tommy glen has the closest signature to mine. After looking at how the Fortune 500 CEO’s sign, they normally put By: before their signature, then sign. This is at arms length, in a sense because they are signing as an agent for the principal, which relieves the agent of liability.

    In my situation, I have by the book resigned the office of registered agent, with the knowledge that I have interest in the estate ALL CAPS NAME. I am no longer the surety for this organization.

    Whoever receives the benefits (and the benefits SUCK, more on this below) also has the corresponding liabilities (which suck even worse).

    Personally, I would never do an AKA or DBA. As a woman, how can I openly claim that I am also known as an organization, a thing, when I am a who, not a what? As a child of God, how can I say I am aka an organization? I am not an operation of law! And how can I be doing business as an organization, when the sheer fact that this ORGANIZATION NAME is still laying out here in the public domain seemingly abandoned, it’s being administrated and operated by default by others for me because I am deemed incompetent? What kind of business can I claim I am doing business as, if I am simply the surety for it? What kind of business can I claim I am DBA when business/commercial matters are out of my hands (When I’m just the surety/lackey) until I draw it down into a private trust thus removing it from the public domain?

    See, my point is to separate away from the NAME as much as possible, not get even more entangled and intertwined with the NAME, mark and number. I will refrain from getting biblical on this subject. IMHO, best case scenario is to detach immediately away from it, if not sooner!

    FWIW, this is how I sign:

    By: donna ARR OON… <– All Rights Reserved, Out of Necessity + ellipsis
    Without prejudice
    All benefits perpetually waived (Their benefits: traffic stops, fines, liens, levies, court, foreclosure, jail, community service, probation, car repo, charges, record/s, traffic school, parole, prison) Yeah, every time I've said in court that I waive all benefits, the ignorant peanut gallery always gasps in horror believing I'm crazy because I wouldn't want benefits and the judge always asks me if I'm an attorney.

    Again, this is just my opinion and some M.O.

  12. moon

    July 12, 2016 at 12:02 PM

    Would anyone like to comment on this? (below) :

    Suppose one made up a name, such as a stage name, pen name, and used it whenever that one felt the need for a name (excluding for unlawful purposes). According to Tennessee Statutes (circa 1980s), if one uses a name for two years, it’s that one’s name.

    Would like to hear thoughts on this.

    • Jethro!

      July 14, 2016 at 9:51 AM

      You can use whatever name you wish so long as not for the purposes of fraud.

      • Adask

        July 14, 2016 at 10:30 AM

        Good point. But the principle only applies for sure to me and whatever name I choose to use for myself. Does the prohibition on using a name for fraudulent purposes also apply to whatever name government chooses to bestow on me? I.e., if the government calls me “ADASK” for the purpose of depriving me of my God-given, unalienable Rights, does that also constitute an act of fraud?

      • Jethro!

        July 14, 2016 at 11:41 AM

        If government (whoever that is) bestows a NAME upon you, my first question would be, is that in fact “my” NAME? What do “they” mean by the NAME vs. what do I mean by it? If the two meanings don’t match, then yes, certainly “their” use of the name could be fraud.

  13. palani

    July 12, 2016 at 12:17 PM

    You might find useful information at this site concerning details of effecting a common law name change

    • moon

      July 14, 2016 at 7:42 AM


  14. Jethro!

    July 12, 2016 at 10:44 PM

    I believe that resolving the “ALL CAPS NAME” situation is relatively simple. All that matters is… What do “they” mean by it vs. what do I mean by it? For example, I could write my name as Jethro!, or JETHRO!, or JeThRo or !¡JEthRO¡! just because I like the way it looks; that’s all it means to me. But if someone else writes JETHRO! perhaps it means something else to him. Figuring out if that is the case should be no more difficult than exercising one’s *right of inquiry*: “What do you mean by ‘JETHRO!’?” The other side has an obligation to answer. (If he answers with a corporation or fiduciary, we may have a problem).

    So there ought be no obligation to guess as to what someone else means by a name. We just have to ask.

    • tommy glen

      July 13, 2016 at 2:13 AM

      but many want you to give your signature before they have given “full disclosure”

  15. Apu Nahan

    July 13, 2016 at 4:33 PM

    Hi Alfred, longtime fan, bought your Antishyster Magazine way back when (at least 10 years if not more). I still have somewhere the issue with Ronald Reagan versus RONALD REAGAN on the cover. That was certainly an eye-opener!

