“Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK” acting “at arm’s length”

13 Oct

Miguel Rodriguez-Orejuela is escorted by DEA a...

Image via Wikipedia

Dan Glasho posted the following inquiry on my blog concerning the significance of difference between capitalized (“Dan Glasho”) and all-upper-case (“DANIEL E GLASHO”) names:

Dear Alfred. This name issue may be something important, or maybe it isn’t. Just in case it is, could the following Affidavit be filed with the Clerk, and then hand an exact copy of the following Affidavit to the judge prior to entering a plea?



I the undersigned do hereby certify, swear or affirm, and declare under penalty of perjury that my lawful name is “Danial Edward Glasho”, written with both upper and lower case letters as written on my original Certificate Of Live Birth.

At arms length, with all expressed rights reserved, I reserve my common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not knowingly, intentionally, or voluntarily entered into. And furthermore, I do not accept the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.

In addition, I am not in a fiduciary capacity. I have not knowingly, intentionally or voluntarily consented to represent, or be answerable for another’s debt, default, or miscarriage.

Would this unattach me from the straw man (if there really is one)?




My response:


First, bear in mind that the notion that the all-upper-case name signifies an entity other than the living man, is a theory. It seems to me to be true, but it is not yet proven.

Therefore, while I agree that your proposed document may be potentially effective, you can’t bet the farm on it. That is, depending on the seriousness of your case, you should probably devise a backup defense. I.e., what are you going to do if the judge says you’re name theory is wrong?

Second, while it’s a good thing to argue that the man “Glasho” is not the entity “GLASHO” and does not represent “GLASHO,” that’s not the ultimate goal. In my opinion, the ultimate goal is to establish that you are a man made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-28) and that you are “endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (“Declaration of Independence”).

It doesn’t matter to me if the government calls me “Adask,” “ADASK” or “Billy BOB” so long as they recognize whatever name they use to signify that I am a man made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

In other words, it’s not enough to prove what or who you’re NOT—you must also try to establish who/what you ARE.

In the end, you can’t prove a negative statement. It’s logically impossible. Therefore, you must learn to primarily provide positive statements of who/what you ARE rather than negative statements of who/what you are NOT.

Third, filing your document with the court clerk or the judge might be helpful, but if it were my document, I’d record it into the county record which, under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the corresponding rule of evidence for your state, would probably make that document “admissible” into the record of the court. I might also pay to have such document published as a legal notice in the local newspaper. I’d surely provide or send a notarized/certified copy of such document as my first response to anyone who tried to sue me or drag me into a court.

Just because you submit a document today into the court doesn’t prove that the facts you’re asserting about your name(s) or fiduciary capacity were true at the time of the offense that is currently being litigated before the court. OK—maybe the man “Glasho” is not representing the thing “GLASHO” today, but that doesn’t prove that the man (“Glasho”) was not representing the thing (“GLASHO”) last June when the cop issued a ticket for speeding to “GLASHO”.

More, insofar as you didn’t give notice to the cop (at the time he issued the speeding ticket) that you are not “GLASHO” and don’t represent “GLASHO,” it’s not impossible that an officer’s presumption at that time that the manh “Glasho” did consent to represent the defendant “GLASHO” was justified. Therefore the ticket might be valid today in court, even if you object today for the first time that you’re not “GLASHO” and don’t represent “GLASHO”.
But my favorite strategy is not to deny that “Adask” is “ADASK” or deny that the man “Adask” represents the fiction “ADASK”. I prefer to declare that the name “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask”; that “Adask” and “ADASK” both signify the same living man.

I can make this statement under oath since, after 15 years of trying to figure out the significance of the “Adask”/”ADASK” dichotomy, I still can’t prove that “ADASK” signifies something other than “Adask”. More, if I show my Drivers License, So-So Security Card or Master Card to anyone (assuming I had any of those documents), the person reading those ID devices would see the name “ALFRED N ADASK” and automatically presume that that name (“ADASK”) is my name—or at least one of my names.

Thus, it’s absolutely true that while my proper name is “Alfred Adask,” I am also known as (“a/k/a”) as “ALFRED N ADASK”. Ask any grocery store check-out clerk who asked to see my ID in order to cash my checks, process my debit cards, etc.. I guarantee that I am also known by that clerk as “ALFRED N ADASK”.

So, if I identify myself as “Alfred Adask a/k/a ‘ALFRED N ADASK’,” I’ve eliminated the appearance of any fiction (“ADASK”). i.e., since there is no man acting in a representative capacity to represent “ADASK” since “ADASK” is merely an alias—not another entity. If “Adask” and “ADASK” signify the same man, there can’t be two entities, and therefore, there can’t be a living man (one entity; “Adask”) representing a legal fiction (another entity; “ADASK”).

Again, I don’t care what they call me, so long as they recognize me as a man made in God’s image, endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and acting at arm’s length (not representing anyone; appearing only in my own proper person). Once the court recognizes me in that capacity, I am good to go. It may be that this line of defense is imperfect and I’m still vulnerable, but for now, I suspect that this is my best first line of defense.

Once I assert under oath that that “Adask” and “ADASK” both signify the same living man, the presumption (if any) that “Adask” represents “ADASK” is destroyed. If the court needed a fictional defendant to proceed, the burden of overcoming my testimony and proving on the record both the existence and presence in court of a fiction named “ADASK” would then fall on the plaintiff or prosecution.

I believe they need the fiction “ADASK” to appear as the defendant because the fiction can’t have any God-given, unalienable Rights. Fictions can’t appear in court unless they’re represented by a living man. Once I declare that “Adask” and “ADASK” are two names for the same living man and that that man is acting at arm’s length, the fiction “ADASK” can’t appear (at least, not easily).

I doubt that the court can proceed without the fictional defendant being present by virtue of having “appeared” in the court. So long as I (“Adask”) act at arm’s length and refuse act as fiduciary and surety for any other entity (real or fictional), the court would seemingly have to deal with me—a living man who is probably not even subject to the court’s jurisdiction—rather than a fiction (“ADASK”) represented by a living man (“Adask”).
IF the “Adask”/”ADASK” hypothesis is true, the courts presume that the man “Adask” represents the fiction “ADASK”. Once you deny that presumption by declaring under oath that “ADASK” is just an alias for “Adask,” would any court or prosecutor dare to argue on the record that I (“Adask”) am a man representing an entirely separate entity named “ADASK”? I don’t think so.

Assuming the Adask/ADASK hypothesis is correct, would the system dare to admit it on the record? No.

