Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A Rose By Any Other "Name"...

Expand Messages
  • Michael
    Saturday 26 November 2011 What matters is what something IS, not what something is called. [Shades of Clinton stating, It depends on what the definition if
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 26, 2011

      Saturday  26 November 2011

      What matters is what something IS, not what
      something is called.  [Shades of Clinton stating,
      "It depends on what the definition if is, is."]

      The genius of Shakespeare knows no bounds.


      "'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
      Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
      What is a Montague?  It is nor hand, nor foot,
      nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
      belonging to a man.  O, be some other name!
      What's in a name?  That which we call a rose
      by any other name would smell as sweet;
      So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
      retain that dear perfection which he owes
      without that title.  Romeo, doff thy name
      and for that name which is no part of thee,
      take all myself."

      Ancient Egyptians associated the name with
      the soul.  It was believed that knowledge of a
      god or spirit's name gave one complete power
      over that deity, and knowledge of a man's name
      provided the power to do that man good or ill.
      A person could not exist without his name.

      In ancient China, a name was considered to
      have enormous power, and for that reason, it
      was forbidden to speak the name of the emperor.

      Judge:  "What is your name?'

      There must be a reason why this is the very first
      question asked in any administrative/court
      proceding.  If you give your name, one has to
      wonder if you are giving the "judge" assent for
      him/her to assert power over the fictional
      entity, spelled in all-capitalized letters.

      Otherwise, there is no other way for a legal
      fiction to exist if it has no name, hence the
      likely purpose of that very first question.

      When I went before an administrative "judge"
      to contest an administrative law "judge's"
      decision over a parking ticket, that was the
      first order of business.  The insistance in
      asking the question spoke to its importance,
      but I had no prepared response, at that time.

      It would be informative to know if any "judge"
      can proceed without stating one's  name.  If
      anyone has some first-hand experience or
      direct knowledge on this issue, it would be
      great to have it shared.

      I am guessing it may be good to ask a question
      instead of responding, such as, "I do not understand
      what you mean by the word name.  No disrespect
      to you, [must avoid giving a reason for spending
      time in jail for disrespecting the court], but can you
      explain what the word name means to this court?"

      None of us are a name, as Shakespeare has Juliet
      explain.  Rather, each of us is who we say we are,
      as in  "one of the people," or " a flesh and blood man
      or woman."  [In other words, on the land and not
      in a political fictional plane.]

      Open for duscussion...

    • Mike
      ... Using your scenario with traffic court (an administrative hearing), perhaps you will enjoy using the method I have used repeatedly: I ignore the clerk s
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 26, 2011
        In "Subject: [tips_and_tricks] A Rose By Any Other "Name"...", Michael <mn_chicago@...> wrote:

        >Judge:  "What is your name?'
        >There must be a reason why this is the very first
        >question asked in any administrative/court

        Using your scenario with traffic "court" (an administrative hearing), perhaps you will enjoy using the method I have used repeatedly:

        I ignore the clerk's first call for the "defendant" (recognizing that if I don't respond to the second call, a bench warrant issued...)

        When they call for the defendant a second time I step up to - but do not pass the "bar" and state my first and middle names and add "from the clan (surname) here to represent the Defendant." Of course they ask if I am the defendant and I deny that I am asking, "Who is making this claim against the Defendant?" The prosecuting attorney responds and says "The State of                     is making the claim." I tell them "The Defendant is a US National and the bankrupt state of                   has no authority over the Defendant pursuant to (the citation is escaping me at the moment- it has been nearly two years since my last interview). The Proper venue for claims against the Defendant is Federal Court pursuant to (cite)."

        I am not an expert, but I am not in jail either... I cannot tell you that my method "works" but I can tell you that the "state" was threatening me with five years for totally B.S. criminal charges for "daring to confront them" about their collusion in the commission of fraud as it relates the IRS. Of course this is another story.

        I also am prepared to insist that whomever is charging me take the stand and under oath make their claims... An attorney testifying before the court will not do unless he is sworn in and under oath.

        I would like to get the arresting "officer" on the stand... Among the first questions I will ask the witness is: "What are the elements of a Valid Complaint?" The simple answer is: Duty, Breach of Duty, Complaint, Damages.

        I haven't had the opportunity to take it this far yet... I am pretty sure the "officer" couldn't answer (and if he was wrong what would this do to his claim?), but I don't think the prosecutor or the "court" will allow it to go that far.

        Knowing the elements above would provide you with additional questions for the witness, what do you think happens when she/he can't answer them?

        Anyway... I have fun with this method.

        Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.