    As a Canadian perhaps I can contribute to the research by our American friends.

    In a nutshell, JOHN DOE is an officer that is represented by John Doe. An officer is an artificial person (Sir Frederick Pollock, Principles of Contract, 6th Ed.) that we can choose (or not) to represent. We are not artificial persons in law, but we can represent an artificial person such as an officer. The irony is that in Canadian courts, almost everyone is there as an officer: court officers (sheriff, prosecutor, judge), as well as HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.

    I believe U.S. court cases use “We The People”. In Canada we use HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. She legally personifies all Canadians (from a Canadian Government booklet). But there is a legal problem. Queen Elizabeth is mostly in England. To legally personify all Canadians, she has to be legally present in Canada at all times. How can she be in two places at once?

    The solution: form a corporation sole, a one-person corporation. Queen Elizabeth is at all times legally present in Canada through the Governor-General’s Office. The officer representing that office is our current Governor-General, David Johnston. Now Queen Elizabeth is legally in two places at the same time.

    In a recent Tax Court of Canada case, the Canadian Government (“Crown”) applied for a motion to strike the applicant’s case. In his paperwork, the applicant had deliberately styled both his name and Her Majesty’s in upper and lower case. In Crown’s motion to strike, they changed the applicant’s name from John Doe to JOHN DOE and Her Majesty to HER MAJESTY. HER MAJESTY must be Her Majesty as an officer, since HER MAJESTY can only be legally present in Canada through her Governor-General office/officer.

    You mention two possible scenarios. This taxpayer experienced a third one. I think he was too close to the truth, so they did a “Glomar response” i.e. refused to address the issue so that no record of it exists in the court records. How? By twisting his facts 180 degrees around so that they could then brand the applicant as a tax protestor and then grant Crown’s motion to strike as being “frivolous, vexatious, and a waste of court’s time.” Never mind that in a motion to strike, Tax Court of Canada rules states that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine facts (and was even stated so in the court order). These are the lengths that they will go to preserve their illusion. (I will not provide the case cite because…. there is nothing to see!)

    As an artificial person, an officer can be granted special privileges and incur special liabilities that a private person does not have. Canada’s Income Tax Act defines employee as, “employee includes officer”. This federal officer handles benefits paid out of Canada’s “public money”. This makes income for the officer Canada’s public money. It also saddles that officer with a fiduciary responsibility to file accurately and on time Canada’s public money. Canadian income tax is legal because it is not on the individual’s private property. It also makes the officer liable for Canada’s national debt since it is paid out of the same pot of “public money”.

    They can’t force us to be an officer, so they did as much as they could – they deem us to be an officer. It’s in Canada’s Income Tax Act s.6(3) (‘..shall be deemed … to be remuneration rendered as an officer…” in a paragraph so obfuscated that practically nobody understands it.

    The last bit is thanks to your excellent article on notice and fact pleading. In Canada we have a similar system which allows the Crown to plead so-called “facts” which are merely assumptions. The statute says they can deem Canadians who are employees as an Income Tax Act “officer”; the tax assessor can also make the same deeming; and so can the courts.

    I wrote two research papers that explains this. It’s uploaded to Social Science Research Network, and is titled, “Attorning to Canada’s Income Tax Act Office (or, Why Is the Name in All Caps?)” . It has the case law and legal textbooks (mostly clickable hyperlinks) that backs up what I say here.

    My research on the officer and how it applies to Canada’s income tax is at

    • Adask

      July 14, 2016 at 2:59 AM

      Hi Apu,

      Thanks very much for your compliments, for reading my articles over the years (my last edition of my magazine was published in A.D. 2012–14 years ago), and most importantly, for your insight into the concept of “officer”.

      In the end, we are fighting a system that is not Canadian or “American” or English, European or even Chinese. We are fighting a global system that seems determined to deprive individual men and women of the unalienable Rights that flow from God, and reduce the People form the status of political sovereigns to that of political subjects or even animals that can be ruled rather than served. The object is to impose a one-world government.