Similarly, would the prosecutor dare to tell a jury that “ADASK” signifies a fictional entity other than the man “Adask”? The prosecutor would not dare because I would then invite the jury to read the all-upper-case names on their Drivers Licenses, So-So Security Cards, credit cards, passports, utility bills, etc.. Imagine the jurors’ surprise at discovering that the all-upper-case names on their IDs are not their names, but the names of some other, fictional entities. Do you think any group of jurors would vote convict me of anything if they knew that the defendant “ADASK” is some legal fiction and that I am not that fictional defendant? Do you think you could find even one juror dumb enough to still vote in favor of the prosecution? It’d be possible, but very, very unlikely.
But. Let’s suppose that the “Adask”/”ADASK” hypothesis is false. What if “ADASK” is and has always been merely an alias for “Adask”? Then my claim that “ADASK” is an alias for “Adask” has DONE NO HARM TO MY DEFENSE.

From my perspective, it’s very important to consider each line of defense from two perspectives: 1) What can it do to help me; and 2) What can it do to hurt me?

There are a lot of “patriot” defense out there that can get you into trouble. They may sound pretty slick, but they can actually increase your liability.

If I testify that 1) “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask” and 2) Adask is acting “at arm’s length”; then one of two things is true—either:

1) I’m telling the truth (in which case the court may have to recognize me as a man made in God’s image, etc.—which is exactly what I want. In fact, I’ll go into any court in the country . . . so long as that court recognizes me as a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. In that capacity, I will truly fear no evil); or

2) My testimony is mistaken and “ADASK” is a legal fiction other than the man “Adask” (which admission by the system would be a phenomenal blessing for me). But,

3) Even if “ADASK” is a legal fiction, so long as I (“Adask”) am acting “at arm’s length,” I don’t represent that fiction nor do I consent to act as that fiction’s surety. Therefore, the fictional defendant can’t appear—and even if it can be made to appear—I “Adask” can’t be lawfully held liable for paying “ADASK’s” fines or penalties.

For me, this strategy appears to be a win-win situation. In theory, the system ust either admit that 1) I’m a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights; or 2) that “ADASK” is a fictional entity that I am presumed to represent. I don’t think that the system can afford to make either of those admissions.

But I could be wrong. I always stand to be corrected. Nevertheless, for the moment, this defense strategy is the best I’m able to see and understand.
And it’s not a purely untested strategy. In A.D. 2002, it was alleged (never actually charged) that I had committed 2 felonies—each carrying a potential penalty of 5 years. In theory, I was facing 10 years in the slammer. In fact, if I’d been convicted I’d probably have been sentenced to 3 to 6 months.

I was subsequently arrested without warrant and extradited from Texas to Missouri—where I had virtually never been. I knew the allegations against me were fraudulent. After I was arrested, I therefore waived an extradition hearing so I could go quickly to Missouri and settle the problem. So, I expected to be in Missouri no more than 7 to 10 days. But—surprise, surprise!—they weren’t the least bit interested in knowing the charges against me were fraudulent. They knew the charges were fraudulent from the beginning and didn’t give a damn.

So they held me 344 days in a level-5, maximum security jail. Three weeks short of a year. And I’d never even been charged with a crime.

But the court could not proceed against me. They wouldn’t even give me a probable cause hearing. They didn’t have brains enough to know how to proceed against me and I didn’t have brains enough to know how to force them to release me. So they just held me for most of a year.

Why did they release me?

First, the grace of our Father YHWH Elohiym.

Second, I believe they could not proceed against me because back on Texas, shortly after I was first arrested, I signed my “waiver of extradition” 1) “At arm’s length”; and 2) “True name “Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”.

As I’ve previously explained, this two-fold strategy (signed and sealed by a Dallas judge) declared that I agreed to be extradited without an extradition hearing on condition that I be extradited “at arm’s length” (as a non-fiduciary); and 2) as a living man named “Alfred Adask” who was also known as “ALFRED N ADASK”.

The Dallas extradition court judge signed and sealed my waiver of extradition making that waiver absolutely admissible as evidence.

Results? 1) there was no fictional defendant extradited; and 2) there was no fictional defendant represented. They had extradited a mere “man”.

The Missouri court that wanted to prosecute me didn’t see or understand the significance of the qualifications I put on my signature until I’d already been arrested on Texas, extradited and jailed on Missouri for a week or more. I presume that upon discovering that they had no fictional defendant (“ADASK”) or anyone to represent it, the court may have said something like “Ohh, shucks!

They continued to hold me, presuming that I’d “crack” and one way or another agree to represent the fictional defendant (probably by taking a public defender) and thereby contradict the capacity in which I was legally extradited.

I didn’t crack. I refused to take a public defender. I insisted on appearing only as myself. Therefore, they wouldn’t let me into their court room. They dismissed the allegations. I was freed to go home.

Spending 344 days in custody is not easily explained away as a victory. The average person would probably say, Hey, if your alleged strategy cost you almost a year in the slammer, I don’t think I want to use your strategy.

But, if I’d agreed to take a lawyer (to represent the fiction “ADASK”), then I’d have created evidence that I was not “ADASK” and that I did, indeed, represent “ADASK”—and I would’ve been railroaded “fair ‘n square,” probably done 6 months in the slammer (less than I actually did), but also be a convicted felon today, unable to own a firearm and possibly still peeing in a cup on command from some parole officer.

Besides, being jailed for 344 days was, for me, a great blessing. I thought my faith was strong before I went into that jail. It was 2 or 3 times stronger by the time I got out. I learned so much during my 344 days in jail that I’ve said for years that it was the single most intellectually fertile period of my life.

I can and have therefore made two seemingly contradictory statements for the past seven years: 1) I don’t want to go back—I don’t like jail; but 2) If I’d known how much I’d gain by spending that year in the slammer, I’d’ve fought my way into that jail years ago. I don’t know how to square those two statements, but they’re both true.

The fact that the Missouri court did not (and seemingly could not) proceed against me does not prove that my “at arm’s length” + “Alfred Adask a/k/a ‘ALFRED N ADASK’” strategy is valid. My story is just an anecdote. A one-time event.

But it is a fact that I was threatened with two felonies and I was in jail and the court still did not proceed against me. I doubt that you can find anyone else in this country with a similar story. Once you’ve been arrested, extradited and jailed, prosecution and conviction are virtually automatic. Some people are released for lack or evidence or being improperly identified, but in my case, I’m exactly the guy they were trying to assault. There was no mistaken identity. Their only mistake was having their extradition officers agree to extradite me from Dallas to Missouri in the capacity of a non-fiduciary (“at arm’s length”) whose name “ADASK” was merely an alias for my true name “Adask”. Once they did that, they were screwed.


And don’t suppose that releasing me was easily done by my captors. They stood to be sued for up to $25,000 a day for every day I was falsely imprisoned.

