RSS

“Man or Other Animals” #3–GENOCIDE

17 Jun

Mannatech Inc. is a Dallas-area corporation that manufacturers and distributes vitamins and other “nutraceuticals”. I’ve eaten (not used) their products since about A.D. 1995 and regard them highly.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office initiated a lawsuit against Mannatech based, ultimately, on the “man or other animals” drug laws under which I (and now Mannatech) have been sued for $25,000 per day. I brought my strategy for dealing with the “man or other animals” laws to the attention of one of Mannatech’s VPs in January A.D. 2008. That VP told me that Mannatech was not looking for a strategy to stop the AG’s suit; they merely wanted to reach an amicable settlement, pay a fine, and get on with the business of making money. The VP thanked me for my time, showed me to the door, and though he never actually said so, implicitly invited me to take my silly-assed theories down the road.

That created a problem.

As a Christian man who eats Mannatech products, I am prohibited by my faith from accepting any agreement that treats me as an “animal”. And yet, as I’ve pointed out in “Man or Other Animals” #1 & #2 (see this blog at http://adask.wordpress.com), that’s exactly what modern food and drug laws do: they presume the people of The United States of America to be mere “animals”. That’s an absolute violation of fundamental principles of the “Declaration of Independence” as well as the Jewish, Christian, and probably Muslim faiths.

Thus, I believe that if the private corporation Mannatech were to knowingly reach an out-of-court settlement (an “agreement”) with the OAG (Office of Attorney General) to continue to do business under the “man or other animals” food and drug laws, that “agreement” would be evidence of a conspiracy between Mannatech and the STATE OF TEXAS to treat me and the rest of the People of The State of Texas and/or The United States of America as “animals”.

I’m not havin’ it.

I’m not going to consent to allow some corporation that’s more interested in money than rights to enter into a “settlement”/“agreement”/conspiracy that reduces me (and other independent men and women) to the status of “animals” and “human resources” on the New World Order’s “global plantation”.

So I sent the following notice to several of the parties to the Mannatech case. I received no response from any of them. Not one word. I promised to send a second, stronger notice. I haven’t yet done so, but I’ll get to it in the next week or so.

If you’re interested in the “man or other animals” insight (and you should be), this document may help clarify what’s already been presented in “Man or Other Animals” No.s 1 & 2.

The County of Dallas

The State of Texas

The United States of America

To: Mr. Keith Clark, General Counsel

c/o Mannatech, Inc.

600 S. Royal Lane, Suite 200

The City of Coppell [75019]

The State of Texas

The United States of America

Certified Mail Number 7006 2150 0003 3843 4868 sent by First Class Postage

Mr. Paul D. Carmona, c/o office of Assistant Attorney General, Chief

Certified Mail Number 7006 2150 0003 3843 4851 sent by First Class Postage

and

Mr. Brad Schuelke, c/o office of Assistant Attorney General

Certified Mail Number 7006 2150 0003 3843 4844 sent by First Class Postage

Consumer Protect.° and Public Health Division

300 W. 15th Street

The City of Austin

The State of Texas

The United States of America

Mr. John K. Dietz

c/o the office of Travis County District Administrative Judge

Travis County Courthouse

P.O. Box 1748
The City of Austin [78767]

The State of Texas

The United States of America

Via stamped First Class Mail sent with First Class Postage

Notice by Verified Declaration of Alfred Adask of Objection to violations of Religious Freedom, Establishment of Religion and/or Genocide in Proposed Settlement Agreement in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 styled “STATE OF TEXAS v MANNATECH INCORPORATED”

Dear Sirs,

I, Alfred Adask—a man and sovereign Dei gratia—object to any settlement agreement in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 styled “STATE OF TEXAS v MANNATECH INCORPORATED” which is based on “state” and/or federal food and drug laws which expressly apply to those People described by the phrases “man or other animals” or “animals other than man”. These phrases deem, declare and/or presume all men to be animals in violation of fundamental principles of the Christian, Jewish and (probably) Muslim faiths.

Like thousands (perhaps millions) of others, I have eaten Mannatech products regularly for at least ten years and continue to do so. I am a Christian and member of the church of Christ. I will be adversely affected, injured and/or damaged by any such settlement agreement and/or conspiracy which deems me and/or other members of the People of The United States of America and/or of The State of Texas to be “animals”.