      How that goal is achieved in different nations can vary depending on the nature, history, culture and especially language, or each particular nation. Judging from your comment, in Canada, Canadians are “deemed” to be “officers” of the government. In the U.S., under Social Security laws, Americans are “presumed” to be “government employees”. I have no idea of whatever words are used in England, Australia, South Africa, or Europe. But, I strongly suspect that it all amounts to the same idea: the people are deemed/presumed to be officers/employees of the government.

      Why? I believe it’s because there’s an ancient principal that each employee is deemed to hold the position of fiduciary (servant and even subject) in relation to his employer. As an officer/employee we have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of our presumed “employer”. So long as we are presumed to be an “officer”/”employee” of the government, we are obligated to serve the government and–contrary to the Organic Law of The United States of America (and whatever similar laws or traditions would seem to apply in Canada)–the government is our “beneficiary” and is not obligated to serve the People.

      Under the State and even federal constitutions within The United States of America, our constitutional government is the fiduciary that’s obligated to serve the people/beneficiaries. Under our de facto, globalist “government,” the people are the fiduciaries and the de facto government is the beneficiary/ruler.

      This change in the status of people from beneficiary/rulers to fiduciaries/subjects is deemed/presumed to have occurred “voluntarily” by the people–probably under the doctrine of “emergency”. To save our “beloved” governments, we are deemed/presumed to have voluntarily assumed the role of fiduciary/servant/subject and grant government the role of beneficiary/ruler.

      I interpret your description of the Canadian case as consistent with my “status-reversal” hypothesis. Someone in Canada came close to effectively denying that he’d voluntarily become an “officer”/employee/fiduciary/subject of the de facto Canandian government. Rather than address his denial, his claim was ridiculed and his case was made to “disappear”.

      If the all-upper-case NAME signifies and “officer” of the Canadian government, that status gives us more evidence of what that NAME might signify in the “United States”. Whatever that presumed relationship is, it seems virtually certain that it presumes that whoever bears or represent an all-upper-case NAME is not made in God’s image, or endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights that the governments of the States of the Union are obligated to “secure”.

      I’ll take a look at the papers and website you’ve provided and, as time permits, read them thoroughly.

      Some people claim that you don’t really learn your own language, until you’ve learned a foreign language. In the same sense, it’s probably true that I can learn more about the American system of oppressive government by reading about the Canadian system. You also might be able to perceive the Canadian system of oppressive government, by reading about that of the United States–as may have happened when you first read about the American difference between “Reagan” and “REAGAN”.

      Incidentally, your reference to my “Reagan” vs “REAGAN” article reminds me of Ecclesiastes 11:1 which reads in part, “Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days.” I “cast” (published) my “bread” (the “Reagan” vs. “REAGAN” article) upon the “waters” (into the public domain) and after many days (actually, about 20 years) it’s coming back to me with increased insight. Thinking about it makes me laugh. If we’re patient, we may all see that our “good deeds” will, eventually, bear fruit. We can’t be saved by our “works”–but we might still be rewarded. I am delighted.

      Thanks again.

      I’ve been to your website and we appear to be making the same arguments from both a Canadian and “American” perspective.

      I see that the name you write under (“Apu Nahasapeemapetilon”) is a pseudonym for an informal group of Canadians who want to explain why Canada’s income tax is legal and not private property theft.

      I’ve been able to find and download one of your articles (on “Unreported Income”) but the article you’ve expressly mentioned (about the All-Caps Name”) that I would most like to read is listed as “Not Available For Download”.

      So, is there any way I could get a copy of that article?

  16. Brian R Ritzenthaler

    July 13, 2016 at 11:36 PM

    All capitol letters designates a fictitious (non-living) commercial entity in the legal world. Upper and lower case designates a real, flesh and blood man or woman alive with a spirit. The US Corporation has classified every American citizen as a corporation or commercial “person” by their birth certificate and SS number. All of any government business with you is in CAPS. That is not you. It is a corporation the US corp. set up for you at birth to do business with you. The SS number is your federal employee number. It is the only way the US corporation can legally tax the populous. A corporation has no jurisdiction over a real person. A real person is sovereign and only accountable to God. All other entities have been created by man and are subject to his authority. Read the Constitution of the united States of America; “We the people do ordain and establish” . . .