I met the man who was running that jail on one occasion. He was former sheriff and a big man—probably 250 pounds—and his hands were shaking while he talked to me. He—and the judges—were afraid of me. They were afraid that I was going to sue the bastards and win a big judgment since they’d held me for 344 days without ever convicting me, trying me, giving me a probable cause hearing, or even charging me with a crime. I don’t know what I might’ve won, but some sort of victory should’ve been a slam-dunk.*


The Missouri court’s legal liability is good evidence that the court finally released me from that jail only as a last desperate act. If there was any way they could’ve convicted me of anything—and thereby justified my 344 days of imprisonment—they’d have done so. But they didn’t prosecute me—and I believe that, in combination, the “at arm’s length” and “Adask alias ADASK” strategy is what stopped ’em. Other than that (or, more precisely, in addition to that), they were stopped by the Grace of our Father YHWH Elohiym.

It’s not as if I’m so darn smart. Whatever ability I have is based on the fact that sometimes, the Good LORD lets me “see”. I don’t see clearly and I don’t see completely, but I’ve known for most of 20 years that sometimes the Good LORD lets me “see”. And then I try to report what I’ve been allowed to see on my radio shows or in articles like this one.

This is not pious BS. I’m not shaking a tambourine or asking for donations to my “church”. Its’ simply true that there’s not one doubt in my mind that, sometimes, the Good LORD lets me see. Insofar as anyone mistakes me for being “insightful” or innately “gifted,” the real credit for anything I do or say that’s right should go to the Good LORD. (I get credit for all the mistakes and screw-ups.) All I do is try to report and describe whatever I’ve been allowed to see. While I may not be innately “gifted,” I am blessed by my occasional ability to “see”. I know that’s true. Not a doubt in my mind.


And it’s odd (but not surprising) that that blessing continues even in this long-winded response to to Mr. Glasho’s inquiry.

Here I am, seven years after being released from the Missouri jail, and I finally “see” why the court tried so hard to compel me to take a public defender. They held me for 344 days betting that the stress of imprisonment would make me realize that I couldn’t get out of jail on my own and cause me to agree to accept a public defender. The court tried to force me to take a PD several times, including the very last day of my imprisonment.


I knew while I was in the slammer that hiring a public defender would be a kiss of death. So I refused to do it. But I didn’t understand the underlying reason to avoid hiring that public defender with the clarity that I finally achieved, today.

Today, I realize (“see”) for the first time that, because the defendant was the fiction “ALFRED N ADASK” only someone who represented that fiction could have authority to hire an attorney to also represent that same fiction.

I suspect that when I (“Adask”) hire an attorney, I don’t actually hire him to represent me (“Adask”); I hire him to represent it (“ADASK”). Insofar as I (“Adask”) am deemed to hire the attorney to represent some entity (“ADASK”) other than myself, it is presumed that I (“Adask”) represent that other entity (“ADASK”). If this suspicion is roughly correct, then the act of hiring an attorney will typically be deemed by the court to be evidence that the person (“Adask”) hiring the attorney to represent the defendant “ADASK” must be a fiduciary or other representative for the fictional “ADASK”.

This suspicion implies that the act of hiring an attorney is probably a virtual guarantee that a defendant will be convicted.

Because I’d been extradited “at arm’s length” and as “Adask a/k/a ADASK,” the court knew that I entered their jail in the capacity of a non-fiduciary who not represent the fiction “ADASK”. The fictional defendant (“ADASK”) could not appear unless I demonstrated that I had consented to abandon my non-fiduciary capacity by agreeing to represent the fiction “ADASK”.

So the court held me for 344 days, betting that I’d panic and “do anything” to try to “get out”. “Anything” would, for 999 prisoners out of every 1,000, mean take a public defender (lawyer).

But had I agreed to employ the public defender, I believe he would not have represented me (“Adask”); he’d’ve represented it—the legal fiction—the defendant “ADASK”. And by my employing the public defender to represent the legal fiction “ADASK,” I would’ve been deemed to have voluntarily acted as “ADASK’s” representative/fiduciary and thereby terminated my previous status as the “at arm’s lenth” non-fiduciary named “Adask alias ADASK”.

Do you see what I’m saying?

If I’d hired any attorney to represent the fictional defendant “ADASK,” I’d have created evidence that I was “ADASK’s” fiduciary/representative and allowed the court to proceed to convict the fictional defendant “ADASK” and then send me to prison as “ADASK’s” surety.

In a sense, I’ve understood all of this for the past seven years. And yet, today, that understanding “crystallized” into a level of clarity I hadn’t previously “seen”. I don’t know how well I’ve been able to communicate that new understanding to you, reader, but for me, this has been a very insightful day.


Today, I am not a convicted felon because 1) I used the “at arm’s length” and “Adask alias ADASK” strategy; and 2) I refused to hire a lawyer.

I now see (or at least strongly suspect) that the very act of hiring an attorney to represent it—the legal fiction—proves that you represent it. The very act of hiring an attorney to represent “it” can put you in jeopardy of being fined or going to prison.

How many people are in prison today simply because they unwittingly hired an attorney to represent a legal fiction?


* Incidentally, you might be wondering why I didn’t sue the people in Missouri for my false imprisonment. If I’m so damn smart, and my case was so solid, why didn’t I sue and collect $500,000?

Well, I got back to Texas and started preparing a Title 42 suit. Four months later, the folks in Missouri shocked me by trying twice more to arrest me. I never thought they’d do that. I was able to avoid arrest twice. Grace of God. But I didn’t know how many more times they’d try to arrest me, and I surely didn’t want to be held for another year before I was again released. And if they hauled me up to Missouri again, I thought it might be “personal” for the purpose of eliminating my capacity to sue them. I thought I might wind up dead.

So I abandoned the title 42 suit and started studying extradition. If I was arrested, I wanted to be able to stop extradition to Missouri. It took me most of six months to deduce that there are two sections of the Constitution that deal with extradition: Article 4 Section 2 Clause 2 (which applies to extradition of white men) and Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3—which deals with the extradition of slaves and those who’ve entered into voluntary servitudes (fiduciaries). Most people think that Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 was repealed by the 13th Amendment—but it was only repealed relative to slaves and those subjected to involuntary servitude. It was not repealed relative to those who’ve entered into a voluntary servitude like a fiduciary.

I had been (and feared being again) arrested for extradition under Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 as a presumed voluntary fiduciary. Knowing that, I doubt that I could be extradited again. But the law allows the government to hold those arrested for extradition for up to six months without an extradition hearing. So, if you’re arrested for extradition in Dallas County based on fraudulent charges in Missouri, you could be held for up to six months in the Dallas County Jail (not the most fun place on Texas) without any prosecution or extradition proceedings. Then, if you hadn’t waived extradition and Missouri hadn’t sent some lawyers to argue for extradition, you’d simply be released.