“MAN OR OTHER ANIMALS” LAWS

Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 is based in part on Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1—the June 5th, A.D. 2007 Declaration of Michael M. Levy, Director of the Division of New Drugs and Labeling Compliance, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In said Declaration, Mr. Levy declares in part:

21 U.S.C. § 321(g) defines the term “drug” in relevant part as “(A) . . .; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any articles specified in clause (A), (B), or (C) . . . .” [Emphasis added.]

I have identified twenty additional food and drug laws of “Texas” and/or of the “United States” which may apply in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 and which include the phrases “man or other animals” and/or “animals other than man”. I have identified similar “man or other animals” laws in four other “states”. I expect to find “man or other animals” food and drug laws in most or all of the 50 “states”.

The phrases “man or other animals” and “animals other than man” mean that all men to which such food and drug laws are intended to apply are declared and/or presumed to be “animals”.

The declaration and/or presumption that all men are an “animals” violates fundamental principles of religious freedom and God-given unalienable Rights, evades the solemn obligations of government, and implicates genocide.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The most important principle in the Bible is found at Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” By virtue of this creative act, God owns perfect title to the entire creation.

The second most important principle in the Old Testament of the Bible is found at Genesis 1:26-29 which declares that on the sixth day, God created man, and man alone, in God’s image and gave man dominion over the animals. Thus, no man made in the image of God can be an animal. Any man who accepts the status of “animal” without objection will have at least compromised and perhaps cancelled his hope of salvation.

As per Acts 17:26, all men are created from the same blood. No man can be treated as an animal.

As per Acts 17:27, the God of the Bible appoints to each man the task to “seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us . . . .” Any de jure or de facto government, governmental agency and/or corporation that acts to degrade any man made in God’s image to the status of an “animal” would trespass upon that man’s religious freedom, interfere with that man’s search for the Lord by implicitly denying the Lord’s existence, and/or seek to subject that man to an establishment of a religion such as paganism and/or secular humanism.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (a/k/a “The Declaration of Independence”), Article 1 Section 6 of The Constitution of The State of Texas, and the First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States each include fundamental principles, guarantees and/or prohibitions that secure each man’s right of religious freedom and right to be free from the establishment of religion. These same instruments impose solemn obligations upon government to secure such rights and entitle every man to seek redress for violations by government of such obligations.

Any state or federal law that deems, declares or presumes man to be an “animal” is anathema to the Jewish, Christian (and probably, Muslim) faiths. Such laws would constitute the establishment and imposition of a pagan religion and/or the religion of secular humanism upon the people of The United States of America and/or the people of The State of Texas. Such “man or other animals” law(s) are facially unconstitutional and/or unconstitutional as applied in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386.

Any act by any state or federal government or governmental agency that directly or indirectly degraded mankind to the status of “animals” would constitute the establishment of a pagan and/or secular humanist religion upon the people of The United States of America and/or the people of The State of Texas.

As a matter of self-defense, I object to any law or settlement agreement in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 that declares or presumes me to be an “animal”. As a matter of love for my neighbors, I object on behalf of the People of The State of Texas and/or of The United States of America, to any such agreement that degrades the People to the status of “animals”.

In the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386, any settlement agreement knowingly based on laws that presume and/or declare all men to be “animals” would constitute a conspiracy to violate and/or deny the God-given, unalienable Rights of the People of The United States of America and/or of The State of Texas to religious freedom and/or freedom from a government-imposed establishment of religion. Such settlement agreement would further damage said People by depriving them of their standing as “sovereigns without subjects” and “joint-tenants in the sovereignty” as declared by The Supreme Court of the United States in Chisholm v State of Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (A.D. 1793).

Parties to any settlement agreement in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 may not have previously understood that said agreement might deprive the People of their God-given, unalienable Rights to religious freedom and/or freedom from establishment of religion. Parties to said agreement might previously have argued that they did not knowingly intend to deprive People of such rights.

However, thanks to this Notice (sent via certified mail with first class postage stamps affixed) to the attorneys for two of the parties to Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 (plus, a courtesy copy to Mr. John K. Dietz), said parties to Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 now know or have reason to know that such agreement would cause injury and/or damages to me and to a multitude of other People of The United States of America and/or of The State of Texas.

GENOCIDE

The Wikipedia.com article entitled “Genocide” reports in part, “In 1996, Gregory Stanton, the president of Genocide Watch, presented briefing paper called ‘The 8 Stages of Genocide’ at the United States Department of State.[52] In it he suggested that genocide develops in eight stages that are ‘predictable but not inexorable’.[52][53] Those eight stages include: 1) Classification; 2) Symbolization; 3) Dehumanization; 4) Organization; 5) Polarization; 6) Preparation; 7) Extermination; 8) Denial. Stage #3 (“Dehumanization”) is described in part as, “One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases.” [Emphasis added.]