  17. Dan

    July 17, 2016 at 8:11 AM

    Laying aside for the moment that Alfred Adask can NOT talk about rights without attaching the phrase “God-given” to the word “rights,” Alfred Adask, steadfastly refuses to define what a right is. I posted the definition of a right here once, including that this definition is rationally demonstrable in a court of law, and Alfred Adask pitched a hissy fit.

    Okay, Alfred, What IS the definition of a right?

    • Adask

      July 17, 2016 at 2:22 PM

      Dear Danny Boy,

      How nice of you to stop back in to visit my blog. Missed you, sweety. After all, according to WordPress, you’ve posted 182 comments on this blog. That’s about 0.6% of the 29,915 comments that’ve been posted so far on this blog.

      Sadly, 180 of your comments were posted on or before October 3rd of A.D. 2011. Since then, you posted only one other comment in A.D. 2013 and now, just one more on July 17th, A.D. 2016. Gee, I’m hurt.

      On the bright side, however, even if you’ve virtually stopped commenting on this blog for the past 4.5 years, you apparently still read at least some of my articles. It’s nice to know that you still remember me—and perhaps even respect my work (a little).
      Generally speaking, I won’t waste my time reading the text or comments of someone I don’t respect. But, sometimes (as now) I make exceptions just to see if my opinion of the writer (in this case, you) has changed.

      It hasn’t. Tell ya why:

      First, you start today’s comment by claiming that I “can NOT talk about rights without attaching the phrase “God-given” to the word “rights.” What a stupid claim that is. If you had half the intelligence you like to suppose, you wouldn’t have made such a idiotic remark.
      Here’s why: According to Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.), there are a number of different kinds of “rights” under the heading “right”. There are “absolute,” “accessory,” accrued,” and “acquired” under the letter “A”. No rights mentioned under “B”. But, then there’s “civil,” “conditional,” “conjugal,” under “C”. “P” is a good one: there we find “patent,” “perfect,” “peripheral,” “personal,” “political,” “positive,” “precarious,” “primary,” “principal,” “private,” “procedural,” “property,” “proprietary,” and “public” rights. There’s even a “right against self-incrimination”–as well as a number of other kinds of “rights” listed under Black’s 9th’s definition of “Right”.

      Oddly, Black’s definition of “right” does not include a separate listing for “constitutional,” “unalienable” or “divine” rights.

      I persistently talk about “God-given” rights because those are the “unalienable Rights” first mentioned in our “Declaration of Independence”. I use the term “God-given” to not only signify “unalienable Rights,” but also to distinguish the kind of “rights” I’m talking about from the multitude of “man-given” rights that make up most of the rights our government routinely recognizes today.

      God-given/unalienable Rights are the gold standard in rights. They can’t be lawfully denied by the cops, the courts, or the legislatures. They can’t be legally taken away from you, even if you don’t know what they are. They are as much yours as the color of your eyes.
      As per the 3rd sentence in the “Declaration of Independence,” the Founders declared that the fundamental duty of government was to “secure” to every man, woman and even unborn child, those God-given, unalienable Rights.

      My concern with “man-given” rights is minimal. Therefore, I habitually talk about “God-given, unalienable Rights”. But, contrary to your claim, my focus on “God-given” rights is not a simple obsession that prevents me from recognizing other, man-given rights. I’m just not very interested in talking about “man-given” rights.

      I use the term “God-given” as a courtesy to my readers (at least to those who eyes to see and ears to hear) to help them understand whenever I’m talking about “rights” given by God as opposed to “rights” given by man (which can be taken away at any moment). My use of “God-given” to modify the term “rights” is intended to reduce or even eliminate the readers’ confusion that might result if I referred only to “rights” without distinguishing what “kind” of rights I was talking about. I.e., if I referred only to “rights,” some astute readers might not know whether I meant “God-given” or “man-given”.

      Nevertheless, my attempts to avoid confusion in the readers’ minds on this subject aren’t always successful. Some readers (you, for example) are apparently so dumb that they still don’t understand what I mean when I refer to “God-given” and “unalienable” Rights.
      Nevertheless, you criticize me for my attempts to speak or write with specificity.