If you were subsequently arrested again for extradition, you might me held for another six months in the local county jail—and then released—perhaps to be arrested a third time for another six months in the local county jail

I was confident that I probably couldn’t be extradited. But the prospect of spending six months in the Dallas County Jail was not inviting, so it’s preferable not be arrested in the first place.

Anyway, by the time I’d finished figuring out extradition and avoiding two arrests, the 2 year statute of limitations had run out on my Title 42 suit.

So I amped up to RICO suit which had a 4 year statute of limitations.

But I also became involved in a suit initiated by the Attorney General of Texas. The suit had started in A.D. 2001 and involved six defendants before I was joined in A.D. 2005. During the course of the AG’s investigation and suit, the AG reportedly spent six years and nearly $500,000. Each defendant was being sued for $25,000 per day—that’s about $9 million per year. My exposure was potentially about $20 million.

I didn’t have sufficient brains and energy to simultaneously 1) mastermind and prosecute a RICO suit in federal court in Dallas against the people in Missouri who’d falsely imprisoned me for most of a year; and 2) defend against the Texas AG’s suit where I was threatened with millions of dollars in fines.

I chose to defend against the Texas AG’s suit. I advanced a “man or other animals” defense (see that subject in the list of “Categories” on my blog). The Texas AG dropped the lawsuit in A.D. 2007.

However, although I’d filed the RICO suit in federal court, I was so involved as defendant in the Texas AG suit that I didn’t serve the Missouri parties before the RICO statute of limitation expired.

Result? I never sued for 344 days of false imprisonment.

It galls me to this day that I failed to sue for false imprisonment. That failure is shameful. I won’t make that mistake again. But there’s only so much time and energy and sometimes you can’t fight battles on two fronts. Choices were made. Prices were paid. I enjoyed a victory (the Texas AG dropped his case). I suffered a loss (I failed to sue the Missouri kidnappers).

Just like real life, hmm?



29 responses to ““Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK” acting “at arm’s length”

  1. Luke

    October 13, 2010 at 10:02 PM

    Reads like an issue of mistaken identity.

    • JR

      June 14, 2014 at 3:26 AM

      This artificial/real name issue–has been proven. Please reference, Butte County, California case number CM010607 (a Child Support case). In that case I tested this very issue regarding the ALL CAPITAL NAME as well as the upper and lower case name that appears on the birth certificate. The California Judges handbook (1992 I believe) states, that once the name has been challenged at any time in court, that the Judge MUST ask the District Attorney to SPELL and CAPITALIZE the name, AS IT APPEARS IN THE COMPLAINT.

      I made this motion via PC 989, (and I believe also under CCP 475). I also did a “Debt on a Specialty” rebuking the debt. The Judge in this matter, (Hermansen) upon my demand citing the Judges Handbook authority, then (reluctantly) turned to the DA and open court said “Could you please cite and spell Mr. Cheney’s name, as it appears on the Record?”

      The ADA (DAN T. NELSON) then responded: “We refuse to do so at this time.”

      I repeatedly put this matter in by formal motion, docketed it, and kept bringing it up–but both the court and the DAs office refused to state on the record, what my true name was–no matter how I put it before the court.

      Further motions for mistrial, default, Brady violations–on this issue–ad infinitum, ad nauseum, were to no avail.

      We live in Dangerous Times. The courts are no longer obeying law. They are nowhere near to obeying reason. They have to be overthrown.

  2. PatriotOne

    October 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM

    You can call your name in any method you like, I’ll never trespass against you.
    However, considering all the time and effort you’ve put into seeking the truth, I will always know you (while I’ve been alive (I suspect you’ve read Lysander Spooner)) as the dominate anti shyster.

    Thank you…

  3. shupec

    October 14, 2010 at 9:27 AM

    I would also like the add that if you are honest in editing and submitting the following two documents, it has been Proven to work in at least three or four entirely different counts:

    1) traffic citation “Driver vs Traveler”
    2) credit card bill
    3) mortgage/loan
    4) foreclosure – home ownership

    + Notice of Mistake
    Technically the living, breathing, man/woman’s Proper name is their Given Name at birth which is ‘legally’ their ‘first and middle’ however it should be called in Lawful terms, their Given name/s. Also the ‘legal’ ‘last’ name is technically one’s Family name in lawful terms.

    As a result, the Notice of Mistake addresses the difference and how one has never Knowingly accepted or acted as a ‘fiction’ or engaged in Commerce, and other related concepts of law, etc. As well as how mail should be Properly written (not ‘addressed’) to the Proper Living man/woman.

    + Notice and Declaration of Peaceful Inhabitance
    This document provides Proper Understanding and Claim as a Non-Combatant Living Man/Woman, upon the republic and not within the Federal/United States territories, non-terrorist, etc. This is VERY important in today’s day and time, but must be complimented with the Notice of Mistake (mistaken identity).

    I will email Adask the documents for his review and possible upload addition with his own commentary.

    The real key is that you must have at least two, preferably three, cross witness signatures and optional Notary Public as well for more solid Standing on all documentation. As such, it is not often easy to get two or three with Understanding to go with you, the document creator, to a Notary Public for them to also witness as representative for the Public, but well worth it.

    Another important separate aspect is if you are able to engage in grassroots organizing of a local precinct or county assembly (10 precinct, 30 county) and have all assembly members sign, that is even more Solid. County level can also serve notice to all county representatives how they want their county run by consensus vs democratic mob rule. Just be sure to have a Compact drafted and created along with all necessary county, state, and national/federal level Founding documents hand certified if possible when serving Notice to the different level Secretaries.

  4. jim

    October 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM

    Greetings Al,
    What procedure would you currently use with todays comprehension for the Texas – Missouri rendition you experienced.

    • adask

      October 20, 2010 at 8:42 PM

      I believe that I was extradited based on Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 of The Constitution of the United States rather than Article 4 Section 2 Clause 2.

      Article 4.3.2 applies to white men who are 1) actually charged with a crime (which charge should require two witnesses); 2) fled from the State where the crime allegedly took place; 3) is found in another State; and 4) is returned (extradited) to the first State on demand of the Executive Authority of the first State.

      Article 4.3.3 applies to slaves and others subject to “service” (servitude) to some person in one State to be extradited from any other State where he is subsequently found “on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

      Note that for white men under 4.3.2, the extradition requires that an actual CHARGE (which may require TWO witnesses) be filed in the first State and that the extradition must be achieved with a DEMAND from the “Executive Authority” (governor) of the first state.

