I am one of seven defendants being sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000 per day. Each. That’s $750,000 per month and over $9 million per year for EACH alleged defendant. The issue centers on the manufacture and distribution of colloidal silver, which the government declares to be a “drug”.
This case started with an investigation in A.D. 2001 against the original three defendants: a husband, his wife and their corporation. They reportedly spent $160,000 on attorneys, went broke, filed for divorce and left the state of Texas.
Three more defendants (a man, his business and his trust) were joined to the case in January of A.D. 2005. I volunteered to be fiduciary for his trust in spring of A.D. 2006 and was soon added as the seventh defendant.
The Attorney General’s office admits that after seven years of investigation and hearings (estimated to have cost “this state” nearly $500,000), they haven’t found a single person who’s been injured or damaged by the defendants’ colloidal silver products, nor have they found a single customer or supplier who’s been defrauded out of a dime’s worth of payments or products. Nevertheless, the STATE is suing all seven defendants for over $9 million per year, each.
Initially, the Attorney General’s office was bombarding all alleged defendants with certified mail containing new charges, amendments, motions every two to four weeks. However, after I sent the following document in October of A.D. 2006, the AG’s office went dead silent for five months. When they finally returned, the chief administrative judge for Travis County took control of the case and worked for three months to cause us to reach an out of court settlement with the AG’s office wherein we would not be required to pay one dime in fines or attorney’s fees to the AG’s office. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the case confided that during his 22 years in the AGs office that 1) he’d never seen a judge work so hard to engineer an out-of-court settlement; and 2) he’d never heard of the AGs office being willing to not only abandon all claim of fines, but even abandon all claims of attorney’s fees against the defendants.
We had two more jurisdictional hearings in November of A.D. 2007, and then the court and AG’s office went dead silent again for (now) seven months. The AG’s office has now been silent on this matter for 12 out of the last 18 months. The case could start up again at any time, but we think we’ve stopped them. We think we’ve advanced arguments so strong, so politically explosive, that they don’t dare take us to court and risk making case law on our arguments.
Although we’ve advanced several strategies that we think might be unique and strong, the power of our case is our recognition that the federal and Texas laws regarding food and drugs presume man to be an “animal”. This presumption is anathema to fundamental principles of the “Declaration of Independence” and of the Jewish, Christian and (probably) Muslim faiths. This “man or other animals” presumption is blasphemous, absolutely contrary to any concept of religious freedom and a violation of the 1st Amendment’s prohibition against the “establishment of religion”.
I believe the “man or other animals” insight may provide the foundation for the most important challenges to governmental power in a century or more. This insight triggers issues bigger than Roe v. Wade, even bigger than the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s & 1970s. The government deems the people to be animals. In doing so, government lays the foundation for treating us as slaves, “human resources” and even exposing the sovereign people of The United States of America to genocide.
The issue is of explosive power because when President Nixon initiated the War on Drugs in A.D. 1971, he based that war on a definition of drugs that presumes man to be an animal. Nixon’s War on Drugs laid the foundation for the modern police state wherein the majority of police activity is based on pursuing people using or distributing drugs. That police state gave rise to the American “prison-industrial complex” that is the biggest prison complex in the world, and jails a higher percentage of Americans than any other legal system in the world. In our “Brave New” prison-industrial complex at least 70% of the prisoners are there for drug-related crimes.
This suggest that 70% of the prison industrial complex, and possibly 70% of the modern police state are built on the War on Drugs—which, in turn, is built on a tiny legal definition that expressly declares man to be an “animal” and thereby violates fundamental constitutional and religious principles. The whole, goddamned police state is built on the presumption that people are animals, and to the best of my knowledge, I may be the first layman to read the law in almost 100 years to realize the spiritual implications of the phrase “man or other animals”.
Y’know why I may be the first to understand “man or other animals” in most of a century? Because the Good LORD lets me see. I’d like to take credit, but I know it’s not true. The Good LORD has been slowly educating me for, now, 25 years. Why He does so is a mystery to me. Perhaps he’s preparing me for something. Or maybe not. But He helps me to understand, He helps me to see, and so I have.