Those state or federal food and drug laws which declare or presume man to be an “animal” conform to Stage 3 of “The 8 Stages of Genocide”.

The United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide approved December 9th, A.D. 1948 declares in part, “genocide is a crime under international law”—but that crime need not include the actual deaths of any victims. For example, Article 2 of said Convention declares in part, “. . . genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: . . . Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; . . . .” [Emphasis added.]

The state and federal “man or other animals” laws inflict “mental harm” and/or impose “conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part” upon those sovereign People of The United States of America and/or of The State of Texas who are made in God’s image (as per Genesis 1:26-29) and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4th, A.D. 1776). This injury is achieved by refusing to recognize said People’s direct relationship to the God of the Bible, by implicitly denying the existence of the God of the Bible, and by degrading the People from the status of men whose rights flow from God to the status animals whose “rights”—if any—flow only from the “state”.

Article 3 of said Convention declares, “The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.” [Emphasis added.]

Article 4 of said Convention declares, “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

Until now, parties to Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 may have had no understanding of the genocidal implications of their proposed agreement and thus no intent to engage in genocide. However, thanks to this Notice—which I provide as an act of self-defense and as an act of love for my “neighbors”—two of the parties to said Cause now know or have reason to know the genocidal implications of any agreement and/or conspiracy based on “man or other animals” laws. If said two parties in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 proceed to enter into such settlement agreement and/or conspiracy, they will do so knowing or having reason to know that that such agreement/conspiracy may be found to constitute an act of genocide.

VALUE OF UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

Consistent with Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 985; Pub. L. 99-185, Sec. 2(d), Dec. 17, 1985, 99 Stat. 1178; Pub. L. 104-208, div. A, title II, Sec. 2609, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-475; Pub. L. 105-61, title VI, Sec. 641, Oct. 10, 1997, 111 Stat. 1318 [as ultimately codified at 31 U.S.C. 5118], I declare and give notice of the assured value of my God-given, unalienable Rights, my right to religious freedom, and my right to be free from the establishment of religion to be 25 troy ounces of fine gold, per right, per day for the duration of any violation, denial or deprivation of said Rights. I declare and give notice that any and all parties to Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 who knowingly violate my rights in this matter shall be liable, jointly and severally, to pay me administratively, at law, in equity and/or in admiralty for said specified value in gold.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that those parties to Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 who receive this Notice immediately terminate all settlement agreement negotiations based on “man or other animals” laws. I recommend that, no later than Friday, May 16th, A.D. 2008, said parties provide me with written notice that such negotiations have been terminated.

ADDITIONAL NOTICES

If I have not received notice that said settlement agreement negotiations have been terminated by Friday, May 16th, A.D. 2008, I may subsequently draft a similar, but more comprehensive Notice that may be sent to all parties to Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386, to Mannatech associates who may be concerned about being treated as “animals” and to news media.

PROPER NAME AND ADDRESS

Consistent with 28 U.S.C. 1342 (mail fraud), my proper name is:

Alfred Adask

And my proper address is:

c/o 2921 Robin Hill Lane

The City of Garland [75044]

The County of Dallas

The State of Texas

The United States of America

Further Declarant sayeth not.

Verification: Consistent with Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12 of the Bible, Article 1 Section 5 of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1876, and under the authority of Public Law 94-550, Sec. 1(a), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 253 of the Congress of The United States of America [as evidenced by 28 U.S.C. 1746], I, Alfred Adask—a man and sovereign Dei gratia—acting in my own unalienable Right granted me by my Creator and King, declare under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of The United States of America that the previous facts declared in this “Notice by Verified Declaration of Alfred Adask of Objection to violations of Religious Freedom, Establishment of Religion and/or Genocide in Proposed Settlement Agreement in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 styled ‘STATE OF TEXAS v MANNATECH INCORPORATED’” are within my personal knowledge and are each true and correct.

Executed in propria persona, without prejudice to my God-given, unalienable Rights, and at arm’s length at The City of Garland within The County of Dallas within the boundaries of The State of Texas—a political State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”—on this 28th day of April, A.D. 2008.