      Under 4.3.3, the slave or person subject to service in one State can be extradited from the second State based on nothing more than the CLAIM of the “Party” to whom the alleged “Service or Labour may be due”. That CLAIM requires only one witness. The process for recovering slaves and those subject to servitude was essentially PRIVATE. If just ONE person in some other State made a one-party CLAIM (not a criminal CHARGE) that you were their slave or servant, the government apparatus would go into action and cause you to be arrested and removed to another State.

      Most people suppose that Article 4.3.3 (which applies to slaves and servants) was repealed by the 13th Amendment (which outlawed slavery and INVOLUNTARY servitude). But that’s not quite correct. There is nothing in the 13th Amendment to prohibit VOLUNTARY servitude such as being a fiduciary (parent) for a child (beneficiary) in an express or implied trust to pay child support.

      I can’t prove it, but I’m convinced that I was arrested and extradited under Article 4.3.3 (primarily for slaves) based on a single, private and fraudulent CLAIM of one woman who implicitly alleged that I was a voluntary fiduciary (child support obligor). To this day, I’ve never been actually CHARGED with a crime. So, I’m confident I was extradited as a fiduciary (child support obligor) who was PRESUMED by the courts to have entered into a VOLUNTARY “servitude” to pay child support.

      But I’d signed my Wavier of Extradition “at arm’s length” to indicate that was willing to extradited without formal proceeding on condition that I was NOT extradited as a fiduciary acting in voluntary servitude. The Texas court judge signed and sealed that Waiver. The agents for the Missouri court that caused me to extradited accepted me under my condition as a non-fiduciary. By the time I was “received” in Missouri, the Missouri court was essentially screwed. Because they’d unwittingly agreed to recognize and accept me in the capacity of a non-fiduciary, they couldn’t prosecute me for breach of fiduciary obligations, and their entire extradition was unlawful.

      Unable to proceed against me (unless I acted so as to indicate I had, once again, entered into a “voluntary servitude” (fiduciary relationship), they held me for 344 days and then released me without even giving me a probable cause hearing.

      But, when all of this happened in A.D. 2002-2003, I didn’t fully understand the significance of declaring myself to be “at arm’s length”–especially with regard to EXTRADITION. It took another year or two after my release to recognize the differences between Articles 4.3.2 and 4.3.3.

      Today, I wouldn’t be my life on it, but I’m highly confident that the vast majority of “extraditions” are performed based one-party CLAIMS for breach of fiduciary obligations (voluntary servitudes) rather than CHARGES for actual crimes. If I’m right, I can probably stop virtually any attempt to extradite me by simply establishing that I’m acting “at arm’s length” and therefore not subject to extradition under Article 4.3.3.

  5. Tony Barbieri

    October 14, 2010 at 8:57 PM

    Hi Al,

    This one will be printed by me – and read numerous times. I believe it comes to me at an extremely opportunistic time.

    I hope you don’t hold it against me if I also think your time in the slammer was worth it! ;-)

    I think the assertion is even sublime. Everyone assumes John Doe is JOHN DOE and if JOHN DOE is NOT John Doe and a fiduciary relationship means infringement on rights, the government has demonstrably perpetrated massive fraud against the American people (voiding all such contracts?). So, they cannot insist the two are not one and the same. The thing they most need is the one thing they cannot admit.

    They need us to acquiesce the two are not the same and what defeats this acquiescence more strongly than stating they are!

    Wow, this is beautiful.

    Further thoughts on the spiritual front. I like this for its religious expression with the freedom to live according to it (and to assert this freedom of religion).

    Proverbs 11:15;22:26
    15 He who is surety for a stranger will suffer, But one who hates being surety is secure.
    26 Do not be one of those who shakes hands in a pledge, One of those who is surety for debts;

    And supposing the all upper case name does not identify the same entity as the regular name –and- given the elusive nature as to who or what it really is, it certainly is a stranger.

    Al, I thank God for giving you eyes to see and I thank you for revealing what you see to others. I am blessed.



    • adask

      October 14, 2010 at 11:24 PM

      Tony, you make me smile. I, too, am thereby blessed. Thanks.

  6. Jethro

    October 14, 2010 at 11:43 PM

    Notice a Social Security Card states plainly that:

    “This number has been established for”

    Then followed by a signature line by which one is expected to sign:
    All Caps Name

    The back of the Card states: “This card is invalid if not signed by the number holder unless health or age prevents signature.”

    So, the number for ALL CAPS NAME is “invalid” (“Not legally binding” Black’s 7th) unless *signed*. I believe it safe to conclude without that signature, ALL CAPS NAME has no life in it; it’s one’s voluntary (no “health or age” issues) signature (“intention of authenticating a document” Black’s 7th) that animates it. Perhaps the signature presumes you *intended* to bring ALL CAPS NAME to life, thereby being adhered to all of its benefits — and liabilities.

    An interesting question then might be… what happens to ALL CAPS NAME if one denies signing for it and such denial is admissible evidence?

  7. Dan

    October 14, 2010 at 11:49 PM

    I remember when you were in jail. I looked up the jail on the internet and found that they had a job opening for a jailer. As I was unemployed, I considered applying for the job. However, I didn’t know you that well and I have a felony that I knew they would find out about.

    I got another one since then, railroaded severely. I understand why you didn’t finish suing them.

    If I had managed to sue on just two or three of the times I have been unlawfully run through the legal meat grinder, I would be well off financially myself. Sometimes it just ain’t doable.

  8. indio007

    October 19, 2010 at 11:28 AM

    There is no shame in turning the other cheek.
    I was in a similar circumstance of whether to sue for false imprisonment over a warrant , void on it’s face. 4 Agencies handled my transport and all had actual notice of the void warrant. The warrant was issued into the computer system, there wasn’t a single shred of accompanying paperwork. They tried to show me a forged signature a warrant … but it was wet ink … how would they get a wet ink signature when the court that issued it was 150 miles away? Not to mention they forged the wrong signature , using the name of the clerk of a different court.

    Needless to say it all got dismissed because I refused a lieyer.
    I had an open and shut case but sometimes you need to just let it go.

  9. Bobby G

    October 20, 2010 at 8:02 PM

    Hello Alfred. I have come across some information concerning lawsuits against officials, which is very hard to win. However, an individual can file a CLAIM UPON OFFICIAL BOND”.

    All officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Since it is a spoken oath, to make it a private contract between you and them, you must accpt their oath. Now, if they breach their oath, you can file against their surety bond (all officials are bonded). By doing this, it is handled outside of court… between you, the bonding company, and the violator. Years ago, Bar attorneys used to commonly sue sheriffs via their bonds. Then, back around 1950 (so I’ve heard) they stopped doing that. Did they attorneys get together and make a deal not to do that anymore (could it be because many attorneys are also bonded?). Anyway, have you checked into this avenue?

