RSS

Category Archives: Presumptions

Right to Privacy or Presumption of Innocence?


(Courtesy Google Images)

(Courtesy Google Images)

Edward Snowden has achieved international fame as the “whistle-blower” who exposed NSA spying on domestic telephone calls.  He claims that he was motivated to expose this problem in order to protect American’s “right to privacy”.

According to Wikipedia:

 

“The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose.”

Read the rest of this entry »

 

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: , , ,

Fundamental Presumptions


Dr Livingstone, I Presume

Dr Livingstone, I Presume (Photo credit: : rebecca :)

I received an email today that wasn’t quite clear but seemed to inquire about the unstated presumptions on which the courts (and the cops) rely.  I replied as follows:

Hi Phil,
I don’t think I understand your email.  I’m not sure what you’re asking about.
But if you’re asking about presumptions, they exist in law and/or equity–unless someone expressly refutes them.
As an hypothetical example, the judge is probably aware of a law or rule of evidence that presumes everyone who enters his court to be a “citizen of the United States”.  If so, then if you enter his courtroom, he will silently presume you to be a “citizen of the United States” and say nothing about that presumption–unless, you are smart enough to know of that presumption, and you expressly deny the presumption and/or introduce evidence to refute that presumption.  If a fundamental presumption of citizenship is refuted, the court might no longer have the in personam jurisdiction it needs to proceed.
 
63 Comments

Posted by on August 25, 2012 in Notice, Presumptions, Venue

 

Tags: ,

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction


View of Capitol Hill from the U.S. Supreme Court

Image via Wikipedia

Under the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the term “The State” is intended to signify any one of the 50 States of the Union (such as “The State of Texas” or “The State of Florida”).  The term “this state,” on the other hand, is intended to signify administrative districts (like “TX” or “FL”) of a singular territory that spans the entire U.S..   (For more insight into this hypothesis, see, “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/#more-7133).

According to the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the federal gov-co has supplanted “The States” of the Union with the administrative districts of a singular national territory.  It is believed that the feds caused this change because, under Article 1 of the federal Constitution, Congress has limited and enumerated powers with regard to “The States” of the Union, but under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , ,

The States of the Union vs. the Territory


Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only th...

Image via Wikipedia

I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union.  In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.

The idea of two, alternative “venues” (the States of the Union and territories) is at least fifteen years old.  So far as I know, the first person to advocate this concept was Paul Andrew Mitchell (writing under the pen name of “Mitch Modeleski”) in his book The Federal Zone.  The concept was picked up and amplified by Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson, Ed Wahler and Dennis Craig Bynum in A.D. 2006 in a book entitled USA v US.  I’ve studied and explored this concept for at least 10 years and, fantastic as it seems, I believe this hypothesis to be true.

I realize that the idea that our own federal government would intentionally “overthrow” the governments of the States of the Union, supplant those State governments with territorial administrative agencies seems too fantastic to believe.  I’ve spent at least 10 years looking for evidence to disprove this incredible hypothesis.  But after ten years of looking all I can tell you for sure is that: 1) It looks like a duck; 2) it walks like a duck; 3) it quacks like a duck; and 4) it goes good with orange sauce.  I still can’t prove that it’s a duck, but I’ve seen nothing in 10 years to suggest that it’s not.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Year of the Rats


Rat

Image by Sergey Yeliseev via Flickr

Austin Goolsbee was President Obama’s chief economist.  I saw him interviewed on one of last Sunday’s TV-news talk shows.  He looked anxious and defensive.  But he gamely argued that the previous month’s bad job and manufacturing reports were only one-month aberrations and did not compromise the ongoing “recovery”.

So, I was surprised when it was announced the next day that Mr. Goolsbee had resigned from his White House post.  I don’t know if he actually resigned, or was fired.  But his departure can’t be viewed as evidence of an economic recovery.

The “rats” are leaving—or being driven from—what increasingly appears to be a sinking ship.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Debtor’s Prison or Breach of Fiduciary Obligation? A Habeas Corpus that Worked.


Over the years, I’ve seen scores of habeas corpus petitions.  Virtually all have failed to cause a prisoner to be released.  In fact, I’ll bet that at least 95% (and probably 99%) of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus are routinely dismissed by the courts.

Read the rest of this entry »