________________________________________

autograph of Alfred Adask

About these ads
 
38 Comments

Posted by on June 17, 2008 in "Man or Other Animals", Genocide

 

38 responses to ““Man or Other Animals” #3–GENOCIDE

  1. fearlessfox

    September 15, 2008 at 5:18 AM

    Good luck with this. What can I do to help that’s quick and easy?
    I am busy as an animal rights advocate, (ironic, isn’t it?) fund raising, presently, but see your point and would like to help if I can.

     
  2. adask

    September 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM

    Hi “Fearless,”

    I don’t know what you can do. I’m just getting into this and still trying to figure out how to handle this myself.

    I certainly have no object to treating animals with a measure of respect, but I don’t wish to be treated as one myself.

    If you have any ideas, let me know.

    I’d never thought of approaching animal-rights activists with this information. I don’t know how they’d react, but I like stirring the hornet’s nest as well as any man.

    So, if you want to help, just spread the word. Tell others and let’s see what they think.

    Thanks for reading the blog.

    Al

     
  3. Donna Baran

    October 24, 2008 at 9:54 PM

    Hi Al!

    I feel exactly the same way you do about violation of religious freedoms. I believe the relegation of people to commercial entities for the purpose of creating money also falls into the category of dehumanizing people, too.

    I have seen the video you sent, and I believe I will get the intuition (messaging) when I venture too far, and begin to put myself in harm’s way. Then I will ask for more answers. I have the guy’s phone number written on my blotter, and you are reminding me to call him.

    I’m always interested in what you’re thinking. Thanx – you have made a difference out there, and keep up the great work!

    Donna

     
  4. Maxx

    November 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM

    Then “men” and “women” need to stop acting like animals, but frankly they dont elevate themselves and self actualize, this was the point of teaching of Jesus, was to self actualize; to become a free thinking warrior (well we cant have that !). Frankly animals seem to be on a higher plane than humans, they don’t act out of anger carry grudges, do drugs and drink etc . . .. Maybe the jews are right in calling us goyim, yet they aren’t much better either. . .
    About your show the other night on women and “bad boys” I think you made an interesting observation on women being abused and their choice of mate. If a woman is raped or sexually abused, and don’t take this the wrong way, ladies . . . if a man doesn’t deliver the goods and isn’t as aggressive and mean as the one who abused her in the first place, does a potential mate who may actually treat her right with chivalry and honor get over looked because he cant match the adrenaline level ? I often felt that women went for the bad boys because they felt safer knowing he wasn’t really scared of the other “animals” in the jungle and she could count on him as the protector. Being “nice” doesn’t work and usually backfires and is considered weak by females and they will end up getting killed. Unfortunately all our alphas are being wiped out in the endless wars for the past few centuries. This is why we have a docile and passive America and they cannot take “action” against those who rule ; judges, lawyers and the scumbag politicians etc . . .
    Al, I appreciate your, at least, open ended observations, your use of the dictionary and you speak from the heart. I haven’t enjoyed listening to anyone on the shortwave as much, since Bill Cooper. I hope you take that as a compliment.
    God Bless, Maxx

     
  5. adask

    November 16, 2008 at 4:27 PM

    Thanks, Maxx. I take your comments (and your blessing) as compliments. In fact, I’m complimented when anyone even listens to my radio shows or reads my blog. Thanks for listening. Thanks for reading.
    God bless you and yours.
    Al

     
  6. ad

    January 13, 2009 at 9:08 AM

    Hi,
    Please release the Video snippet you did that is on the San Antonio DVD, and include Winstons Comments about the Justification of the Chemtrails, he makes before the cut.

    This video will attract more support than acres of text on its own. It should be linked to the home page of this site.

    It is already in the public domain, and you are only discribing what has taken place, therefore the facts won’t change, you will not prejudice the case. Have they found 12 jury members who will agree to being an animal yet?

    Sent this message to you before again here, because the site was wonky before, incase you didn’t receive it.

    I went to a Road Show DEFRA (UK FDA) did locally, and informed the clueless reps, about what was going on. I refered them to the disc, (on the San-An DVD) but it would be more likely they would watch a youtube clip, than pay the cash to purchase the dvd. I advised the staff at DEFRA they should all be picketting Hilary Ben’s office and demand he be removed, on the back of seeing your exempliary presentation.
    Come-on Al, ehat you done is heavy.
    Waiting in anticipation>>>>;>
    ad.

     
  7. Natalia

    January 27, 2009 at 2:22 AM

    Hello…biologically, you are an animal, irrespective of what your bible tells you.

