Category Archives: Upper-case name

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 »


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


Tags: , ,

What’s a “Person” in an HOV Lane?

A high-occupancy vehicle lane on Ontario Highw...

A high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on highways are reserved for cars carrying at least two “persons”.

But what’s a “person”?

The Supreme Court has declared that there are both “natural persons” (men and women) and “artificial persons” like corporations.

California traffic law recognized both “natural” and “artificial” “persons”.

Here’s the story of a California man who was carrying his corporation’s charter in the passenger seat when he was stopped and ticketed for driving in the HOV lane with only one “person” in his car.  He’s defending himself by claiming that his corporation’s charter is (as per the Supreme Court) is also an artificial “person” and therefore he had two “persons” in the vehicle.

The case is going to court.  The driver doesn’t expect the police officer to appear and therefore the case will be dismissed.

Why?  Because the implications are explosive.  First, if corporation papers can be construed as a second “person,” the whole HOV lane scheme may be destroyed.  That’s interesting, perhaps amusing, but not profound.

But second, as the commentator in the following video implies, what about those who are ticketed for driving in the HOV lane without a passenger, but who are carrying a drivers license with an all upper case name on it like “ALFRED N ADASK”?  What if such drivers contended that their proper name were, say, “Alfred Adask” and therefore the name “ALFRED N ADASK” on their drivers license is a second and separate “person”?

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on January 6, 2013 in Traffic Law, Upper-case name


Tags: , , , ,

Answering For Another


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 »


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


Tags: , , ,

Rising Resistence to “Judicial” Power (over “Strawmen”?)

Fall Garden Strawman

Image by Mike Miley via Flickr

If I hired an attorney to represent me, I should be able to fire that attorney whenever I pleased.  Likewise, if you hired an attorney to represent you, then you should be able to fire that attorney whenever you pleased. But, clearly, if you hired an attorney to represent you, I would have no authority to fire your attorney.

In the video below, a man attempts to fire “his” attorney.  The attorney says he’s been appointed by the judge and therefore only the judge can terminate his employment.

How is it that a man who is seemingly represented by an attorney, can’t fire what appears to be his own attorney?

Could it be that the attorney does not actually represent the man (whose proper name is, say, “John Ingress”) and who is the apparent defendant?  Could it be that the attorney instead represents an artificial entity (a legal fiction or “strawman” who bears the all-upper case name like “JOHN INGRESS”) and who is the actual defendant?

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , ,