“Humanimal” from The Island of Dr. Moreau
If you’ve followed this blog for long, you probably know that I am fixated on the state and federal drugs laws that define the people to be “animals”. (See, “Man or Other Animals” and especially the Civil Suit I was involved in.)
I understand pretty clearly that gov-co’s attempts to define us as “animals” constitutes an act of treason, genocide, and especially spiritual warfare.
I also suspect that an all-upper-case name like “ALFRED N ADASK” identifies a person or perhaps a capacity other than that signified by the proper, capitalized name “Alfred Adask”.
So I was much surprised when someone sent me an email with a definition of “HUMAN BEING” that recognizes all lower or inferior people to be “animals” and “property” and signifies all such inferior people with an ALL-UPPER-CASE name like “ALFRED N ADASK”.
That particular definition is found on a website named “One-Evil.org” which appears to regard some or all of the Catholic Church as evil. I’m not here to recommend or disparage that website. I’m simply surprised by the definition of “HUMAN BEING” found on that website. The definition is well-written and appears to be the result of some man or institution of authority. It’s conceivable that the definition was originally drafted by some element of the Catholic Church, but I have no evidence to support that possibility.
I would very much like to know who/what drafted the following definition. Whoever drafted that definition strikes me as having an enormous amount of knowledge. However, I don’t know who/what drafted the definition, so I have no idea as to the definition’s legitimacy or authority.
Nevertheless, here it is (the bold highly are my addition):
“HUMAN BEING
“From Latin Humanus= “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man “. A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction –that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior “animal” man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century–to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as “humans” –therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.”
The original definition can be seen at: http://one-evil.org/glossary_legal_terms/glossary_h.htm
If any of you have the time, energy and inclination to analyze this definition, please let me know what you discover.
This is the second time that I’ve seen the word “human” or “human being” defined as an “animal”. The first time was in an early edition of Ballentine’s Law Dictionary. I don’t know what the “legal” definitions of “human” and “human being” may be, but I suggest you object to any attempt to describe yourself or your family as “human” and insist that you are a “man” or “woman” “made in God’s image”.
sem
August 7, 2012 at 8:43 AM
As I have no intention or desire to aurgue with the Word of Almighty GOD; I am steadfast in my appreciation of my own nature, as;
GOD “Formed” man from the dust of the ground (with His own Hands…mind you), that he may tend the Garden.
Also, please be mindful that the Catholic Church refused to acknowledge scientific evidence that their teaching of the rotation of the Earth and Sun were backward.
Indeed humans are animals (albeit) the highest form of animal in the earth; but, more than that,
humans are the only creatures in existence (from the amoeba to the Serraphim) that possess a “Soul”.
“A rose by any other name is still a rose.”
PeaceOut
Jerry Sparks
April 1, 2013 at 10:13 PM
@ >Indeed humans are animals.
So, You are saying you are an animal? If so, when “God” said that man is to have dominion over everything that is on the earth, this means you have dominion over yourself? I’m missing something &/or not understanding something here. Help me out,that is,unless I ask what I do that is not asked properly.
tubebuzzer
August 7, 2012 at 8:45 AM
All birth certificates in the US create a fictional ‘person’ who is defective, and a ward of the state, and property of the state – legally speaking. Identifying yourself as this person is completely voluntary.
The person on the birth certificate has a first and last name, not given and family name. Also the mother uses her maiden name on the birth certificate, not her married name, which results in bastard offspring.
The law of the land in the United States is Common Law, obey common law and create identification that demonstrates you are competent, and not a human being, bastard or property of the United States (the original wet ink signature birth certificate is property of the US Government).
Jethro
August 7, 2012 at 9:18 AM
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human+being
human being
2. a person, especially as distinguished from **other animals** or as representing the human species:
ummer
August 8, 2012 at 8:34 PM
Dictionary.reference.com isn’t really a dictionary. It’s just a reference.
Human
mid-15c., humain, humaigne, from O.Fr. humain, umain (adj.) “of or belonging to man” (12c.), from L. humanus “of man, human,” also “humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized,” probably related to homo (gen. hominis) “man,” and to humus “earth,” on notion of “earthly beings,” as opposed to the gods (cf. Heb. adam “man,” from adamah “ground”). Cognate with O.Lith. zmuo (acc. zmuni) “man, male person.”
You can recall that from the bible, Jesus tells them that “ye are gods” and they go to stone him. Here they have taken that and pushed it the other way.
Jethro
August 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM
If dictionary.reference.com is no good, then how about this definition of “human being” from the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition:
“a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from **other animals** by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”
Jerry Sparks
April 1, 2013 at 10:22 PM
Jethro, ET AL,
We have man & we have woman. What is the “need” for human unless it is something different than a man or woman? Inquiring minds want to know.OR, les fess up & admit we are all nothing more than just a bunch of ANIMALS !!!
David Merrill
August 7, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Have you tried on Alfred Norman?
Then when you need a legal or full name utilize the ADASK?
Sign:
Alfred Norman (scribbled) and if the other party (bank/treasury) insists add neatly printed; “dba ADASK, ALFRED N” or however it is exactly on the account.
When you already know you want to use (usufruct) the ADASK account you could sign properly,
Alfred Norman ADASK which is a redaction of Alfred Norman of the Adask family. That designates that you are a man using your property, Alfred Norman and the convention of legal name or full name by adding your family’s property – Adask. The convention of upper case is codification, designating the difference between the properties.
Here is an example:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/2051/nameconsulate.jpg
David Merrill
August 7, 2012 at 9:25 AM
This is a better example. John Ferguson was a prominent lawyer in town with connections and photos of himself with JFK, Richard NIXON etc. decorating his home office after he retired.
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/566/attornerjohnfergusonben.jpg
Leave it to somebody like that to know how to identify himself.
John Ferguson BENNETT, Esquire.
David Merrill
August 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM
I copied the wrong link. Here is a great example:
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5508/nameconsularoffices.jpg
Also, the Third Edition of Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines Human Being as Monster. That is to look to Monster in the same book and find that to be a deformed or retarded man, too much so to be allowed to reproduce for fear of regeneration of the flaws.
The next extension of this thinking would be caput lupinum (outlawry – Head of a Wolf) which was mitigated over time to Civil Death. Looking at a gravestone ALFRED NORMAN ADASK serves as a great confirmation of all theories – encryption = to put in a crypt. And the dead Alfred Norman has only the right of last will and testament.
Jim
August 8, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Check out the CIA fact book.
President Barack H. OBAMA (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. BIDEN (since 20 January 2009); note – the president is both the chief of state and head of government
head of government: President Barack H. OBAMA (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. BIDEN (since 20 January 2009)
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Thanks for that example Jim;
CIA is intelligence. Like my attorner example they understand proper encryption and decryption.
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8350/attorndefinitionsmall.jpg
Adask
August 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM
I prefer:
At arm’s length
s/ Alfred Adask
true name “Alfred Adask,” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”.
I can swear that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias. I don’t believe that’s true, but I guarantee that if I showed a drivers license to a jury and that license had my photo, my (proper) signature and the name “ALFRED N ADASK” on the top line everyone in that jury would say that my name was “ALFRED N ADASK”. Thus, I am “also known as” “ALFRED N ADASK” by other people.
Once I aver under oath that “ADASK” is merely an alias for my proper name “Adask,” there is no fiction (“ADASK”) to for me (“Adask”) to represent–unless the government wants to admit on the record that “ADASK” is an entity or capacity different from that of “Adask”–a man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
They’ll never make that admission on the record. Therefore, once I swear “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask” and introduce that claim into the record, they would seem to compelled to admit my sworn claim as unrefuted evidence.
The fact that I prefer this strategy doesn’t mean it’s right, or even if it is right, is the only way to skin this cat. It’s just the best strategy I’m able to understand at this time. If and when I understand a better strategy, I will adopt it.
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM
“It’s just the best strategy I’m able to understand at this time. If and when I understand a better strategy, I will adopt it.”
That is the Breakthrough right there! – That you are willing to adopt anything that makes more sense. In the order from lower to higher:
1) naphesh – soul like in a dog or tree; animal. any living thing.
2) ruach – breath; spirit – any spirit.
3) neshamah – the Spirit; the Holy Spirit of God.
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3232/breathoflifeneshmatchai.jpg
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6909/breathoflifeneshemahscr.jpg
Any cabalist who hears you are Christian will teach you that the Breath of Life is the Ruach of Life but if you look it is the Holy Spirit of Life – neshmat chaim. It is only your mind that is subject! Get it? If somebody teaches you something that is not true, then you become enslaved by ignorance.
The Masons keep the parables encrypted as they keep the Record for those who will see – for those who find the Keys to unravel parables. Just notice how the spirit led Paul into Jerusalem while the Spirit was warning him to stay away from Jerusalem. He ignored warnings from the Holy Spirit and followed his own guilty spirit; guilty about collecting taxation and watching Philip get stoned, holding people’s coats while they did it…
If you stare long enough you will understand a better way. What I am showing you is that Alfred Norman is your given or Christian name(s) and Adask is your family or surname.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_legal.jpg
It is right there. – In your post/response too. You identify yourself with the same spelling found on the birth certificate which is registered with the State. That registration does not own you but your using the registered name acknowledges a usufruct in place. That is not a bad thing but you are not taking charge of when it will be used and when it will not be used. Because you think it is you, your name, you are compelled to use it and to identify yourself with it. Look at the seal on the driver license.
Do you use that Great Seal of Authority? Or does the Alfred Adask find it a class 5 felony? Where did your sovereignty go? Where along the line did you become like an animal? Is it in how you identify yourself?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Adask
August 8, 2012 at 7:51 AM
Well, Davie, I really appreciate your patronizing remarks. Golly! I’ve made a “breakthrough”! If only you could be here to pat me on the head, then my sense of accomplishment would be almost perfect. Gee, who knows? Maybe some day I can grow up to be almost as smart as you–huh? Maybe even almost as condescending!
Wowie! My dreams are finally coming true!
But as a small correction for you to consider when you’re telling me what to do, you might want to know that “Adask” is not exactly my family name. My grandparents on my father’s side were name “Adaskevich”. My father was named “Adaskevich”. So far as I can tell, my mother was fooling around with my father out of wedlock and they conceived me. They were subsequently married, and four or five months later, I was born. My mother married my father because she had to. He was a good man, but he was older than she was and she didn’t want to be married to him and she despised his family name. Therefore, when I was born, my mother instructed the nurse to place the name “Adask” (rather than “Adaskevich”) on my birth certificate. To the best of my knowledge, I am the first living man who was named “Adask” at birth. Thus, while “Adask” is truly my “family name” it does not reflect any family that preceded me.
In fact, I may be the only living man whose last name is “Adask”.
That name is nearly unique and I don’t intend to abandon it for the convenience of anyone else’s theories or strategies–not even yours.
Therefore, my proper name is “Alfred Adask” if only because I SAY SO. Your presumptions to the contrary are false.
I will therefore thank you to stop referring to me as “Alfred Norman” you presumptive prick, you.
Further, I will advise you that the next time you refer to me as “Alfred Norman” and/or give me another dose of your condescending, patronizing crapola will be the last time you post another comment on this blog.
There’s no doubt that you’re an intelligent man, David. But you are not so intelligent as to be entitled to treat others with arrogance or contempt.
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Thank you for your candor and honesty. Is it not obvious that by being the only one in your family to alter the family name that you have wandered even further into error about identifying yourself?
Thank you for approving the post with the links to Black’s Fifth Edition for Name and Legal Name. That way even if you have chosen not to look into it, others can.
I apologize how correction can come off so arrogant.
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 2:32 AM
Here is a wonderful example.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?664-Public-officials-without-oaths-of-office&p=7645&viewfull=1#post7645
Because Charlotte has been pigeonholed a “sovereign citizen” she is she can be prosecuted from a vacant office of both the judge and the district attorney. The Tenth Circuit justices ignored her discovering that the DA had a vacant office on trial day. And more importantly, the US Supreme Court did too, AFTER it was discovered timely for presentation there. The Tenth justices were trying to say that Charlotte had to discover the flaw BEFORE she was presenting it as a reply brief!
That is bogus. Facts are facts. But the fact is that all convictions by the DA are now reversible so this is no small issue.
ummer
August 8, 2012 at 8:47 PM
David Miller… you a kabbalahist mason?
Randy
August 7, 2012 at 10:00 AM
What about “Homo Sapien”?
Adask
August 7, 2012 at 12:21 PM
“Homo Sapien” is part of a system of classification of animals. So far as I can see, “homo sapien” is an animal.
The real deal in my opinion is not just identifying yourself as a “man” (because the drug laws implicitly define “men” to be animals), but rather to identify yourself as a “man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.
sem
August 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM
But Al:
May we be reminded (in short) that GOD commanded Micheal to have all the Angels come and worship THE Image of GOD. Satan refused saying, “I was here before him, he should worship me.”
To say:
“THE Image” implies something made by hand from another substance in existence. An entity made on GOD’s “Image” would have the likeness of a Soul without a form. I can’t get past that logic.
Timmy
August 7, 2012 at 10:10 AM
@sem: A careful biblical study will show that men and women do not have a soul; it is not a thing. It is a state of being; an alive sentient man IS a soul in God’s view. Hence the ancient “how many souls on board? (a ship), etc. God breathed the breath of life (“spirit”) into the clay he had formed and Adam then became a living soul. Interestingly, corporations et al do not have the breath of life. To the extent they are granted “life” and “rights” is a large part of the problem.
sem
August 7, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Timmy:
May I introduce my definition of the term;
SOUL – An entity which is regarded as being the immortal or spiritual part of a person and though having no physical or material reality, is credited with the functions of thinking and willing and hence; determining all behaviour.
In regard to the artificial entity (“corporations, et al”) please reference Braswell v United States.
Also, consider the fact that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (the developement of the individual retraces the evolution [of his kind].)
Once the ‘Living Souls’ understand the effect and purpose of the Spirit, Soul, and Body I believe at that time ‘Living Souls’ will appreciate the essence of their nature.
PeaceOut
doug
August 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Thanks for saving me the time to clear that up re: sem’s ridiculous statements which only demonstrate someone who didn’t do ‘a careful biblical study’. The ‘word’ Nephish is used/translated as soul and is found in ’42′ book of biblical cannon. It is obvious to anyone who chooses to examine life, that the male or female body are not the total sum of ones self. So thanks for covering that. Also, as a biblical student I am not aware of any remnants of biblical scripture that record any such conversation re: ‘Micheal’ 1. (no such spelling in common texts) 2. Michael spelling is found but no such ‘story/incident’ is depicted. Can you clear this up for me, where you got the information about this proposed event from?
sem
August 7, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Michael is an ArchAngel (Cherube) as is Gabriel. Said task was assigned to Michael. I think diligence is a good place to start before jumping to conclsions.
PeaceOut
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 11:36 PM
This post from yesterday reveals where you are coming from in your comment about me Doug.
This filtered from the brain trust:
Intent David Merrill…
The signor ON THE FACE OF THE CHECK writes the words
Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411
No problem….there is always a way out
Sent from my LG phone
Yet there is another way to accomplish the same thing!
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg
Look closely how the “PAY to “the order of”…” is stricken through so that the check reads “Pay to….”
The reason this ordering is such a mystery to Alfred Adask is that it is not his name. He misidentifies himself to the world and the world is simply responding to his projection.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Adask
August 9, 2012 at 6:39 AM
One reason I have my purported problems with the name issue is that I’ve seen evidence in the Bible that one is subject to whoever gives you a name. Adam named all of the animals. God renamed Abram and later Jacob. When king Nebuchadnezzar “drafted” Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into his service, he renamed them Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. The principle seems fairly clear. The one who names you, owns you or at least has a claim on your services.
Who named God? No one. He started out as a God with no name (at least no name known to mankind). The Bible includes a couple of verses that refer to God “made a name for Himself”. It’s possible that the significance of those verses may be to show that God named Himself and is therefore subject no superior entity. He is certainly NOT named by man.
Then we come to the question of “Jesus”–adapted from the Greek Iesous–which is clearly not the Christ’s true name. Jesus is MAN’s name for the Christ. The English translation of the Christ’s true name might be “Immanuel” as per Isaiah 7:14 (“Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”) Thus, referring to the Christ as “Immanuel” may be part of the “sign” even to this day. But referring to the Christ as “Jesus” would not be part of that “sign”. According to Strong’s dictionary, the Christ’s true name under Isaiah 7:14 is: עמּנוּאל and is pronounced ” ‛immânû’êl ” and/or “im-maw-noo-ale’ “.
Does the Christ take offense if we call him “Jesus” rather than his true name in Hebrew? I can’t say. Perhaps the Christ is content to know that in our hearts, we mean him, even if we “mispronunciate” (as G.W. Bush would say) his name. But even so, wouldn’t it be better, more respectful, if we took to trouble to discover the actual name of the Christ before we engage in the equivalent of calling him “whatsizface”?
In any case, I infer that whenever Daniel used the name “Daniel,” he was not a servant to king Nebuchadnezzar. When Daniel used the name “Belteshazzar,” he was acting in the capacity of a servant or property of king Nebuchadnezzar.
I suspect that your name does not merely identify who you are, but also who you serve and perhaps even the laws to which you are subject. When the government asks for identification papers, I don’t think they are asking for YOUR “identity”–I think they may be primary asking for evidence of whichever system of law you “identify with”. I suspect that a name like “ALFRED N ADASK” may not identify me, so much as the system of law which I have “voluntarily” chosen to serve.
I suspect that we can all “choose this day” (and every day) who we will serve: God or mammon. I can’t prove it, but perhaps every time I make use of the name “ALFRED N ADASK,” I am presumed to have voluntarily “chosen” to serve mammon rather than God. If so, if might follow that every time I choose to use “Alfred” or “Alfred Adask,” I may have implicitly demonstrated my choice to serve God rather than mammon. This is conjecture. I’m not betting that these suspicions are true, but I’m considering the possibility.
My “Christian” name as per my baptism is “Alfred”. Is not “Alfred Norman”. If my previous analysis is roughly correct, when I use the name “Alfred” I am arguably acting as servant or perhaps even property of the God of the Bible.
The name “Adask” is MY family name, even though I have no ancestors with that last name. So far as I know, I can’t claim “Adask” to be part of my “Christian” name. Nevertheless, I choose to use it. I thereby name myself–at least in part–”Alfred Adask”.
But if I were to use the name “ALFRED N ADASK,” I might be subject to a completely different master/owner and a completely different system of law. It might even be arguable that whenever I use the name “Al” or someone calls me “Alfie” that–because I’m using something other than my exact “Christian” name–I may no longer be acting in a capacity subject to God’s laws or even entitled to His protection. Again, that’s pure conjecture. Interesting, perhaps, but not necessarily true.
It’s entirely possible that my analysis of the significance of “who names you” is flawed. But may analysis doesn’t need to be perfect to be effective in our courts. If the name issue is as significant as many of us suppose, if I were to claim under oath that my true name is (capitalized) “Mickey Mouse,” the government would presumably be forced to prove otherwise–on the record.
Therefore, if I insist under oath that my true name is “Alfred Adask” (and I have a document signed and sealed by a Dallas judge that agrees with that contention), who is going to stand up in court, take the witness stand and swear that my name is NOT “Alfred Adask”? How can anyone swear that my proper name is not “Alfred Adask” without also swearing to whatever my proper name really is? I don’t give a damn if the gov-co presumes my true name to be 123456789. Once I say under oath that my true name is “Alfred Adask,” the government dare not offer evidence of an alternative name on the record. If they do, they will openly admit that “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED N ADASK” signify two different persons. They don’t dare make that admission.
IF it’s true that the two names (“Adask” and “ADASK”) do identify two different entities and/or two different capacities, the system 1) depends on that dichotomy to subject people to its will; and 2) depends on the people never discovering that “trick”. IF that’s true, then it follows that once the issue is raised, the system itself becomes vulnerable. Thus, it appears likely that the system cannot dare to openly address the name issue.
More, once I swear to my name, I want to also swear to my nature: That I am a man made in God’s image (as per Genesis 1:26-28 as supported by my Freedom of Religion found in the 1st Amendment and at Article 1 Section 6 of The Constitution of The State of Texas) and that I am endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the Declaration of Independence, and the First & Ninth amendments) who is going to swear under oath that my testimony is false?
No one.
Is my particular formula perfect? Almost certainly not. But I don’t need to be perfect in our courts. I only need to be better than my adversary. IF I can properly and effectively raise the issues of my name and my nature on the record, I believe that my adversary may be pretty much screwed. Even if they know what a perfect name and nature formula may be, even if they know that my name/nature formula is flawed, they dare not reveal the perfect formula on the record. If they did, it would be all over the internet in hours.
Is my strategy perfect. Of course not. There’s not one person reading this blog that can’t arrested and jailed at any time–and that certainly includes me. But if they want to arrest me, I will endeavor to use my formula to regain my Liberty. In the process of holding me in the slammer, the courts will either have to overcome my defense by showing me the flaws in my formula (and I don’t mind doing time to learn that lesson) or the courts will have to ignore my defense and simply keep in locked up as an abuse of powers. But if they abuse their powers to keep me confined, they will have implicitly verified the strength of my formula.
And I don’t give a damn whether they demonstrate the flaws in my formula, or they demonstrate the strength of my formula. Either way, I win, they lose. I might now win my Liberty, but I will “win” some truth. For me, that’s good enough.
David Merrill
August 9, 2012 at 9:23 AM
There you have it. Your parents named you Alfred Norman and you have changed your name to Alfred Adask! Nebuchadnezzar captured minds that way. He even altered the alphabet and instituted upon release of the Babylonian Jews back into Israel the concept of written constitution – for the Laws of Moses. After the war over the rebuilding of Jerusalem you can find I am correct at Nehemiah chapter 10.
In Gerald GERTOUX’s book about how to pronounce the Name of God:
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6872/nameinagent.jpg
Ignoring the slurs on my spirituality of course, your posting makes my point quite eloquently. You butchered your own standing by changing your name. You pulled your own Nebuchadnezzar!
I am glad that you put that all at the beginning of you post! That saves me a lot of reading. I suppose my objective is to get you back to your normal routine as I find your blog most edifying and entertaining. You touched on something I know a lot about and have obviously spent a lot of my time researching from terrific source material. At a fundamental level though, you should consider appearances – about how much time and effort you are spending on insulting me.
Can you believe that you are actually requesting I tell you names of people who have paid me? Just for the privilege of posting on your blog? Do you not see who among us is arrogant?
What you perceive as arrogance and conceit is simply me knowing I am write about the facts that I have expounded on. Your name is Alfred Norman and you have changed it to Alfred Adask. A good book on my shelf is “Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law” by Joseph VINING. I will post links to some of it in a post I hope you will approve so that others can understand why I am so confident in saying that you, like most Americans degrade your own standing while misunderstanding that to the point you blame corrupt government for reflecting back your own corruption.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Yartap
August 8, 2012 at 10:26 PM
SEM,
Very good, I like your definition of Soul. If I may, I would like to ad to it.
“Behold, all souls are mine;…..: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Ezekiel 18:4 kjv.
I’m not sure if ownership or what can happen to that (soul) which is defined is proper for a definition?
Christian Gains
August 7, 2012 at 11:51 AM
I’m sure that you’re aware of the Christian (Prespatyrian?) Church doctrine of “The Curse of Ham”? The above definition that you supply, MIGHT have it’s roots in this “Curse of Ham” doctrine, by which “lesser/inferior” humans were delegated to the level of “animal” and “property”. I’ve not studied this subject intensely, but, I’d be surprised if these two doctrines are linked. Try googling “Curse of Ham”…BTW, I wrote a short Paper, explaining the Scriptural Genealogy of lineages, and that, due to the Hebrew tradition of always naming the Family lineage from Father, to eldest son, to next eldest, etc., the “curse” was upon Cannan, (Ham’s youngest), not Ham, Noah’s MIDDLE son.
Today we have an even MORE sinister development arising…TRANSHUMANISM…(Definition: “TRANS” = after; “HUMANISM” = human!)
This Doctrine is developing into a commercial Business…through the Sciences of Genetics (Modification), Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Nanotechnology, (sometimes termed as GRAIN or GRIN Tech). Soon we’ll have the “ENHANCED” UPPER CLASS, and the “NORMALS” under class…until, [mostly likely], the “super human/enhanced” will deem the “normals” as incidental, or even worthless…this is NOT a wild Sci-Fi Screen play…this IS D.A.R.P.A., at it’s cutting edge: “SUPER SOLDIER DOCTRINE”, gone commercial..at present, we have ten children, (who were genetically “enhanced” at embryo level of development), who are approaching teenage, with two female DNA strands, and one male DNA strand…FOR FURTHER ENLIGHTENMENT GO TO:
(www.RaidersNewsUpdate.com,) & search “TRANSHUMANISM” and peruse the Archives! It’s quite unsettling how FAR this Doctrine has developed!
.
doug
August 7, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Of course. If someone (s) can profit from whatever, many will take advantage of that in spite of the hurt or damage done. There is a movie that gives some insight leading back to Egypt called IMMORTAL that postulates a future society where transhumanism is the norm. Check it out.
sem
August 7, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Welcome back Christian:
Straight to the point, Genetic Modification of any organism should be termed “TRANSHUMANISM” simply by the nature of the Fluid of Life (blood). Indeed, it is not a, Wild Sci-Fi- Screenplay” and should be taken quite seriously:
Consider: The Preacher joked to the Congregation;
“…A man took it upon himself to challenge GOD, in that he could make a human being. GOD excepted the challenge and told the man to proceed; the man bent down and scooped-up a handful of dust. GOD interupted saying, “Wait a minute, first of all…you gonna have to find your own dust.”
In terms of Ham:
We know that the three races of man derived from Noah’s three sons. Ham was cursed for seeing his father naked. His offspring took the hit. Yet, isnt it written that the father shall not bare the sins of the son, nor the son those of the father. On the other hand, perhaps there is a difference between a ‘curse’ and a ‘sin’. Therefore, did not Jesus give up the ghost that man would be redeemed, and the event of Him “hanging from a tree” expunge all curses from the land (much like biblical ‘scapegoat’).
The Ku Klux Klan are known for taking Scripture out of context for the sake of victimization at will.
Is it not therefore incumbent upon us to do our deligence and dispell the myth(s) rather than attempt to propagate them?
Is it not written, “Know The Truth For The Truth Will Make You Free.”?
PeaceOut
doug
August 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Again sem. I’m not trying to be confrontational. I’m just debating what you say, not your intention since I have no idea what it is. Many many people quote that scripture but never quote the whole of it that actually tells the whole of the message in context of His message. Everybody always says the truth will set/make you free. Without the whole story including the preceding instructions (if you will) which are CONDITIONAL, those that do this are misrepresenting the message and instruction therein. In that, the first must be performed or the latter won’t happen. The scripture you are quoting from is from John 8:32. But it doesn’t say what you’ve said. John 8:32 from the Septuagint says “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Well when you study language, communication, etc. the ‘And’ is following and drawing a conclusion on something previously stated. That’s my point. What’s the previous information stated that this freedom is based upon. Well, all one has to do is READ with an added dose of ‘careful biblical study’. Here is the preceding text that gives the explanation of what is required to be made free with some explanations of my own having spent many hours just studying one single word from Genesis to Revelation for more insight. I’d call that care filled study. John 8:31. “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him.” (Here He is laying down the first requirement for this freedom, ie. to believe on Him. On Him? What does this mean? Could this allude to His teachings that He only stated, taught and carried out a lifestyle from what He heard from His Father? Could this have meant that believing ‘on’ Him meant to think and act like He acted according to the instructions He was receiving? I think so! As a matter of fact upon ‘careful study’ I know that this is so. This John 8:32 is addressed to a people who believe on Him. Next he says to these people who already believe on Him a CONDITION to get free. The Point I’m making here is that it wasn’t going to be enough to just believe on Him He uses the word IF. There are many statements and promises in the OT and NEW Testament given by The Creator that are conditionally based on performance like here in the context of the truth shall make you free. To further explain. John 8:31…”If you continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed”. These words “continue in My word’ indicate and truthfully indicate action. Not just thinking, and believing ‘on’ Him but acting like Him. Following His example. That’s what makes a disciple. A disciple is one who is taught by the Master and thinks and acts like the Master who teaches them. The word from John 8:32 ‘KNOW’ is translated into English from the Greek word ‘ginosko’ which only means to know from having done it, practiced it (a disciple), having learned about it, it’s meaning and reality from experience. Not mere hearing words about a truth. Becoming aware about a truth doesn’t make one free. That repeated sentence quoted from John 8:32 is taken out of context and is a stretch and misconstrues whole message given in the context. Peace
Mathew
August 7, 2012 at 9:48 PM
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”
In the course of what kind of events?
“…human events…”
Okay, got it.
sem
August 7, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Doug:
I acknowledge your petition and do not find it confrontational at all.