    Maybe instead of being so upset with being lumped in with animals…work for all beings’ welfare, yours and theirs.

    Not only genocide, but genus-cide is commonly called ‘dinner’ by omnivores who think they are obligate carnivores.

     
    • adask

      January 28, 2009 at 4:57 PM

      Hi Natalia,

      Spiritually, you are a woman endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights, irrespective of what Darwin tells you.

      If you believe that we’re all just animals, and you believe that we shouldn’t be killing and eating the other animals, what about the lions and tigers and bears–Oh my! I.e., those carnivores also kill and eat other animals. Do you advocate that, in the name of protecting all animals from carnivores, we kill all carnivores? Shall we wipe out the tigers to save the deer and the killer whales to save the seals (who are also carnivores)? If not, how come the tigers get to eat deer but I can’t eat a hamburger?

      I’m not sure what you mean by “obligate carnivores”. Perhaps that term is intended to distinguish species like homo saepiens who are omnivores but, in theory could be vegetarians–from predators like tigers and killer whales that have no choice but to eat flesh and are therefore obligated to eat flesh.

      But if you’re going to hang your hat on evolution, I have a nice set of incisors that–according to evolution–are the designed and intended to eat meat. That means I an my ancestors have been killing and eating other species for a long, long time. Why stop now?

      In the end, there is no way that I’ll admit that man and animals are the same. My Bible tells me that man alone is made in God’s image, and I believe it. Those who disagree with that fundamental principal invite genocide and even cannibalism. There’s no way mankind can surive as “animals”. It’s only as men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that we can prosper materially and spiritually. As animals, we have no hope. Those who would equate a man’s status with that of an animal would ultimately reduce man to the status of livestock and deprive him of even a pretense of Liberty.

      I won’t support those ends.

      Alfred Adask

       
  8. amo

    March 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM

    I am sending you Light for this process. We are all one and when you lose any freedom, so do I.

    Unbelievable, but consistent with today’s happenings.

     
  9. Craig Doss

    October 17, 2009 at 11:47 PM

    I have identified twenty additional food and drug laws of “Texas” and/or of the “United States” which may apply in the matter of Cause No. D-1-GV-07-001386 and which include the phrases “man or other animals” and/or “animals other than man”. I have identified similar “man or other animals” laws in four other “states”. I expect to find “man or other animals” food and drug laws in most or all of the 50 “states”.

    I have recently one thru the AZ legislature code and can find no reference to ‘man or other animals.’ Drugs are specifically listed and classed.

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/36/02501.htm&Title=36&DocType=ARS

    36-2501. Definitions

    If you have some other information, I would be love to hear about it.
    I am enjoying your blog.

    Regards
    Craig

     
    • adask

      October 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM

      Have you searched for “animals other than man”? We’ve already seen that phrase and it’s fundamentally synonymous with “man or other animals”. There may be other phrases and ways for gov-co to express the “man-is-an-animal” presumption.

       
  10. Craig

    October 26, 2009 at 9:54 PM

    Yeah I searched for it. It seems AZ uses ‘controlled substance’ followed by a list of all named controlled substances, along with the terms ‘narcotic drug’ and ‘dangerous drug’.

     
  11. Thomas

    January 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM

    CHAPTER 499 FLORIDA STATUES
    DRUG, COSMETIC, AND HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS (ss. 499.003)

    They use the term humans or other animals.

     
  12. Jethro

    February 26, 2011 at 11:17 AM

    TN’s definition of “Drug” uses the term “man or animal.” http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/12043/12a8e/12b61/12b90?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_39-17-402

    Does this throw a monkey wrench into your theory (as last as far as TN is concerned)?

     
    • Adask

      February 26, 2011 at 8:29 PM

      No–it’s not a monkey wrench. But it is a complication. I am surprised by this discovery. It’s news to me. And I’ll definitely spend some time considering and trying to understand.

      But. The point remains that in my particular case, the relevant laws (I think we found 23 of them) referred to “man or other animals”. In our case it’s absolutely true that they proceeded against us as “animals”.

      But in other cases and/or states, it appears that they might also define drugs so as to apply to “men” as “men”–not as “animals”.

      I’m surprised–but–grateful to learn more.

      Thanks.