    • adask

      October 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM

      I think that going after the government employees’ bonds is probably a very good strategy. However, it may not work.

      I believe that the current “state government” of “Texas” is the government of a “territory” (STATE OF TEXAS; TX) rather than a State of the Union (“The State of Texas”). If I’m right, it may be that the obligation to have bonds only applies to officers acting for the de jure government of The State of Texas–but maybe not for the employees of the private corporations that are currently masquerading as “government” but are only, at best, de facto. If so, the fact that an employee of “this state” (de facto) does not have a bond may be evidence that they have NO AUTHORITY over you and act solely in some private capacity. If the alleged “officers” (actually “employees”) have no bond, they may be PERSONALLY LIABLE for any offense they commit against you.

      More, the “attorney creed” (if I recall the term correctly) found in the Texas State Bar rules declares in part that “I am an attorney; my word is my bond.”. I didn’t think much of that “creed” when I first saw it on Texas. But while I was kidnapped and held in Missouri (extradited from A.D. 2002-2003), I saw the same language in the Missouri State Bar’s “attorney creed”: “MY WORD IS MY BOND.”

      When I saw the “My word is my bond” text twice, I began to contemplate the possible meaning.

      I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that the great significance of a license to practice law is the ability of licensed attorneys to “bond” a case with their mere “word” or “signature”. If that suspicion is correct, one of the bonds you may be looking for is that of whatever licensed attorney is responsible for whatever case is charged against you. If the attorney doesn’t have an actual bond, he might be–based on the attorney’s creed”–personally liable to you for whatever injuries you’ve suffered that were caused by the “privatized government” of “this state”.

      • mAximo

        October 21, 2010 at 2:38 PM

        Please summarise what last week’s guest said about the consequences of
        using a “licenced attorney” – a phrase proving that one is dealing with
        a Roman-civil-law state, rather than a State that lets attorneys be the
        People’s legal agents – and sheriffs their law enforcement agents.
        Are there any states which licence sheriffs as well? If so, then
        they’re also operating under commercial law, rather than agency law.
        Schedule 2 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement requires reciprocity
        in recognising the attorneys of each country, which should offer a way
        to have an attorney that’s not licenced by the bar, such that one need
        not acquiesce to the imposition of the commercial code or of territorial
        venue. Ignoring the practical difficulties, do you think it’s a viable

      • adask

        October 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM

        Article 1.10.1 of the federal Constitution declares in part, “No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. I conclude that the governments of the States of the Union cannot pay their bills or even impose taxes, fines and penalties in a currency that’s not at least backed by gold or silver.
        I therefore subscribe to the theory that the federal government rendered the governments of the States of the Union insolvent and inoperable by removing the gold (A.D. 1933) and the silver (A.D. 1968) from domestic circulation. I believe that, in the “vacuum” created by rendering the governments of the States of the Union insolvent, the federal government reduced those former States to the status of territories over which Congress has absolute and exclusive authority.
        I believe that, modern, post A.D. 1968 statutes and codes the term “The State” refers to the State of the Union while the term “this state” is code for the “territorial states” (like TX, NY & CA) that now masquerade as if they had constitutional authority.
        I’ve read the law for “TEXAS” that describes the Board of Directors who supervise the admissions to the Texas Bar Association. In the very first paragraph of that law, it declares that the purpose of the Board is to determine who shall be “eligible to practice law in this state”. This suggests that the licensed attorneys are ONLY licensed to practice “in this state”; that they are not licensed to practice within The State of Texas.
        This theory is supported by a number of appellate and Supreme Court cases wherein the courts declared the “practice of law” to be a “common law right”–meaning that anyone can “practice law” and no licensing of that “common law right” is possible. The question is WHERE does the “common law right” to practice law exist? The answer appears to be “within The State of Texas”.
        Where, likewise are “titles of nobility” prohibited by articles 1.10.1 and 1.9.8 of The Constitution of the United States? Within the States of the Union. I can’t yet prove it, but I strongly suspect that any license is a “title of nobility”. If that suspicion is correct, then it might not be possible to issue a license to practice law (or drive a car, or practice medicine, or run an animal shelter) within a State of the Union, but such licensing would be completely lawful within any territory (including TX, FL and OR).
        IF this theory were roughly correct, then it should be possible for you and me to “practice law” within The State of Texas (or The State of Florida, etc.) but illegal to do so in TX or FL. Similarly, we might be able to drive an automobile without license so long as we only drove within the borders of a State of the Union, but driving without a license within a territory would be prohibited.
        I suspect that “this state” may be code for the New World Order. I know how stupid that sounds, but if you read Texas Penal Code 1.04(d), you’ll see that the “territorial jurisdiction of this state” has no geographic limits. the “territorial jurisdiction” of “this state” appears to be universal.
        If the “territorial jurisdiction” of other “territorial states” are also defined as borderless, those “states” would seem to be only administrative zones of a single, universal jurisdiction. That implicates the New World Order, global governance, etc.
        I therefore suspect that all of the licensed attorneys of the world may only be licensed “in this state” and may ultimately be licensed by a single, global, borderless “government”.
        I’m not claiming that the previous theory is true. I’m simply saying that, for now, it appears plausible and even probable to me.
        If the theory is roughly correct, I doubt that you’ll be able to compel any nation to “recognize” an attorney who is not licensed by “this state”.

      • mAximo

        October 21, 2010 at 11:27 PM

        The Canada-US FTA is as binding on a State of the Union, as on a
        territorial state, so it shouldn’t matter if the ‘state’ you’re in
        is only the ‘territorial jurisdiction’ of TEXAS (i.e. a civil law
        ‘fiction’ = a juristic person pretending to be a State) which to
        me appears to be a circular definition to facilitate the double-
        -think, and isn’t the New World Order per se. Thus, one should be
        allowed to retain a qualified member of the Law Society of Ontario
        to plead a given case in any court of TX. ‘Solicitors’ are trained
        in common law, and could argue your case on that basis, but will
        the court allow venue to be re-established in the State of the

        If you click on my screen name, you’ll see ‘title of nobility’
        used to be a redundant phrase. Regarding bar members, “Esquire”
        is the Frenched-up version of “Squire” which started out as
        a title for members of the nobility as apprentices in knight-
        -service tenures, but likewise over time its usage devolved to
        cover members of the gentry in the civil service tenures of
        judge, barrister & magistrate.

        I’m now wondering whether the grant of 501c3 status to a church
        corporation is also that of a title of nobility to a juristic
        person, and whether the grant of juristic personhood is as well,
        in that both involve the grant of privileges that a natural
        person is never entitled to.

    • shupec

      October 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM

      I only recommend going after the Bond of the Private Individual and NOT in their ‘official’ or ’employment’ capacity. If you go after the ‘Public’ Bond there have been serious repercussions. Private to Private usually your ‘safe’.