Please be wise in this; most of Scripture is actually written in plain language, yet, some of Scripture requires revelation (i.e., the Ethiopian needed help from the Disciple to understand what he was reading). Therefore, it is not an easy read.
However, in veiw of what you are ellaborating on, we should first understand that the Body of Christ is the Church; secondly, Christ is the Way, the ‘Truth’ and the Light; thirdly, the Hebrews did not believe ‘on’ him as they only believed (then and now) ‘on’ Moses Law and the Torah. Therefore, serving Notice to the non-believers that He was sent (by His Father) there to help them turn from their evil ways (as the Covenant was still in effect until AD 70).
Hence, He was explaining to the Hebrews that the only WAY they could be ‘Made’ free (from sin) was to not deny His presense and believe ‘On’ Him (body) for He Is the TRUTH (literally and figuratively) and the LIGHT/WORD (no matter what light shines through, when it gets to the other side it is as Pure as it was when it entered). We must be spotless to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Jesus Christ is the only Soveriegn availed to cleanse us of our sins, thus, making us spotless/’free’.
Further; every Man, Woman, and Child in the earth will “KNOW THE TRUTH” before the end. As surely as, “the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us.” (Emanuel).
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the ‘evidence of things not seen’. Where is your Faith?
PeaceOut
doug
August 8, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Hi Sem. I appreciate your openness, however you haven’t addressed the specifics I brought up. Of course I understand and practice ‘walking’ by faith. But ‘The Word’ tells us that our Creator, The Creator is the author and The Word is given to us for instruction in righteousness. ie how to think, believe and ACT rightly so as to be pleasing to Him=acting as Christ did/would/does. We are also instructed to Study the word so that what we think/act accomplishes that objective/purpose. If one mispeaks, mistranslates the accurate doctrine they will apply the accurate instruction wrong. The Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages are the main, most original sources from which ‘the bibles’ were translated from. These resources are available today to everyone which I have and have used to gain more understanding. I don’t claim or think in terms that I’m right on every biblical subject, however my experience in study has revealed to me that the english language translations though good, in many, many places miss the mark. Also, unlike these Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek language which are very very specific as to what is being said leaving no wiggle room or room for private interpretation, the English language translations many times can be interpreted many different ways. So, the specific subjects I brought up were addressing what you had said. My comments are based upon my diligent over 40 yrs of study. As I said, you failed to address any of my points. Faith/believing is to be evident in His Children but faith is to be proven/seen by ones works. Both faith and works must be involved in a true/real/living relationship with The Father and The Son or else He will say I never knew You. That’s why we are instructed/warned to ‘study to show yourself approved’ Peace
sem
August 8, 2012 at 8:37 PM
…or above. depending on what the program does.
sem
August 7, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The subject is “Human Being=Animal.”
My intention is to aurgue the evidence within the complaint, in order to state my case as to why I disagree with the subject/charge.
sem
August 8, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Doug:
Please see below.
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM
I am surprised about your reaction. You write as though you do not connect being treated as something other than a man identified in the image of God to have anything to do with how you identify yourself to the police officer.
In the above example Charlotte had a driver license registered in the artifice KEMPF, CHARLOTTE (she has no middle name). She signed the card “Charlotte” – her true name. She told the female motorcycle cop that she was named Charlotte. That the card was not being used to identify her as Charlotte Kempf or more accurately KEMPF, CHARLOTTE.
Typically the officer returns after ten minutes and gives the license back, no ticket, no warning! They were getting tired of having to comply with the law so they swapped out the witness at trial.
Another great example is the local castlebuilder. The clerk of court was very reluctant to establish his evidence repository.
Pay attention to the dates. I sent $250 filing fee and copy costs to Congress to oversee that correction.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_falsified.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_corrected.jpg
He still enjoys his right of way to build his artwork – Bishop Castle. Google it!
He does not become offended when a fellow suitor calls him James Roland instead of Jim Bishop. It is more like a secret handshake to him, identifying him as a man instead of a legal facade like you are talking about in the subject of this thread.
If you identify yourself to be an animal don’t blame me that you get confirmation. It is actually you, if you recall who told me your given or Christian name or names are Alfred Norman. Therefore that is how you identified yourself to me. Now you change that, simply because it is you saying so. Now you are Alfred Adask to me. This changes your character to nakriy, from nakar.
You are to me as you are to Israel – the Stranger and Foreigner. See Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and 23:20. You are now under the Seven Noachide Laws for the nakar. Delve into Strong’s. That is where that term comes from – the children of Noah, the pagans and idolaters. I would not have it that way Al. This is what you command of me to be able to post at all.
Regards,
David Merrill.
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4772/noachidelaw.pdf
Adask
August 8, 2012 at 2:24 PM
And who says I’m under the Noachide laws?
I have never knowingly identified myself as an “animals”. So far as I know, you are the only one who’s trying to tell me that you are prepared to view me as a goy because I use a name other than one approved by you.
My response is to you, David, is the same I would have to anyone in government who chooses to define me as an animal. Go screw yourself, and screw anyone you know including your parents and your children who would approve of you degrading me or anyone else to the status of animal.
Do you understand that degrading people to the status of animals is an act of Genocide? No? Visit GenocideWatch.org at http://genocidewatch.org/genocide/8stagesofgenocide.html. Read #3.
Did you know that before the Nazis started hauling Jews off to concentration camps, they first passed laws to declare the Jews to be “untermenschen” (sub-human; animals)? Once the Jews were defined to be animals/goy, they could all be exterminated–men, women and children–like a hive of wasps or a nest of rats.
And now, here you are–ohh, “Beloved Teacher of God”–attempting to subject me to the same fundamental principle of genocide as the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews. You sure are a holy man, Davie.
Arrogance such as yours was probably welcomed by Waffen SS. You might’ve been one helluva storm trooper. I’ll bet you would’ve fit right into Joseph Goebbles’ operation. Deutschland Deutschland, uber alles! hmm?
You could’ve been big in the death camps, Davie. You could’ve goosestepped around, showed your intellectual superiority (Nietsche comes to mind) and explained to the Jews that it was only right that they be exterminated because they didn’t sign their names properly. I’m sure that any rational person would agree that the penalty for improper signatures should be death.
I have a “Declaration of Independence” that says “All me are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. It is the high-water mark of the Protestant Reformation. It doesn’t fiddle fart around with Jewish niceties as to which men are animals and which are not. The Declaration applies to ALL men–equally. That declaration makes me a sovereign. More, that instrument is still part of The Organic Law of The United States of America. Finally, that instrument can’t be amended–and it necessarily implies that no man is an animal.
So now, we’re left to wonder which document–the Noachide Laws or the “Declaration of Independence” is of superior force in The United States of America?
We’re also left to wonder why anyone who espoused genocide should be listened to or respected?
When we started this little “discussion” I thought you were pretty sharp. But, so far, you are proving that opinion to be mistaken.
I can’t hardly believe that you’re stupid enough to espouse that I or anyone else should be subjected to genocide because we don’t sign our names properly. Ohh, “Beloved Teacher,” you might have the “right stuff” to “just follow orders,” but other than that, you be dumb.
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Simply put government is not intelligent enough to treat you like “animals”. You are doing that to yourself. Government is responding to your order.
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM
“So now, we’re left to wonder which document–the Noachide Laws or the “Declaration of Independence” is of superior force in The United States of America?”
The laws of nature and nature’s God is recognized to be Noahide in nature. Congress recognizes the Seven Noahide Laws too. Paul taught the Seven Noahide Laws in Asia Minor.
I do not think you are being very reasonable about this.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL_102-14_1.jpg
doug
August 8, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Hi Al. I joined in with a couple of responses to this topic yesterday and 1 today. I was wanting a reply to what I posted yesterday to Sem and David. As I was reading I noticed dialogue go back and forth between you and David. Thanks, I had a few chuckles from reading you witty, logical, on track, funny and logical statements. I would have written this directly to Him but the one I read had no reply button. Never the less, he is on the attack without proof. His manner of speech is more like a declaration to be accepted as valid, true, authentic while casting somewhat veiled aspersions at you. I realize that at times it is impossible to not get personal in some way when responding to ideas/knowledge/beliefs. I endeavor to keep dialogue kind and open because I don’t ‘do’ or enjoy to critique a man or woman that brings to the light their error. However I do like doing that with my own and others ideas and opinions so I can learn whatever there is if any to learn. I’m appreciative that you’ve put this venue for all of us. Anyway, I was moved to tell you. I can recognize pride, over inflated ego, condescension and I agree that I see that in David’s responses to you. There is/are no silver bullets in my personal courtroom experience and pleadings experiences. Attitude and ‘performance’ also can effect results. Peace to you Al.
Adask
August 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM
David Merril,
I suspect that the reason your “correction” seems so arrogant is that arrogance may be a cornerstone of your nature.
For example, you refer to your “correction,” but I didn’t see a “correction”–I saw an “opinion”. You seem to operate from the presumption that whatever you say, think or write is from the mind of the professor and directed to the student. You write as if everything you say is indubitably correct. Therefore, when you write to me, it’s not your personal opinion, it’s a “correction” that should be viewed as something akin to words from a prophet that must be accepted and embraced.
I don’t agree that you sent a “correction” because I have direct personal knowledge that the format I use for my name has worked to stop prosecution for TWO FELONIES. In A.D. 2002, I was arrested without warrant here on Texas and subsequently extradited to Missouri based on allegations of TWO FELONIES–each of which carried a potential 5 year term in prison. In theory, if I’d been found guilty, I might’ve spent 10 years in the slammer. In fact, if convicted, I would only spend 6 to 18 months in slammer.
The charges were based on fraud so I waived extradition. I assumed that once I explained, everything would work out in Missouri and I’d be quickly returned to Dallas.
However, when I waived extradition, I signed my name in the very same format that you disparage:
At arm’s length
s/ Alfred Adask
True name “Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”
I didn’t use that format because I was so smart. The third line was provided by the Dallas County Jail’s Extradition Officer. He didn’t know what he was doing, but I knew instantly that the line might be brilliant.
A judge signed the waiver. The court clerk affixed the court seal to that waiver.
The people in Missouri didn’t realize what the Waiver of Extradition said until after I actually arrived in Missouri. Then, we wound up in a Mexican standoff. They couldn’t proceed against and couldn’t figure a way to prosecute me. I didn’t have brains enough to know how to get out of the slammer. They held me without even a probably cause hearing for 344 days in a level 5 maximum-security county jail. In the end, they simply released me without being convicted of a crime, without being tried for a crime, without every giving me a probable cause hearing, and–so far as I know–without ever actually charging me with a crime.
I know of no explanation for this bizarre circumstances, except for the format I used to sign my name on the waiver of extradition. By using that formula, I destroyed any presumption that I was acting in fiduciary capacity for anyone or any thing. More, by alleged “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias for “Alfred Adask,” I threw the burden of proving (on the record) that “ADASK” is something other than “Adask” on to the prosecution. And my claims were all signed and sealed by a Dallas judge and agreed to by Missouri when their goon picked me up in Dallas and hauled me to Missouri.
If it weren’t for the form of signature I affixed to the waiver or extradition, I would be a convicted felon today. I could not legally own a firearm. I might still be required to piss on command into a cup.
However, because I qualified my signature as I’ve previously described, I am not a convicted felon and I can pee or not (to pee, or not to pee, that is the question?) whenever I choose.
Nevertheless, you (the professor) write to me (the idiot student) to tell me that you have a brilliant, irrefutable THEORY that can’t possibly miss on how to sign my name. You write to “correct” me because you’re so smart (and I, in consequence, am so dumb). Again, you’re “correction” could not possibly be a mere “opinion” because you’re so smart and I–again–am so abysmally dumb.
However, dummy that I am, I do have one FACT (not a mere THEORY) to rely on. I know–I have direct, personal knowledge–that, by virtue of using the signature format I’ve described, I was not convicted, tried, or even given a probable cause hearing for TWO alleged FELONIES.
Admittedly, my single experience with this signature format has worked just once. It proves nothing. It’s merely an interesting anecdote. But it is still a FACT.
So, before I can choose between my single FACT and your THEORY, I’d like to ask how many times has your THEORY stopped a prosecution for TWO FELONIES (or even one)? How many times has your THEORY stopped a prosecution after the defendant was already in jail?
I stand to be corrected, but I suspect that I may be the only man in this country who has (with the Grace of our Father YHWH ha Elohiym) stopped the prosecution of two felonies without an attorney and after being arrested and held in custody for about 10 days–with nothing more than a qualified signature.
Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps those using your recommendations on how to sign their names have defeated hundreds of criminal prosecutions. If so, please provide me with a list of their names so I can verify. If I can see FACTS that prove your formula works better than mine–or even works at all–I may switch to your formula or at least use it to modify my own.
But, so far as I know, you have THEORY and I have FACT. Unless you have FACTS to support your THEORY, you comments do not constitute a “correction,” they merely constitute and OPINION.
I understand that you are an intelligent, probably brilliant, individual. But you write without any humility. You write with an air of utter confidence that it sounds more like conceit. You write like a man who cannot imagine the possibility that he might ever be mistaken. Therefore your comments are (in your mind) “corrections” rather than mere “opinions”.
Your seeming conceit bugs the hell out of me. But that’s just me. Maybe that’s all just in my mind.
But over the years, I’ve seen one principle that seems to be true every time. You show me a litigant who is absolutely certain that his strategy is brilliant and infallible and I will you someone headed for the slammer. Anyone–including me and you–who claims to have perfect, irrefutable legal strategy is headed for a hard landing. Anyone who follows such “perfect gurus” is a fool.
To my mind, your seeming inability to write with humility marks you as a dangerous man. But I could be wrong.
I’ll have a better opinion when you present a list of those who’ve successfully employed your theory on names. I’ll be happy to see FACTS that show how your theory stopped parking tickets, seat belt violations or even running stop sign prosecutions. But I’d be most impressed if you could send a list of those who used your THEORIES to stop FELONIES.
Until you produce those facts, I’ll probably be forced to eschew you THEORIES in favor of my FACTS.
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM
While you were writing all that I provided you the Castlebuilder Example. Jim’s son did something and they arrested Jim on a $50K cash bond. So I wrote him out of the trouble in the federal court. Listen to this audio snippet. I record the sermon at church and during the Meet and Greet part captured this conversation:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImNTRiMDZkODYtYzlkNS00NGE4LTk2MmUtNGNmOWJkYWEyMzU3/edit
I regret that my example is an eccentric artist but there are dozens of other examples. What you have to consider is the Cover Up I am exposing you to currently in the US Supreme Court around Lottie identifying herself correctly. Most of the time the cop hands back the correctly signed driver license and flees the scene. They decided to press the issue and by trial day knew the muddle they had gotten into. Too bad Colorado Springs only had one female motorcycle cop at that time. They would have likely substituted out like that if they would have had a female alternate.
About my arrogance; people pay me. When they make the breakthrough you are now confronted with, they thank me; usually by paying me even more. My name in biblical Hebrew literally means Beloved Teacher of God – David Mara El. However I apologize for coming on your turf here and correcting you in front of everybody.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Adask
August 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM
I can’t say I’m surprised by your name (“Beloved Teacher of God”). As I wrote earlier, you write as if you were giving us prophecy rather than mere information or opinion.
However, your name “Beloved Teacher of God”) is a little ambiguous. Does that mean you are one of the teachers sent from God or does it mean you are one of the geniuses who teach God?
I make my opinions available for free–but perhaps that’s all they’re worth.
You, on the other hand, are paid for your opinions and whenever’s there’s a breakthrough, paid even more. Congrats.
But, I’m curious: What’s the going rate for a “Beloved Teacher of God”? How much does God authorize you to charge? Is God your agent? Does he take a flat 10% off the top or only off the net?
I suppose that, technically, the Christ and each of his apostles might also be construed as a “Beloved Teacher of God”. What do you suppose the Christ charged the audience for his Sermon on the Mount? I’ll bet he made a mint off that one, huh?
How ’bout Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? I’ll bet the residuals alone on their books and speeches should’ve allowed them to retire to a nice little villa on the Cote d’Azur, hmm?
Do you hope to emulate their financial success?
Where do you get the information that you sell? Do you get it from God? Does God guide you to the truth and help you to discern between His truth and the world’s lies? Or do you find your truth all by yourself? Do you believe that “that which is freely received should also be freely given”?
OK–you “wrote” Jim out of trouble on a $50K cash bond. (That wouldn’t have worked in my case in Missouri–there was no bond for me at any price until the very last day when they offered me a personal recognizance bond and refused to take it.) What was Jim’s alleged offense? When you “wrote him out of trouble,” was your only strategy to correct the way he signed his name? Or did you use other “writing” to extricate him? If you used other writing, that may point to your expertise, but what does it have to do with the name format we’ve been discussing?
As for Lottie–is her case actually in the Supreme Court? Are they definitely going to hear it? Or is the case merely at the Supreme Court and waiting to see if the lower court’s ruling will be affirmed without further consideration?
I’m fascinated that you don’t deny being arrogant, but instead apparently justify that arrogance with the fact that you are “paid”. I think arrogance is always wrong, but I can understand that you might develop a kind of “arrogance” if you were infallible at finding and communicating the truth. But I can’t see how any arrogance can be justified by merely being “paid”. In fact, your apparent line of defense (being paid justifies arrogance) makes me wonder if you’re more interested in finding and communicating truth, or finding and spending money.
If I recall correctly, according to the Bible the love of money is a no-no. What do you love truth, “Beloved”? Truth or cash? God or mammon? Choose this day, hmm?
As for being “corrected in front of all my readers”–I don’t mind a bit. In fact, I routinely invite my readers to correct any of my errors that they may see. I’ve done the same thing on my radio shows. If I’m wrong–and I surely am from time to time–I’m the first one who wants to know about it. The sooner I can correct my legitimate errors, the better off I’ll be.
I pray regularly to the Good LORD for “correction”.
This isn’t a new attitude for me. I used to publish a magazine called the “AntiShyster”. The great thing about that magazine was the number of letters and articles I received from my readers. My readers were critical to increasing my own level of knowledge. They corrected me on a regular basis. I accepted their correction gladly and I grew in understanding.
The very same process takes place on this blog. This blog isn’t merely a means for me to (hopefully) educate others. It’s a means for others to try to educate me.
Therefore, my objection is not to your “correcting me in front of all my readers”. My objection is to you characterizing your opinions as corrections. If you want to correct me, please do so. But if you want to come here with the conceit that you’re offering infallible corrections rather than fallible opinions, then I shall have to correct you.
Nothing–not even brown paper bags filled with hundred-dollar bills–works 100% of the time in our courts. The best strategies routinely fail. The worst strategies sometimes succeed. If there were strategies that always worked, there’d be lawyers who never lose. There are no such lawyers.
The most anyone can hope for is to learn enough about the law to increase the probability that they might win in court.
But people are afraid and without confidence and can’t usually accept the uncertainty and unpredictability of a courtroom battle. Therefore, those frightened people seek out and pay those “guru’s” who exhibit enormous confidence–even arrogance–and insist that their strategies always win and can’t possibly lose.
There are no such strategies. Nothing works 100% of the time. But the people pay–sometimes big time–for the false confidence that a particularly arrogant guru can inspire.
Of course, if the guru’s strategy doesn’t work in court, the guru will routinely claim it was because the judge or prosecutor was corrupt. But it’s never because the strategy failed. It’s never because the arrogant guru was actually a liar or a fool.
I am absolutely in a position where I could use false confidence to sell some of my “strategies”. I could probably make a pretty good buck doing so. All I’d have to do is tell people how great I am; how infallible I am. I’d be lying, of course. But who cares if I made a lot of money, right?
But I don’t sell false confidence. In fact, I routinely disparage or cast doubt on strategies that I regard as very strong. I leave it up to the reader to make up his own mind if wants use one of the strategies I’ve presented or not. I refuse to aid in the decision by trading on any confidence that reader might place in me.
One reason I don’t sell strategies is that the sales can tie me down intellectually. If I sold a strategy as “perfect,” two years ago, that strategy couldn’t easily evolve. Once you start selling some strategy–especially if you sell it as “perfect”–you can’t change it without admitting that it wasn’t “perfect” (as previously alleged) and therefore also admit that your own arrogance (two years ago) was unjustified and you were a liar or a fool. Once I started selling a “perfect” strategy, I might spend most of my time defending that strategy (if it was a money-maker).
It’s a lot easier to just make my strategies available for free and include a warning that they are probably imperfect. If people want to use my strategies, fine. If they don’t, that’s OK, too. But they’ll have to decide whether to use or avoid my strategies based strictly on their ability to understand and value my hypothetical strategies. They will not find false comfort in my feigned confidence or arrogance. Nor will I be tempted to “over-sell” my strategies with false confidence (lies) in order to make a fast buck.
You, David, appear to operate from a different perspective. You claim to offer “corrections” when you only offer opinions. You seem to present your ideas as foolproof when anyone with any experience knows that nothing works 100% in law or equity. And you justify your arrogance with the fact that some people are either sufficiently wise and discerning to pay you–but how many of those who pay you are merely sufficiently ignorant to do so?
David, you are beginning to sound as much like a money-grubbing guru as a “Beloved Teacher”.
If I recall correctly, in the last few years we saw the acronym “WWJD?” to signify “What Would Jesus Do?” Do you subscribe to that question? Or are you more comfortable with “WWJC?”–”What Would Jesus Charge?”
ummer
August 8, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Your next article: “Who is David Miller”
Johnny
August 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Years ago I was handed a ticket (citation) for speeding and since I had just learned about this “NAME” stuff figured I would try it as a defense. I filed an Affidavit of Truth into the case that basically said I wasn’t the FIRST M LAST entity being charged with the violation and signed it “First Middle” (true name). Well, day of the hearing came, my case was dismissed with “lack of prosecution” as was every other appealer that day. Seems like they shuttled us “know too much” types into a special hearing.
Since then I’ve used this defense whenever I’m stopped roadside and it has worked everytime except for once in another state where I agreed to something I should not have (a hearing).
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 5:54 PM
It sounds as though being aware of your identity is profitable.
Read Paragraph 22.
http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/briefs/20080115.aeb.htm
Yartap
August 8, 2012 at 8:47 PM
Well, I have found one more code section about capital letters. It’s just like the UCC 1-201 definition of the term / word, “Conspicuous”. Found in the Florida code. I have not found any court cases with meaning upon the subject of Capitalization. The cases that I have found when the defendant brought up the point of capitalization of one’s name, the courts basically said, “What in the hell are you talking about?”
From the definition that Al submitted to us, I would not doubt that back in the early days of Rome slave names were capitalized. But, we have not seen proof like our census records which show slave names (most reports do not show a slave’s name, just the owner; but few do show the slave’s first name) in upper and lower letters. So, no evidence of the practice here. But, it is claimed that it was a practice of all capital letters was used by the Vatican’s slave trade and it is claimed that the Vatican owns the U.S.A. So, the quest continues.
I went through the site that supplied the definition of Human Being and came across the history of the slave trade by the Vatican, it said that the Vatican denounced the slave trade back in 1917. That’s an interesting year. And I came across their definition of “Common Law,” which said that the common law was used wrong and that it is really based on and created from Admiralty Law. Wait a minute! What?
But, does the capitalization of all letters in a name create the status of anything, today? So far, I cannot believe so; but I do believe the fiduciary relationship exist due to the benefits, documents and voluntary agreements we make.
David Merrill
August 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM
And I came across their definition of “Common Law,” which said that the common law was used wrong and that it is really based on and created from Admiralty Law. Wait a minute! What?
Watch this from the beginning; I marked that spot for Al.
The admiralty counterclaim that saved Jim’s castle is called a Libel of Review.
Yartap
August 9, 2012 at 4:06 AM
Hi David,
Very interesting. So, England converted all its courts to Admiralty in 1890. Another interesting year.
My point was about the web site’s definition by implication that ALL Common Law came from Admiralty.
As I understand Common Law, it is based upon judicial case rulings and common traditions. If this is so, then I can understand “some” of the Common Law coming from Admiralty; but not ALL of it or even most of it coming Admiralty. I would think and guess that most started from the intended nature of Royal or ruler dictates upon the lands.
Al said that the site had a anti-Vatican slant and bias. So, I was implying and showing that the bias might be true due to the site’s illogical definition of “Common Law.” With that definition in question – Might we question its definition of “Human Being?”
Adask
August 9, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Davie, Davie, Davie . . .
Whatchu “Beloved Teachers” be smokin’?
You wrote in one of your recent comments that,
“Simply put government is not intelligent enough to treat you like “animals”. You are doing that to yourself. Government is responding to your order.”
You be dumb, white boy.
There is no freakin’ way that the American people have knowingly degraded themselves to the status of animals. They have suffered that degradation due to their complacency, ignorance and unwarranted trust in a government bent on treason, but they have never intentionally “ordered” that they be degraded to the status of animals. Your claim to the contrary is absurd.
Similarly, your claim that “Simply put government is not intelligent enough to treat you like “animals” is so freakin’ bizarre, I begin to wonder if you’re a government plant.
The first instance I’ve found that the government defined people to be animals (and therefore something other than men made in Gods image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights) was the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. As I’ve explained elsewhere, that same degradation is seen in the Texas and federal definitions of drugs and medical devices. This is no small thing, it’s been going on for over a century, and it’s been achieved with nothing more than a sophisticated use of language and a dumbed-down population. The War on Drugs, much of the police state, the prison-industrial complex, the billions of dollars in profits made by big pharmaceutical firms, and American medicine are all based on and dependent upon the phrase “man or other animals”.
And you claim that the government is “not intelligent enough to treat [us] like ‘animals’”? Admittedly, the average drone working for gov-co is not too bright, but neither are most other Americans. However, at the upper echelons of government, the laws are devised by men whose intelligence is so great as to be almost diabolical.
You claim that government is “not intelligent enough to treat us like animals” but you imply that government is still intelligent enough to follow our unstated “orders” to treat us like animals. If you can’t see the contradiction in what you’re saying, you don’t belong on this blog. On the one hand, you claim the government is super-dumb, on the other you claim they’re super-smart.
Is that an example of the logic they taught you in the “Beloved Teachers Academy”?
If you’re going to continue to post such idiocy, either you must voluntarily leave this blog or I will cause you to be ejected.
In another of your comments, you write:
“So now, we’re left to wonder which document–the Noahide Laws or the “Declaration of Independence” is of superior force in The United States of America?”
The laws of nature and nature’s God is recognized to be Noahide in nature. Congress recognizes the Seven Noahide Laws too. Paul taught the Seven Noahide Laws in Asia Minor.
I do not think you are being very reasonable about this.
The Noahide laws may be part of the laws of nature and nature’s God, but they are not all of the laws. More, there were subsequent “laws” such as the New Testament that may have amended or refuted parts of the Noahide Laws.
Further, as I’ve explained previously, when you used the Noahide laws to justify your contention that by virtue of my signature I could be treated as an “animal,” you perpetrated and implicitly supported an act of genocide of the same sort perpetrated against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Your support of genocide is appalling, but here you come with another line of defense to somehow justify your idiocy. You imply that your argument is OK because the Noahide Laws support your argument.
Maybe so. I haven’t studied the Noahide laws, so I can’t say. But I can’t believe that laws of nature and nature’s God would allow a man to be degraded to the status of an animal simply because he failed to sign his name properly. How did Adam or Eve sign their names? How ‘bout Abraham? How’d he sign his name? Should they be relegated to the status of animals subject to extermination because they didn’t know how to sign their names? What about children? Can we kill ‘em all—at least until they learn how to sign their names?
Is you claim of reliance on the Noahide Laws based on an actual reading to the LAWS themselves? Or is your claim based on some slick interpretation of those laws by some Rabbi, Pharisee or Sadducee? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’ll bet your reliance was not on the actual text of the Noahide Laws, but on an interpretation of those laws provided by some silver-tongued shyster of years gone by.
Finally, let’s suppose your signature theory were seemingly justified by one part of the Noahide Laws. And let’s suppose that violations of your signature theory could reduce a man to the status of an animal. And let’s suppose that as an “animal,” a person would be nothing but an object of property and have no more defense against murder and genocide than a chicken in a Tyson Poultry processing plant. Then, answer me this: How does this chain of logic square up with the Second of the Noahide Laws that prohibits MURDER?!!!
C’mon, “Beloved Teacher”—show me how the Noahide Laws—which expressly prohibit MURDER—can nevertheless be used to argue that man who fails to properly sign his can (under God’s law) be justly degraded to the status of “animal” and thereby subjected to GENOCIDE ?
Don’t skate around the question. Answer it. Give me an answer that doesn’t admit you’re a moron, or be gone from this blog.
And here’s a little homework for you, “Beloved Teacher”. Read Genesis 9:6. It explains that the reason you can kill cows and pig and sheep and chickens—but you can’t kill men—is because man and man alone is made in God’s image. Thus, whenever anyone—including you—advocates a means to degrade man from the status of one “made in God’s image” to that animal subject that man to being murdered.
Ohh, “Beloved Teacher of God” isn’t it true that somewhere in the Bible it says “Thou shalt not kill” (or “murder”)? And yet, here you are “Beloved Teacher,” advocating and defending an interpretation of the Noahide laws that allows for murder under the guise of first degrading a man to the status of “animal”.
How long do you expect to remain “beloved” while you advocate a philosophy that justifies murder and genocide? Don’t you suppose that God might not put with your crap forever?
I seem to see you more clearly with each of your comments. You’re obviously intelligent, possibly brilliant. But you’re not really in intellectual. You have a great capacity to use ideas, but you show no passion for the truth—only for your personal expertise. Your arrogance and superior ability to use and manipulate ideas appears motivated by your vanity rather than a search for truth.
You are the guy who sees himself as a “Beloved Teacher of God,” but nevertheless extolls your own “arrogance” (which God hates).
You’ve justified your arrogance with the fact that people pay you for your work. That’s very close to saying you’re motivated by the “love of money” (which God hates). It also suggests that you are more interested in the opinions of men than in serving God.
You justify your payments with “intellectual copyrights” on your works and imply that you are an “intellectual,”’ but I would disagree. I define “intellectuals” as those who have a passion for ideas and truth. Your primary passion seems more akin to “copyrights” and payments.
Finally, you advocate a formula for using names that ultimately justifies genocide (mass murder) of all those who out of innocence and ignorance fail to merely sign their names as you propose.
So far, you haven’t admitted that any of this might be wrong.
Your vanity (which God also hates) seems unbounded.
I am beginning to suspect that there is something wrong with you, David. I’m beginning to suspect, “Beloved,” that you may be spiritually defective.
David Merrill
August 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM
I have redacted many of VINING’s links to one document:
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9640/legalidentityvining.pdf
By changing your name, you have affected your standing.
sem
August 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Al, David, Yartap:
Your argument is deep, relative and touches on the very “Fundamentals” of existing Law; if we consider the above video in conjunction with Al’s posts concerning Notice Pleading, and the corresponding research from Yartap, it is not difficult to conclude that, perhaps, we are all saying the same thing using different words.
Consider:
The American Constitution is the “supreme law of the land”, recalling the manner in which Magna Carta had come to be regarded as fundamental law. This heritage is quite apparent. In comparing Magna Carta with the Bill of Rights: the Fifth Amendment guarantees: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” In addition, the United States Constitution included a similar writ in the Suspension Clause, article 1, section 9: “The privilege of the writ habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Each of these proclaim no man may be imprisoned or detained without proof that they did wrong. The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The framers of the United States Constitution wished to ensure that rights they already held, such as those provided by Magna Carta, were not lost unless explicitly curtailed in the new United States Constitution.[79][80]
The United States Supreme Court has explicitly referenced Lord Coke’s analysis of Magna Carta as an antecedent of the Sixth Amendment’s right to a speedy trial.[81]
Is it possible, therefore, that we may “Lay Down Our Sword and Shield” and realize that we MAY be allies in the saame war.
PeaceOut
PS Very interesting video David
David Merrill
August 9, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Bingo!
I have also posted a link to VINING’s book Legal Identity to help explain the effects of changing one’s name. I have obviously touched on a nerve with Al here. Let’s try getting to the bottom of that:
“Your argument is deep, relative and touches on the very “Fundamentals” of existing Law; if we consider the above video in conjunction with Al’s posts concerning Notice Pleading, and the corresponding research from Yartap, it is not difficult to conclude that, perhaps, we are all saying the same thing using different words.”
While I find it interesting enough to post Al is obviously vested in this by a year of pondering in a high security jail facility. Al is not a flaming hemorrhoid typically. As far as “friends” go, being that Al and I were jurors at the American Grand Jury together in Wichita 6/4/95 I am likely one of the oldest friends he knows! Support that with several hours of phone conversations and that we still talk here on this blog…
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Let_Freedom_Ring.jpg
There is plenty of evidence that a superior municipal authority exists than all the citations in your post Sem. Start with finding only one delegate signing ratification on the Constitution for New York. At first glance that looks like a flaw and has gone ignored until Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire felt that it exposed “contempt for the Constitution”. To understand why the ratification had to be flawed you must read “The Freedoms and Exemptions Granted to Patroons” of 1629. Mainly chapter VI – perpetual inheritance.
There exists a perpetual inheritance in America through the heritage of the Levites.
Regards,
David Merrill.
sem
August 9, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Interesting (overall) chronology David:
Jim Sinclair wrote, “My father fired me fifteen times from his firm.”
As Jesus said, “A scribe unto Scripture is like unto a householder, bringing forth from his treasures things old and new.”
PeaceOut
sem
August 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM
Also:
…Perhaps the most famous clause of Magna Carta states:
No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free
Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him,
nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.[1]
This is sometimes called the “law of the land clause”.
sem
August 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Also:
To beat the 12(b)(6) motion, plaintiff must show facts that would prove his “title” to the (equitable?) relief against the defendant fiduciaries.
But there is one other point: If the 12(b)(6) is all about equitable relief, what happens if the plaintiff not only makes a claim under equity, but also alleges a “legal” or “perfect” title AT LAW? Maybe they can dismiss your equitable claim no matter what you say. But if you can create a claim AT COMMON LAW or perhaps IN ADMIRALTY, can 12(b)(6) even be considered?
That’s a very good point.
Create claims both in equity (in this state?) and AT LAW (“within The State”?)
move
August 11, 2012 at 9:23 AM
In “this state” of FLORIDA , the statutes use the words “HUMANS OR OTHER ANIMALS.” FS 499 ,they deem the people in FLORIDA – ANIMALS OR OTHER AMIMALS ,or MONSTERS .Certainly not Living Men or Women. May the lord bless you and keep you safe ,Adask .You are very wise ,thank you for your many insights.
Adask
August 11, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Thanks for providing some evidence that the “man or other animals” observation is valid. Thanks for your compliments. Especially, thanks for your prayer. That’s something really need and appreciate.
sem
August 12, 2012 at 2:35 AM
Create claims both in equity (in this state?) and AT LAW (“within The State”?)
Rog
August 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM
I’ve been looking into this stuff for quite awhile now. I still can’t figure it out. I’ll be damned if I can figure it out. At first I thought I might just be stupid, you know, a “moran.” But, of late, I don’t think so. Probably not. More likely, I’m being deceived. Now, I’m one of those nuts that believes it is better to trust people than not. At least until they show me otherwise. Really, can you go through life not trusting anyone? I don’t know about you but I don’t want to live that way.
So what to do about people who deceive?
You know, I have never been one for games, not even Monopoly or Clue. I just don’t care for them. Nothing against those who do like that sort of thing, but I have no desire to one-up the other guy. I find that a bit childish. You know, “my dad’s stronger than yours.” Or, “I’m better at this or that than you.” Yawn. I don’t even buy into the “It’s a good mental workout” excuse. So, if you practice to deceive me, it is you who has transgressed. If you insist on playing games with me you will be met with a decided lack of interest on my part.
I’m 56 years old and I have never been to court so I have no idea if any of the things being discussed here work or not. I do know that if I ever do have to go to court that I am entering a den of vipers, a snake pit, a party of lies and deceit, an obfuscation fest, if you will. What’s a guy like me to do? My first reaction would be that of any red blooded male-break out the shotgun and blast away! However, that is looked down upon in polite society. So what to do?
I really don’t know. If you’re really good at deception I probably won’t even know I’m being deceived. That’s the situation most American find themselves in. We just don’t know because we don’t see the world that way. Criminally naive you say? Deer-in-the-headlights victims? Child-like fools? I don’t think so. I suspect Al is correct, the best we can do is cling to our understanding of our place in creation-that of a man or woman created in the image of God with certain unalienable rights. Anything else is playing their game, and you know what I think about games.
Rog
August 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot. The hierarchy is: God created Man, Man created government, government created corporations, legal fictions, strawmen etc. The question is: can the created be superior to the creator? Just a thought.
Yartap
August 11, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Hi Rog,
I like your hierarchy. It makes perfect logical sense to me.
Your question: Can the created be superior to the Creator?
My answer: No one or no thing is superior to God. He is sovereign. Now, with regard to the others in your hierarchy, the man created government rules improperly over its creator, man.
I believe this is caused when men surrender “some” of their sovereignty for the creation of a government. Collective sovereigns become a republican democracy. But, for this to happen, doctrines like “everyone should have the Right to vote” is incouriaged as fair and freedom. A sovereign’s wards will always out vote the sovereign. Then another false doctrine enters: in the name of protecting the masses, the masses “just have to give up a little more” of their unalienable Rights as they are lead to believe.
Remember: “The Sovereign votes from God-given Authority – the “weak” vote from Fear.”
Mathew
August 11, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Some good points in your two posts, but this is a bit of a false dichotomy:
“Now, I’m one of those nuts that believes it is better to trust people than not. At least until they show me otherwise. Really, can you go through life not trusting anyone?”
Trust but verify, as Ronald Reagan used to say. Of course, one often has no other option than to trust certain people at certain times, but this does not mean trusting them gratuitously or without closer inspection when the opportunity presents itself. A blanket rule of trusting people until they show you otherwise is how entire nations go down the tubes, because the cleverer type of serpent has the ability to falsify its motives to the naive observer.
sem
August 12, 2012 at 2:23 AM
By definition inalienable rights are non transferrable:
World English Dictionary
inalienable (ɪnˈeɪljənəb ə l)
— adj
not able to be transferred to another; not alienable: the inalienable rights of the citizen.
Also, GOD Created government, (i.e. The Children of Israel).
Wherefore, I’m inclined to agree with the ‘False Dichotomy’ statement.
PeaceOut
Adask
August 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM
I might have an old, wrecked car. I might not be able to transfer ownership of that car to someone else. But that doesn’t mean that I couldn’t still abandon the car and thereby simply eliminate my right (and responsibility) relative to that old wreck.