       
  13. Jethro

    February 26, 2011 at 11:57 AM

    Now this is interesting — upon further research…

    The citation I provided above is from TN Title 39 (Criminal Offenses), Part 4 – DRUGS. This definition applies to “this part” and Title 53, Chapter 11, parts 3 and 4:

    T.C.A. 39-17-402
    (11) “Drug” means:

    (B) Substances intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal;
    (C) Substances, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animal; and

    Now go to TN Title 53 (Food, Drugs and Cosmetics) and we find nearly the identical definition — with one notable exception:

    http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/1e3f8/1e405/1e408/1e41e?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#

    T.C.A. 53-1-102
    (12) “Drug” means articles, not including devices or their components, parts or accessories, that are:

    (B) Intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in humans or _other_ animals;
    (C) Intended, other than food, to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or _other_ animals; and

    Title 53, Ch. 11 Parts 3 and 4 concerns “controlled drugs.”

    So, when concerning “illegal” drugs, TN makes a distinction between man and animal; but if concerning food/cosmetics/controlled drugs, it considers man another animal.

    Hmmm… any theories on this one?

     
  14. Adask

    February 26, 2011 at 8:23 PM

    Nope. No theories at this time. But it’s absolutely news to me. You’ve uncovered new evidence that I will consider and ponder because it’s important.

    Sometimes they consider us animals, sometimes they don’t. For criminal offenses the may consider us to be “men” since an element of INTENT must be present for a true crime. For civil offenses, they need only conduct to justify a suit and therefore an animal is capable of offensive conduct without intent.

    I’ll have to think about it. You’ve found something important. Thanks.

     
    • Jethro

      February 26, 2011 at 9:11 PM

      It would seem as though they would have to make up their minds — are we animals or men? (Is there a difference between “humans” and “men”? Or did they make a mistake writing the code?)

      Or maybe the rule is there are no rules – “in this state” they get to make it up as they go.

       
  15. Dan

    April 19, 2011 at 11:48 PM

    You make a very good point. I looked up “other” in an online law dictionary and it says:

    a. Being the remaining one of two or more
    b. Being the remaining ones of several

    If the law was meant to exclude man from being an animal it would simply say “man AND animals” and NOT “man and OTHER animals.”

    Good eye…good eye!

     
  16. Rimfire

    May 16, 2011 at 11:41 PM

    For your interest-

    From the New South Wales (Australia) POISONS AND THERAPEUTIC GOODS ACT 1966 SEC 4

    Definitions

    “Animal” means any animal (other than a human being), whether vertebrate or invertebrate, and includes but is not limited to:

    (a) mammals, birds, bees, reptiles, amphibians, fish, crustaceans and molluscs, and

    (b) the semen, ova or embryo of an animal (other than a human being) or any other substance or thing directly relevant to the reproduction of an animal (other than a human being).

    Now, please correct me if I’m reading this wrongly but it would seem to me that human beings are here classed as a different kind of animal. I have no doubt that this wording would be found in other Acts in other States here in Australia- I took your line of thinking regarding the drugs and medicines and went poking around in Australian law. Boom, there it is.

    This Act is linked to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) with Section 8 reading this way:

    8 Relationship with Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966

    Nothing in this Act affects any provision made by or under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 or renders unlawful anything done in accordance with any such provision.

    Given the similarities between British and Australian law I think this would indicate a high probability that similar wording will also be found in British law. I am going to continue poking around and see which other Acts etc the two mentioned relate to- will be interesting to see if they happen to link to any Mental Health Acts.

    Cheers, and thanks so much for the information. :)

     
  17. Adask

    May 17, 2011 at 2:23 AM

    If the “animal” presumption exists in countries other than the The USA, then the “animal” presumption must be fundamental to the New World Order. If we let that presumption stand, we really are headed for a “global plantation” wherein we are not even slaves, but rather “livestock”.
    That’s a very nice find.
    Thanks very much.
    It’s beginning to look as if the truth WILL out.

     
  18. joint venture agreement

    November 9, 2011 at 2:17 AM

    Wow, wonderful weblog format! How lengthy have you ever been running a blog for? you make running a blog glance easy. The full look of your site is magnificent, as well as the content material!

     
  19. mike

    January 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM

    s 114 d 24
    p 96 r 108
    e 30 u 126
    c 18 g 42
    i 54 w 138
    a 6 a 6
    t 120 r 108
    i 54 s 114
    o 90 _____
    n 84 666
    _____
    666

    g 42
    e 30
    n 84
    e 30
    t 120
    i 54
    c 18
    t 120
    r 108
    e 30
    e 30
    _______
    666

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,011 other followers