  10. shupec

    October 20, 2010 at 8:39 PM

    It is recommended that you NEVER ‘go after’ the Bond of a position ‘within the system’, but instead the Bond of the Living Private Man/Woman who Holds the Position. This way you stay in the Private and do not trespass into the ‘Public’.

    For additional consideration, the ‘legal’ name is ‘first middle and last’ while the ‘lawful’ is Given and Family names. For example, my Given names are cynthia-claire while my Family Names are many, Kamar, Roberts, Harold, Hunter, Brewer, and Shupe. Also my Chosen names are Neama, Neiatar, and Shotarin. As such, any time an ‘official’ asks me my ‘name’ I will answer, “My Given Name is cynthia and claire. My current Chosen Name is Neiatar. If you wish I am happy to also provide you with my Family Names.

    By request I can provide additional documentation for study and self-education, email me shupec at his dot com.

    My site with news and resources:

  11. Ann Anderson

    April 1, 2011 at 2:16 AM

    Thanks for sharing your story… everyon should educate themselves to learn thier rights to defend themselves…and share thier successes or losses. knowledge is wisdom and wisdom is powerful.. I hope I have good to share with you in the future as I fight a battle with DMV after all I got evrything dismissed in my case my rights were violated and my driving was revoked for a year on an invalid refusal of testing.

  12. Ed

    July 30, 2011 at 11:52 PM

    There’s a lot i don’t understand. I can explain best by itemizing:

    1. I have known many instances of persons being arrested in State B on a felony warrants from State A. But, I have never known any person to be so arrested unless the warrant first existed. Yet, you say the arrest was “warrantless.” This can’t be possible for a number of reasons, foremost being that the arrest had to be performed by Texas authorities (Missouri has no arrest jurisdiction in Texas), who would not have acted until Missouri at least had you listed in the NCIC Wanted Persons index. And, no wanted person can be placed into the NCIC unless the originating agency 1) has the felony warrant on file, and 2) agrees to extradite. Out-of-state law enforcement would not have acted otherwise.

    I just have great trouble believing that Texas would have arrested you on a Missouri criminal charge without a warrant. I have just as much trouble believing that Missouri would have even asked Texas to arrest you without first issuing a warrant.

    2. You repeatedly state that you were “extradited” from Texas to Missouri. But, then you contradict yourself by saying that you “waived” extradition. Once arrested on an out-of-state warrant, you had the choice of waiving your extradition back to Missouri, OR you could have refused waiver and via a rather lengthy process force the governor of Texas to sign an extradition order.

    Were you extradited? Or did you waive extradition and agree to be voluntarily returned to Missouri?

    3. You make repeated references to “Texas” and “Missouri,” and your situation must have involved a state felony. Yet, in the custody photograph above you are surrounded by DEA agents and Deputy U.S. Marshals who neither enforce state law or handle state fugitives.

    Were you charged BY Missouri in a state criminal action, or charged federally IN Missouri by the U.S. attorney there? If your charges were Federal the extradition issue is moot since the states are uninvolved. If so, why even mention the states. Your story is very confusing!

    4. Why would the Sheriff’s hands be shaking in nervousness? The Sheriff is just the jailer. If you were a federal prisoner all he does is house and feds you under contract (the U.S. government maintains post-conviction prisons… it does not operate jails) and is in no way responsible for the reasons you are in his jail. Likewise, he has nothing to do with your court experiences, your release, continued incarceration…. nada! If you are a state prisoner the situation is similar, UNLESS the charges you were in jail for originated from investigators who worked for THAT Sheriff.

    Which was it, please?

    5. You talk about the “Missouri court” which wanted to “prosecute” and “proceed against” you. Courts don’t prosecute anyone… courts are the arenas where cases are heard. You were prosecuted by either a state or federal prosecutor. Again, could you say which one?

    Your writings who you to be very intelligent and educated. The omissions and generalities in those writings must be intentional. Do you realize how many times you forgo-ed identifying agency names and chose to use the pronoun “they?”

    6. Sorry this grew too long, but there is just so much to your story which doesn’t wash. You say you were “never charged,” but were kept in jail for nearly a year without a “probable cause” hearing. Of course you were charged, and did receive a probable cause hearing. The arrest warrant is the charging document. You can be arrested without a warrant, but you CANNOT be jailed without it. After a warrantless arrest the first place you go is before a magistrate to determine if probable cause existed for your arrest and continued incarceration. That’s also where bond is set… if set at all. You simply cannot be charged and jailed without an arrest warrant being issued as soon as possible after the arrest, and this deals only with warrantless arrests.

    You don’t take defense counsel because its an admission of the government’s sovereignty over you, yet you contemplate suing using the courts of the same government?

    I agree with much of your criticisms of government. But, I think you are being intentionally slippery with the issue of your arrest and incarceration. And, I suspect your reasons have a lot to do with with why you never filed a Section 1983, Title 42 action. You don’t need a cause of action to file federally (it’s why all the shysters use it, instead of state statutes), but you still have to prove your case.

    Sorry! But, I do think you were arrested by warrant. And, I know you didn’t set in a jail for a year without making several court appearances. You might be held in Turkey without being charged… but not in the U.S. Why did the prosecutor (not the court, and whoever he/she was) really not prosecute you? Were you held without bond, or did you have a bond?

    • Adask

      July 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM

      You say it is impossible to be extradited without a warrant. I agree that it should be impossible, but what I know is that: 1) two Carrollton Texas police officers entered my home without warrant. 2) they arrested me without warrant; 3) I demanded to see their warrant at the time of the arrest and they didn’t have one, but told me they’d show it to me at the police station; 4) when we arrived at the police station and I demanded to see the warrant, they only provided something they called a “teletype”. This teletype was a single sheet of paper with the name “ALFRED N ADASK” an address, an improper Date of Birth, and some reference to Jefferson County, Missouri. No warrant was ever produced. If a warrant existed, I never saw it despite my demands that it be presented.

      I was extradited to Missouri. When I said I “waived extradition” I meant that I waived my right to have an extradition hearing at the Dallas County jail before I was extradited (transported) to Missouri. The reason I waived the extradition hearing is that 1) I was flat out amazed that neither the Carrollton Police nor the Dallas Sheriff’s Department gave a damn that there was no warrant; 2) I knew the allegations against me were based on fraud and could be easily resolved on Missouri; 3) the Dallas County extradition officer told me that they could hold me for up to 180 days in the Dallas County Jail while they waited for Missouri to come to Dallas to participate in an extradition hearing. It turns out that the 180 day limit was a lie, but I believed it at the time. I had no intention of spending 180 days in the Dallas County Jail; 4) I assumed that while the police and sheriff’s department at Dallas were out of their minds (arresting without warrant); 5) I assumed that the people in Jefferson County Missouri would be far mre reasonable, rational and law-abiding; 6) I assumed that if I were shipped to Missouri, I’d explain the truth of the matter, prove the fraud, and be released within a week or ten days.