      And then, you accuse me of “steadfastly refus[ing] to define what a right is”. I don’t recall ever being asked to define the term “right” (until now). And I certainly don’t recall ever “steadfastly refusing” to define the term “right”. Your claim to the contrary is a mistake, a stupid remark, or a lie.
      You close your comment with a demand (a stupid demand, at that): “Okay, Alfred, What IS the definition of a right?”
      “The definition”? The word “the” is a definite article (as compared to “a” which is an indefinite article). “The” is intended to signify “the” single, particular person, object, idea etc. to which a word refers. For example, if I used the phrase “the President of the United States” I would probably be referring to Barack Obama at this particular time. On the other hand, if I said “a president of the United States” I might be referring to any one or perhaps even all of the 44 presidents that we’ve had so far or might have into the future.
      When you ask me for “the definition” of the word “right,” you’re asking for the, single, particular, universal, definition that is recognized by at least all Americans and maybe all people on the earth or even all people who’ve ever lived. But, there’s no single definition for “right” that’s universally recognized.

      You are asking me to provide something that can’t be provided. You are asking for a near impossibility. If you were half as bright as you suppose, you’d have recognized that your request was absurd and not made it. The fact that you made that request is evidence that you might want to go back to school to get your GED.

      You might be surprised to learn that the people behind Black’s Law Dictionary are pretty good at defining words. For the term “right,” Black’s 9th offers seven generic definitions in the first paragraph. Black’s continues to define specific kinds of rights for the next five pages.
      I don’t know how many different definitions for the different kinds of right are on those five pages. But I have a very strong suspicion that if there were a single, particular definition that could be accurately described as “the definition” of the word “right,” Blacks 9th would probably be aware of that definition and would at least include it in the five pages–and might even use it alone in “the” (one and only) definition of “right”.
      Without more specifics, your request that I provide “the definition” for “right” is ridiculous. If you wanted to ask for “the definition” of a particular kind of “right” (like “unalienable,” God-given, proprietary, legal, equitable or constitutional, etc.) I might be able to help you out. But, as stated, your query is virtually impossible to answer.

      One other point: Elsewhete on this blog, you’ve claimed to have devised a single definition for the word “right” that can be “proved in court”. Doesn’t that claim seem childish when compared to Black’s five pages. You claim to have done what no one else has been able to do in the past several millennia. Should I offer my applause or a horse-laugh?

      Finally, you refer to one of my previous replies to one of your earlier comments as me throwing a “hissy fit”. You may also want to describe this reply as another “hissy fit”. But your “hissy fit” descriptions are inaccurate and perhaps intended primarily to discredit my replies rather than to answer them. (What reasonable man bothers to reply to “hissy fits”).
      I don’t see this as a “hissy fit”. I see it as a particularized response your initial and stupid comment.
      This is not an expression of anger. It’s actually kinda fun for me. I don’t always have time to devote to these lengthy replies, but once in a while I do. When I do, I try to make the most of it.
      Was it good for you, too?
      Would you like a cigarette?

      In closing, in your comment of 2011/10/3, you attributed to me following text to me. Writing to you, I allegedly said,

      “You’re a lightweight. Your comments aren’t profound or even threatening. You’re like a little kid trying to act tough. That’s kind of amusing, but then we see that you really believe you’re a “tough guy”. It’s one thing to be a hypocrite, but it’s another thing entirely to actually believe your hypocrisy.”

      That sounds like something I might’ve written. If I did, I stand by that observation.

    • blonddbythelight

      July 17, 2016 at 7:42 PM

      Wow, Dan. The word right can mean anything any man or any man-made so-called “law” wants it to mean, unless God-given is attached to it. Some morons believe that a privilege is a right.

      Alfred doesn’t need anyone to defend him, but I will say this:

      Alfred has defined the word right more times than I can count. If you’re bored, go read a book. If you just want to fight, this is not the place. Alfred has given freely so much of his time and energy to help people, and you treat him this way? There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing or having a different point of view, but there’s a mature way to go about it. There is not much I disagree with Alfred on, but when I do disagree, I do it very respectfully. And your courts of law are just banks committing piracy, so who cares about a definition that is demonstrable in a court/bank of fake/quasi “law”? I don’t. These quasi-courts can’t even SEE the real man or woman (unless you’re in equity), and you sit here wanting a definition of a right for a man-made FICTION? An ens legis? No offense really intended here, but you do come off as quite a very rude, stupid man! If I were Alfred, I wouldn’t even bother wasting my valuable time and energy responding to you.


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