Similarly, the fact that I can’t “transfer” my inalienable rights to someone else doesn’t prove that I can’t still “waive” those rights and essentially abandon them–if only temporarily.
Can I TRANSFER my “unalienable Right to Life” to you or anyone else? Can I give my LIFE to you? To one of my kids? I can’t see how. But I could still choose to SEEMING “waive” my “unalienable Right to Life” by allowing someone else to kill me or perhaps by signing a “living will” that specifies that under certain circumstances, I want no heroic measures made by doctors to preserve my life.
In fact, I can’t waive my unalienable Rights and the correlative duties. God gave me the “unalienable Right” to Life. I don’t believe I can legitimately waive that right. Insofar as God have me the “right to Life,” he also gave the DUTY to survive. I see “self-defense” as both a right and duty. I cannot “waive” my God-given, unalienable Right to Life.
However, I can waive whatever “inalienable rights” I have that were not given me by God. I might not be able to “transfer” my inalienable rights to anyone else, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t choose (or be presumed to have chosen) to act in a capacity where I make no claim on those “inalienable” rights.
I don’t see the “transfer” of rights from me to someone else to be equivalent to my “waving” of rights without transferring them to a 3rd party.
sem
August 13, 2012 at 8:50 AM
To transfer one’s Un-alienable Rights is tantamount to Selling one’s Soul; whereas, to transfer one’s IN-alienable Rights is tantamount to Selling-Out. It seems?!?
PeaceOut
palani
August 12, 2012 at 7:04 AM
In all of the founding documents and many state constitutions “inalienable” started out as “unalienable”. There had to be a reason to make the change. The original “un-” prefix is interpreted as “cannot” while the newer “in-” prefix is interpreted as “should not”. For those who reason that this small change is not significant consider the difference between unflammable and inflammable. Now imagine yourself rushing into your neighbors garage which is on fire and being faced with two containers, contents unknown, but one marked unflammable and the other marked inflammable. Which are you going to use?
sem
August 12, 2012 at 8:18 AM
World English Dictionary
unalienable (ʌnˈeɪljənəb ə l)
— adj
law a variant of inalienable
Matching Quote
“Nothing … is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Example Sentences
Liberty may well be an unalienable right, but it is hardly ever a sure thing.
We were all born with the right to defend our lives and that unalienable right is already protected in the second amendment.
Our unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Let’s not ‘split-hairs’. Keep It Simple!
PeaceOut
PS Please DO NOT approach a fire without a FIRE EXSTINGUISHER!
palani
August 12, 2012 at 8:25 AM
DICTIONary. You go to them to determine how a word sounds when spoken. Occasionally they might contain other words that suggests a context in which to use them but no one has produced a DEFINITIONary to my knowledge.
sem
August 12, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Also:
var·i·ant
[vair-ee-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
tending to change or alter; exhibiting variety or diversity; varying: variant shades of color.
2.
not agreeing or conforming; differing, especially from something of the same general kind.
3.
not definitive, as a version of part of a text; different; alternative: a variant reading.
4.
not universally accepted.
noun
5.
a person or thing that varies.
6.
a different spelling, pronunciation, or form of the same word: “Vehemency” is a variant of “vehemence.”
bandit
August 30, 2012 at 6:36 AM
if one views the religious connotations of law passed on by Noah and the likes, YHWH, being all capitol letters,it is a corporeal way of being. this is indicative that corporeal law takes precedence over spiritual law, yet the spiritual law laid down to be followed by the corporeal being for the assimilation of YHWH upon earth, is in fact created by the ineffable. how does one follow a law created by the ineffable if its essence is truly unspeakable in all respects, yet has been written and claimed to be the words of YHWH self. this constraint is nothing but a mind game created to confuse from the first acceptance of such probability. i would believe the Chinese philosophy is more in tune, by understanding the book of changes, and the imperial stance of controlling all forms or expression. perfection is static, which in the universal concept of expanding ones reality, becomes nothing but the ledge upon which knowing is lodged.
Cody
May 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM
“HOMO VOCABULUM EST NATURAE; PERSONA JURIS CIVILIS. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. Calvin.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed. 1968 p. 869
“CIVIL LAW. “Civil Law,” “Roman Law,” and “Roman Civil Law” are convertable phrases meaning the same system of jurisprudence.” Blacks 4th Ed. 1968 p. 312
“COMMON LAW. As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law and other systems, the common law is that body of of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin 69 Cal. 255, 10 P. 674.” Blacks 4th Ed 1968 p. 345
As you read the distinctions differentiating the Common Law from the Civil and the other forms of law you’ll find this statement:
“As concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (including such acts of parliment where applicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution. This, so far as it has not been since expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the jurisprudence of most of the United States. Industrial Acceptance Corporation v. Webb, Mo. App., 287 S.W. 657, 660.” Black’s p. 346
As far as I can tell, it would appear that whatever the Declaration abrogated in the common law of England within the Continental u.s of A, was abrogated in International Law by the fact that the Declaration was incorporated by reference into the International Law. So, the “self-evident truths” enumerated within the Declaration are de jure International Law. Only a guess.
I can attest to the fact that I’ve used some of Al’s theories in Arizona Family “courts” to some indeterminent effect. When I’ve gone to appeals they come around to Al’s way. The lower courts are either arbitrary or ignorant.
Adask
May 12, 2013 at 8:43 PM
I don’t doubt that some lower (trial) courts are ignorant. But I wouldn’t bet that a majority are ignorant of the law. I wouldn’t bet that they’re ignorant of human nature, either. Instead, I’ll bet the trial court judges know that if they arbitrarily find 100 innocent people guilty in a civil matter that’s not too critical (like traffic tickets), 95 of those 100 people found guilty in court won’t expend the time, effort and money required to appeal. In other words, the judge may be merely “playing the odds” when they arbitrarily find an innocent man guilty of a relatively minor offense. They can get away with their false decision 95% of the time simply because most innocent defendants won’t appeal being convicted of a minor offense.
While 95% of most defendants will not appeal conviction of a minor offense and 5% will appeal, there may be a third way.
I have not verified, but I have heard that whenever you appeal a case to a higher court, the lower court is not merely relieved of hearing the case and probably jurisdiction–they are exempted for any further personal liability for any mistakes or intentional violations of the law during the act trial. In other words, suppose Judge Smith hears my defense and, despite overwhelming evidence of my innocence, arbitrarily finds me guilty. If I do nothing (like 95% of defendants) and merely accept his verdict, the judge is safe from personal liability. If I do something (like maybe 5%) and appeal, I’ve heard that by virtue of my appeal, the judge is granted immunity from liability for any mistake or intentional abuse he committed against me during the course of the trial. Either way, if I do nothing or if I do something (appeal), Judge Smith acquires immunity from liability for any of his arbitrary acts. Heads, he wins; tails, I lose.
Again, I’ve only heard, but I do not know for sure that the trial court judges acquire a kind of personal immunity when you appeal your case to a higher court. If anyone knows for sure whether that’s true of false, I would much like to be informed.
But, let’s assume that an appeal to a higher court creates an immunity for the lower, trial-court judge. If so, what would happen if I were falsely found guilty by a trial court judge and instead of 1) accepting the verdict and doing nothing (like 95%); or 2) I rejected the verdict by appealing to higher court (like 5%)–I, 3) sued the trial court judge for whatever abuse he’d committed against me?
If it’s true that an appeal to a higher court creates the lower court judge’s immunity, then it would seem to follow that by suing the trial court judge rather than appealing, I might strip the trial court judge of his immunity. Without immunity, the judge might be sued for $250,000 while he’s insuring that I pay a $500 traffic ticket. Those are bad odds. If it’s true that the judge’s might be playing the odds when they find innocent people guilty of offenses, the judge would not be pleased to find himself sued for some sort of legal abuse–even if there was only one chance in 20 that he might lose the $250,000.
All of this conjecture depends on whether or not trial court judges are granted some form of immunity when a defendant appeals. If anyone knows whether that premise is true or false, do tell.
Cody
May 12, 2013 at 11:10 PM
Al,
As you may know, JP courts are typically elected. Those seats are designed for non-lawyers. A non-lawyer sitting as a judge may be more easily swayed by a prosecutor or cop’s testimony due to their non-expertise in the law. The JP may be reliant upon the “expertise” of the state’s officers.These are the judges that I suspect of being ignorant. Also, they may be motivated to have a good reputation among the prosecutors and cops as a “team player.”
Conversely, the non-lawyer defendant may not stand much of a chance against a ‘trained’ prosecutor because of the undue influence the prosecutor/cop would have over a judge in those instances. As a defendant, you don’t have the pull, in the judge’s mind, to be correct.
I agree the system is designed to protect the judges. That is primarily due to our ignorance. This would be expected even more in the Circuit/Superior courts. At least in Arizona you must be an attorney to be appointed to those seats. In Arizona, the Superior court is the “Court of Appeal” for the JP courts.
In my child support case, I appealed the ruling from a “Family Court” judge that outright ruled against state and federal law with regard to including VA education benefits into child support calculations. He even went so far as to quote a non-existent statute into his ruling. When I filed my appeal, I was contacted by the appellate court mediation supervisor to come down and make a “common sense” compromise. To make a long story short, I went down and “compromised” and got an order that was exactly what I had set out to do in the first place.
One of the things I would not compromise on was the use of all caps for my name. That made all of the court employees at the mediation very nervous. My ex’s attorney was supremely pissed at the out come. None the less, I am confident that insisting on properly spelling my name made me more ‘sovereign’ than allowing the court and my hex’s attorney to have their way on that issue.
On the other hand, I probably short-circuited any liability the Superior court judge may have had. Except that I read a number of complaints against judges that resulted in damages being awarded to the complainant, after an appeal.
Thanks,
Cody