RSS

Category Archives: Names

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


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: 

Read the rest of this entry »

 
32 Comments

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

 

Tags: , ,

Answering For Another


Q&A

Q&A (Photo credit: opensourceway)

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

 
306 Comments

Posted by on August 26, 2012 in Attorney, Names, Presumptions, Surety, Upper-case name

 

Tags: , , ,

The Collective Entity Doctrine


Collectivism vs. Individualism

Collectivism vs. Individualism (Photo credit: Lily Zhu)

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

 
30 Comments

Posted by on July 31, 2012 in collective, Names, relationship

 

Tags: , ,

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


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

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

 
32 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

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


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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

 
26 Comments

Posted by on December 7, 2011 in Names, Notice, Questions, Sovereignty

 

Tags: , , , , ,

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


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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

 
42 Comments

Posted by on December 1, 2011 in Names, Sovereignty

 

Tags: , , , ,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

 
5 Comments

Posted by on November 1, 2011 in Names, Slavery & bondage, Sovereignty, Tyranny

 

Tags: , , ,