The following document was the first “public” expression of my understanding of the “man or other animals” laws. The AG’s office has now invested at least six years and perhaps $500,000 in this case. I can’t prove it, but I believe the insights in the following document shut ‘em down. IF that’s so, that’s evidence of serious power.
I believe the insight contained in the following text may ultimately destroy or at least cripple the U.S. police state and prison-industrial complex—and then there’s billions of dollars in major pharmaceutical corporation profits—all of which depend on the mere words of a seemingly innocuous definition of drugs.
I’ve had this insight for most of two years, and every time I again really consider it and its implications, I get chills. This is BIG.
Praise the LORD.
The United States of America
The State of Texas
The County of Dallas
Verified Notice of Special Appearance and Answer to Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition.
Comes now, by special appearance, a living man of full age whose proper name is “Alfred Adask” and who is 1) a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas; 2) voluntarily acting as fiduciary for the TRT-95 trust; and 3) acting at arm’s length with regard to all other men, women, children, persons and entities. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, consistent with Article 1 Section 5 of The Constitution of The State of Texas, declare those facts to be true, correct and complete under the pains and penalties of perjury of the laws of The United States of America–the perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation of circa A.D. 1777.
The issue of special appearance must be determined before the court proceeds to other issues. However, in support of both this special appearance and answer to Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition in the matter of GV400268, I declare the same following facts:
PRELIMINARY DECLARATION OF SPIRITUAL STATUS
1. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1, NKJV
2. “Then God said, ‘ Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ so God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God bless them, and God said to them, ‘ be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'” Genesis 1: 26-28, NKJV [emphasis added.]
3. “Jesus answered him, ‘The first of all the commandments is: ‘ Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.'”
4. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4th, A.D. 1776 (a.k.a. “Declaration of Independence”) is the first of four instruments comprising the Organic Law of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
5. The second sentence of said “Declaration of Independence” declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis added.]
6. The third sentence of said “unanimous Declaration” declares: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” [Emphasis added.]
7. I am a man created by and in the image of our Father YHWH, the Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel and Father of the Christ Yashua.
8. I deny that I am an animal.
9. I deny that I do business or enter into transactions with animals.
10. My capacity is that of a “lawful man” who has full legal capacity and full legal rights; one who has not been deprived of any rights in court by outlawry, excommunication of infamy; one who is able to stand rectus in curia (“right in court”), able to serve as a juror and to swear an oath. [See “legalis homo” on p. 913, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., A.D. 2004.]
11. I am a citizen of The United States of America.
12. I am a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
13. I am intentionally resident and domiciled exclusively within the boundaries of The State of Texas–a member-state of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
14. My proper name is “Alfred Adask”.
15. I use the name “ALFRED ADASK” only as an alias and without any attendant disability.
16. As evidenced by Title 18, Section 1342 of the United States Code, the Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 763, and Public Law 91-375, Sec. 6(j)(12), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 778, and Public Law 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147, in concert declare:
“Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
SPECIAL APPEARANCE–In Personam Jurisdiction
1. I am domiciled, intentionally resident, and acting exclusively within the boundaries of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” and/or within the boundaries of The State of Texas–a member-State of said perpetual Union.
2. I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
3. I am a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
4. I deny that I have acted at any time relevant to GV400268 at a place outside the boundaries of The United States of America–the perpetual Union.
4. I deny that I am resident in any “state” other than The State of Texas–a member-state of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
5. I declare that, as per my express agreement to serve as fiduciary for the TRT-95 trust in the matter of GV400268, all of my functions are to take place exclusively within the boundaries of the perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation of circa A.D. 1777 and styled “The United States of America”.
6. The 13th Amendment–adopted December 18, A.D. 1865– to The Constitution of The United States of America declares in part: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
7. The plaintiffs in GV 400268 are attempting to subject me to involuntary servitude as trustee for TRT-95 and/or defendant.
8. I deny that I am amenable to service as trustee for TRT-95 and/or as a defendant in GV400268 in any “state” other than The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
9. I deny that any court of “this state,” the territorial STATE OF TEXAS, and/or TX has personal jurisdiction over me as a trustee for TRT-95 or as a defendant in the matter of GV400268.
10. I deny that the Texas Department of State Health Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and/or the Office of the Attorney General or any other independent administrative agency has personal jurisdiction over me in the matter of GV400268.
11. I deny that any judge acting in an administrative capacity as a “hearing officer” or other “employee” of an independent administrative agency has personal jurisdiction over me in the matter of GV400268.
1. “TRCP 13. EFFECT OF SIGNING OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS & OTHER PAPERS; SANCTIONS. The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment. Attorneys or parties who shall bring a fictitious suit as an experiment to get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious pleading in a cause for such a purpose, or shall make statements in pleading which they know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the cause, shall be held guilty of a contempt. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction available under Rule 215-2b, upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both.
“Courts shall presume that pleadings, motions, and other papers are filed in good faith. No sanctions under this rule may be imposed except for good cause, the particulars of which must be stated in the sanction order. “Groundless” for purposes of this rule means no basis in law or fact and not warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A general denial does not constitute a violation of this rule. The amount requested for damages does not constitute a violation of this rule.”
2. Appleton v. Appleton, 76 S.W.3d 78, 86-87 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). “One purpose of [TRCP 13] is to check abuses in the pleading process; that is, to ensure that at the time the challenged pleading was filed, the litigant’s position was factually grounded and legally tenable …. Bad faith does not exist when a party merely exercises bad judgment or is negligent; rather, ‘it is the conscious doing of a wrong for dishonest, discriminatory, or malicious purposes.'”
3. Plaintiffs’ have lied repeatedly and persistently in GV400268 (see attached Affidavit of Alfred Adask filed on September 7th, A.D. 2006 with Travis County District Clerk.)
1. “TRCP 15. WRITS & PROCESS. The style of all writs and process shall be “The State of Texas;” and unless otherwise specially provided by law or these rules every such writ and process shall be directed to any sheriff or any constable within the State of Texas, shall be made returnable on the Monday next after expiration of twenty days from the date of service thereof, and shall be dated and attested by the clerk with the seal of the court impressed thereon; and the date of issuance shall be noted thereon.”
2. The citation accompanying Plaintiffs 5th Amended Petition does not contain the words “The State of Texas” and is therefore defective.
1. “TRCP 16. SHALL ENDORSE ALL PROCESS. Every officer or authorized person shall endorse on all process and precepts coming to his hand the day and hour on which he received them, the manner in which he executed them, and the time and place the process was served and shall sign the returns officially.” [Emphasis added.]
2. Citation accompanying Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition was signed by “Duke Roberts” with accompanying date of “09-28-06” but is defective in that citation fails to specify the “hour on which he received” such process.
1. “TRCP 99. ISSUANCE & FORM OF CITATION
. . . .
“b. Form. The citation shall (1) be styled “The State of Texas,” (2) be signed by the clerk under seal of court , (3) contain name and location of the court, (4) show date of filing of the petition, (5) show date of issuance of citation, (6) show file number, (7) show names of parties, (8) be directed to the defendant, (9) show the name and address of attorney for plaintiff, otherwise the address of plaintiff, (10) contain the time within which these rules require the defendant to file a written answer with the clerk who issued citation, (11) contain address of the clerk, and (12) shall notify the defendant that in case of failure of defendant to file an answer, judgment by default may be rendered for the relief demanded in the petition. The citation shall direct the defendant to file a written answer to the plaintiffs petition on or before 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next after the expiration of twenty days after the date of service thereof. The requirement of subsections 10 and 12 of this section shall be in the form set forth in section c of this rule.”
2. The citation accompanying Plaintiffs’ 5th Amended Petition to Alfred Adask did not contain the text “The State of Texas” and is defective.
3. The citation accompanying Plaintiffs’ 5th Amended Petition to Alfred Adask declared that the file number was “D-1-GV-04-000268”; all previous process in this matter has been denominated with “Cause No. GV 400268”; plaintiffs failure to specify a single cause number throughout the case constitutes defective service and insufficient notice.
1. “TRCP 105. DUTY OF OFFICER OR PERSON RECEIVING. The officer or authorized person to whom process is delivered shall endorse thereon the day and hour on which he received it, and shall execute and return the same without delay.”
2. The person receiving process for service to Alfred Adask signed “Duke Roberts” and wrote “09-28-06” on the citation but failed to specify the hour when he received the process; said citation is defective.
3. On subsequent “Return of Process” sent to Alfred Adask by Assistant Attorney General Raul Noriega on or about October 18th, A.D. 2006, it is claimed that Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition came to process servers hand on the “9th day of August, 2006 at 9:30 o’clock A.M.” but was not “executed” until the “28th day of September, 2006 at 5:00 o’clock P.M.”; said process is defective for unwarranted delay in service of approximately 49 days.
4. Melendez v. John R. Schatzman, Inc., 685 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.App.-EI Paso 1985, no writ). Service by certified mail “was attempted … ; however, it does not appear that the officer receiving delivery of the process for service endorsed thereon the day and hour of receipt, nor was the return completed showing the execution by certified mail, all as required by Rule 105 …. “ [Emphasis added.]
5. Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Sup. Co., 690 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex.1985). “There are no presumptions in favor of valid issuance, service, and return of citation in the face of a writ of error [now a restricted appeal] attack on a default judgment. Moreover, failure to affirmatively show strict compliance with the [TRCPs] renders the attempted service of process invalid and of no effect.” [Emphasis added.]
6. I do not waive my right to lawful service.
7. Pending service by means of process accompanied by a valid citation, I have not yet been lawfully served in the matter of GV400268 in the alleged capacities of “trustee” or “defendant” and cannot yet be proceeded against in either of said capacities.
Division of Powers
1. Article 2 Section 1 of The Constitution of The State of Texas declares: “The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Of those which are Legislative to one; those which are Executive to another; and those which are Judicial to another; and no person or collection of persons being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached the either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.”
2. Plaintiffs seek to impose an excessive penalty of $25,000 per day against me as an alleged defendant in GV 400268 by means an administrative proceeding wherein I am deprived of my right as a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas to trial by an impartial judicial tribunal acting under the exclusive authority of Article 5 of said Constitution.
3. I demand my right to be tried judicially rather than administratively.
4. This court lacks in personam jurisdiction to proceed against me administratively in the matter of GV400268.
Plaintiffs’ Unclean Hands
1. The “clean-hands doctrine” embodies the principles of the party cannot seek equitable relief or assert an equitable defense if that party has violated an equitable principles such as good-faith.
2. Telling lies, repeatedly and persistently, for the sake of gaining advantage in an alleged lawsuit is a violation of equitable principles.
3. Plaintiffs — especially Assistant Attorney General Raul Noriega — have lied repeatedly and persistently in the matter of GV 400268 to gain unfair and unwarranted advantage over alleged defendants. (See, as supporting evidence, attached “Notice by Affidavit of Alfred Adask” filed on September 7th, A.D. 2006 with Travis County District Clerk.)
4. It is a maxim of law that litigants approaching a court of equity with “unclean hands” are to be denied the court’s insistence, and the litigants are to be left in the same condition as existed before the plaintiff approached the court.
SPECIAL APPEARANCE–Subject Matter Jurisdiction
No Case Exists
1. Court-ordered discovery in the matter of GV 400268 expired on April 21, A.D. 2006.
2. Alleged defendants in the matter of GV 400268, Alfred Adask and Ben Taylor, were denied proper notice for the continuance hearing held on or about August 17, A.D. 2006.
3. The court order dated on or about August 17, A.D. 2006 authorizing a continuance in the matter of GV 400268 is void for a violation of due process.
4. The court-ordered date–on or about August 28th, A.D. 2006–set for trial in the matter of GV400268 has come and gone without the plaintiffs appearing to prosecute their alleged lawsuit.
5. The lawsuit GV 400268 has been abandoned for want of prosecution and is currently dead.
6. This court can have no subject matter jurisdiction over a case which no longer exists.
1. Article 1 Section 13 of The Constitution of The State of Texas declares: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. Old courts shall be opened, and every person for an injury done to him, in his lands, goods, person a reputation shall have a remedy by due course of law.” [Emphasis added.]
2. Plaintiffs seek to impose an excessive penalty of $25,000 per day against me as an alleged defendant in GV 400268; such penalty is outrageous, excessive and violates my rights as a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
3. Plaintiffs seek to impose an excessive penalty of $25,000 per day against me as an alleged defendant in GV 400268 based on an administrative proceeding wherein I am deprived of my right as a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas to due course of law.
4. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed to enforce excessive and unconstitutional fines in the matter of GV400268.
Conflict of Law
1. Plaintiffs seek to impose an excessive penalty of $25,000 per day against me as an alleged defendant in GV 400268 based on an administrative proceeding which presumes the correct substantive law is private law.
2. I deny that the correct substantive law in this matter is private law.
3. I declare that the proper substantive law to resolve any issues alleged by plaintiffs in GV 400268 against myself is The Constitution of the State of Texas and/or the Public Law that conforms to said Constitution.
4. A conflict of law exists between plaintiffs in GV 400268 and alleged trustee and/or alleged defendant Alfred Adask.
5. Determination of what law applies to a particular case is the essential judicial power.
6. I deny that an administrative court can have subject matter jurisdiction over a case where there is a known and express conflict of law.
Freedom of Religion
1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment dated on or about May 31st, A.D. 2006 declared in part:
“4.2. Definition of a “drug” pursuant to state and federal health codes.
“The key to this case lies in determining, at law and not as a matter of fact, whether the Defendants’ colloidal products met the definition of a “drug” when mislabeled, falsely advertised, and sold as products intended to treat disease. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §431.002(14) provides in pertinent part: [Bold emphasis added by Alfred Adask.]
“Drug” means articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary, or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, [emphasis added] articles, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, [emphasis added] and articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in this subdivision. The term does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories. A food for which a claim is made in accordance with Section 403(r) of the federal Act, and for which the claim is approved by the secretary, [emphasis added] is not a drug solely because the label or labeling contains such a claim. [Bold emphasis added by Alfred Adask.]
“The federal code, upon which the state code is based and which is virtually identical, is 21 U.S.C.A. §321(g)(1), which provides in pertinent part:
“The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals [emphasis added]; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals [emphasis added]; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(3) of this title or sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343(r) of this title [emphasis added] is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement. [Bold emphasis added by Alfred Adask.]
“Defendants’ colloidal products were therefore `drugs’ within the meaning of TEx. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §431.002(14) and 21 U.S.C. §321(g)(1) because they were labeled and advertised with testimonials and sold with the intent for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” or in some instances, because they are sold with the intent of affecting “the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals“. These products, when sold with the testimonial claims regarding treatment of disease, cannot be dietary supplements because none of the Defendants have ever applied to the USFDA nor received approval for the claims on these products published by Defendants on their Internet web sites.”
2. Note well that the phrase “man or other animals” appears twice in the cited state law, twice in the cited federal law, and twice more in the plaintiffs’ conclusion and summary–for a total of six instances in plaintiffs’ text.
3. Plaintiffs argue, in essence, that the “key” to determining the allegations in GV400268 is determining “at law” whether alleged defendants advertised and sold alleged “drugs” with the “intent for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” or “sold with the intent of affecting ‘the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals’.”
4. The phrase “man or other animals” can only be read to mean that, under the alleged laws and arguments advanced by plaintiffs, “man” is viewed by plaintiffs and/or our current government as nothing more than an “animal”.
5. I am a man endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
6. I deny that I am an animal.
7. I deny that I do business with animals.
8. I eat animals.
9. I am a Protestant Christian.
10. I fear the LORD; I am sincere in my faith.
11. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1, The Bible.
12. “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Genesis 1: 26-28, The Bible.
13. Plaintiffs’ argument that “men” are “animals” defies the fundamental precept of the Jewish and Christian faiths that of all earthly creations, man–and man alone–is made in God’s image and separate from animals in that man is endowed by God with dominion over animals.
14. Plaintiffs’ attempt to compel me, other alleged defendants, and all other men and women to accept the status of animals violates my sincerely held religious beliefs.
15. “‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?’ Jesus said to him,’ you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'” Matthew 22:36-40
16. Plaintiff’s “key” contention that “men” are “animals” prevents me–a man–from loving my fellow man.
17. The “Declaration of Independence” declares in part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis added.]
18. I deny that “animals” are endowed by their Creator with any “unalienable Rights.”
19. The third sentence of the “Declaration of Independence” declares the principle duty of government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
20. I am a man; the principal business of Government and its officers is to secure my God-given, unalienable Rights.
21. Plaintiffs’ attempt to equate all “men” with “animals” deprives me of the benefit of religious freedom and of the benefit of God-given, unalienable rights.
22. Plaintiffs’ attempt to equate all “men” with “animals” is an attempt to establish a pagan religion that is contrary to the principles of the Jewish and Christian faiths and impose this pagan religion upon the people of The United States of America.
23. A plea to the jurisdiction is proper when the dispute clearly involves ecclesiastical matters over which the courts have no jurisdiction. See Hawkins v. Friendship Missionary Baptist Ch., 69 S.W.3d 756,758-59 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Green v. United Pentecostal Ch. Int’l, 899 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, writ denied); Patterson v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 858 S.W.2d 602,604-05 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1993, no writ); see also Williams v. Gleason, 26 S.W.3d 54, 55-56 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (resolved issue by motion for summary judgment). Secular courts cannot constitutionally determine the truth or falsity of religious matters. Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 678-79 (Tex.1996); see also Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 723 (1976) (religious controversies are not proper subject of civil court inquiry).
24. “As a threshold requirement, [defendant] must demonstrate that her refusal to be photographed is grounded upon a sincerely held religious belief. See Stevens v. Berger, 428 F.Supp. 896, 899 (E.D.N.Y.1977). Although a religious belief requires something more than a purely secular philosophical or personal belief, Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at 215-16, 92 S.Ct. at 1533-34, courts have approved an expansive definition of religion. See United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 165-66, 85 S.Ct. 850, 853-54, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) (test is whether “a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God”); see also International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430, 440 (2d Cir.1981); Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 963, 90 S.Ct. 434, 24 L.Ed.2d 427 (1969).” Quaring v Peterson, 728 F.2d 1121 (A.D. 1983)
25. “[T]he guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect. Particularly in this sensitive area, it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow [adherent] more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.” Thomas v. Review Board, supra, 450 U.S. at 715-16, 101 S.Ct. at 1430-31.
26. “Under the proper analysis, a burden upon religion exists when ‘the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, * * * thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Board, supra, 450 U.S. at 717-18, 101 S.Ct. at 1431-32.
27. By treating all “men” to be “animals,” the state withholds from me the important benefits and/or unalienable Rights of free association and pursuit of Happiness.
28. “In Sherbert v. Verner, supra, . . . the Supreme Court held that in denying unemployment benefits to a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church who refused to work on Saturdays, the Sabbath of her faith, the state violated her right to the free exercise of religion. 374 U.S. at 402, 83 S.Ct. at 1792. Assessing the burden of the denial of benefits on the Sabbatarian’s exercise of her religion, the Court commented,
“The [denial] forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion [not working on Saturdays] in order to accept work, on the other hand. Id. at 404, 83 S.Ct. at 1794.” Quaring v Peterson, supra.
29. Under the pretext of treating all “men” as “animals,” plaintiffs attempt to force me and other alleged defendants to choose between following the precepts of our religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of our religion [recognizing our fellow men has made in the image of God rather than as animals] in order to work without the threat of undue regulation and excessive fines arbitrarily impose by “this state”.
30. For additional facts supporting this “Verified Notice of Special Appearance and Answer to Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition,” see attached “Notice By Affidavit of Alfred Adask” filed with the Travis County District Clerk on September 7th, A.D. 2006.
Further affiant says nought.
s/ Alfred Adask