      Silly me. My assumptions were almost entirely wrong. I came to understand that Jefferson County, Missouri was widely regarded as the most corrupt county in Missouri. They had apparently figured out a way to make money off extraditions. For example, I met a black man from Ohio who’d been extradited to Jefferson County based on charges of having defrauded a number of Missouri businesses with false checks. That black man had been cleared of those charges by the F.B.I. It turns out that his ID had been stolen in Ohio and the thief had committed the fraud on Missouri. The F.B.I. had expressly notified Jefferson Country that the man had been cleared of wrong-doing. Jefferson County said they’d “take our chances” and extradited him anyway. He spent something like 90 days in the slammer before he was released. Another guy was extradited from Florida over a bounced check for something like $35. I was extradited based on a fraudulent claim that I’d been married.

      There’s no way Jefferson County would waste it time with such nonsense unless they’d figured a way to make money off extraditions. I don’t know that that scheme was, but I suspect it went something like this: Jefferson County spent something like $3,000 to extradite me to Missouri; Jefferson County then charged the STATE OF MISSOURI $5,000 (or maybe $10,000) to cover the costs of extradition; the STATE then charged the Feds something like $20,000 to cover the STATE’s costs. The feds spun the money out of thin air and paid. That’s pure conjecture.

      In any case, Jefferson County was widely regarded as corrupt. That’s part of the reason I was divorced in Jefferson County by a woman to whom I’d never been married. She alleged a marriage had taken place 5 years earlier but she only took my last name as part of the divorce decree. Get that? She didn’t take my last name as part of our alleged marriage, but she did take it as part of the divorce. In the transcript of the divorce hearing, the judge said he doubted that she’d ever been married to me, but he granted a divorce anyway. The judge also noted that I hadn’t been served on Texas with papers giving me notice of of the divorce hearing on Missouri. The judge nevertheless proceeded to grant a divorce. My point is that Jefferson County courts could be quite “creative”.

      I’d waived the extradition hearing at Dallas in order to avoid being held in the Dallas County Jail for 180 days. I thought I’d be held at Jefferson County for a maximum of ten days. Imagine my surprise when I was held for 344 days–and then released without even a probable cause hearing. Surprise, surprise.

      I never filed a Title 42 suit for false imprisonment. 344 days in the slammer had reduced me to the status of near homelessness. A friend let me rent a room and I started to rebuild my life and work on a Title 42 suit. But about 9 months after I was released from Jefferson County, the Garland Police came to my friend’s house to arrest me for another trip to Missouri. I wouldn’t step outside the house and the cops didn’t kick in the door, so I was no arrested. Three or four months later, they came back about 5 AM and beat the hell of the door. I assumed they’d crash through and arrest me, but they never did, and I never went to the door. The cops went away. In any case, this 2nd and 3rd attempt to arrest me absolutely surprised me. I thought the problem with Missouri was absolutely over. The idea of being arrested and sent to Missouri scared me.

      Now believing Jefferson County Jail was more dangerous to me than the Dallas County Jail, I stopped working on the Title 42 suit to study extradition law. I did not want to go back to Jefferson County.

      It’s presumed that modern extraditions take place under Article 4.2.2 of the federal Constitution–which requires that a person be charged with felony before he be extradited. So far as I know, I have never been charged with a crime, to this date. However, after some considerable study I concluded that I’d been arrested for extradition under Article 4.2.3–which allows for the extradition of slaves and those subject to voluntary servitude based on the mere “claim” (not a criminal “charge”) of the party demanding extradition. I seemed to have been extradited based on a mere “claim” rather than a “charge” so I concluded that I’d been extradited under 4.2.3. Today, I’m not so sure that conclusion is correct but, at the time, I was convinced it was so and I was convinced that I could use that insight to defeat another attempt to extradite me.

      The problem was that, by the time I’d reached a level of confidence in my ability to defeat another extradition, the 2-year statute of limitations for Title 42 suits had expired so I could no longer file a Title 42 suit for false imprisonment.

      However, the statute of limitations for RICO suits is four years–and would give me another two years to file. So, I began to study RICO. Ultimately, I did file a RICO suit in Federal Court. I don’t recall the case number but it can be found on PACER. But I never had that RICO lawsuit served on the Missouri defendants. The reason is that, while I’d been working on the RICO suit, I’d also been added as defendant to an ongoing lawsuit by the Attorney General of Texas (CV400268). Under that lawsuit, each of seven defendants were threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year). In theory, under that lawsuit, I could’ve been on the hook for most of $20 million. (For more info on that suit see “Man or Other Animals #1“.)

      The 4-year statute of limitations in the RICO case came up just about the time it appeared that the Texas AG suit was going to finally go to court. I didn’t have enough brains or energy to simultaneously prosecute a RICO suit at Dallas and defend against the Texas AG suit at Austin, Texas. I had to choose between the two cases. I could either sue people on Missouri for several million dollars for my false imprisonment, or I could defend against the Texas AG’s threat to clip me for a possible $20 million.

      I chose to defend against the threat of losing a judgment for $20 million rather than sue for several million and possibly collect several hundred thousand. As it turns out, that was an unfortunate choice. The Texas AG ultimately dropped his case and we never had to go to court. I never expected that to happen. If I had served the Missouri defendants in the RICO suit, I would’ve had time and energy to prosecute that case. I may or may not have won, but I would’ve had a chance.

      It still galls me that I didn’t serve the Missouri defendants in my RICO suit before the statute of limitations ran out. But given the information I had at the time, I had to make a choice. At the time, I thought it was the best choice–but I was mistaken.

      Nevertheless, all was not lost. We did stop the Texas AG’s case with a religious freedom defense. We learned (with the grace of God) that the Texas and federal drug laws are based on the presumption that the people are all “animals”. We discovered principles that could stop the whole “war on drugs,” take a big bite out of the police state, and turn a lot of prisons into ghost towns. None of that has happened yet, but the principles and the potential are there.

      Now, let me try to address some of your “points” in your critique.

      First, let me point out that you are the third person in roughly a week to give me any serious criticism on my blog. The first two (“Barton Springs” and “TW”) were lightweights. You, on the other hand, are not. You can write and analyze intelligently. More, you write that you “have known many instances of persons being arrested in State B on a felony warrants from State A.” Extradition is a fairly “exotic” subject. Not many “pro se’s” study it. You knowledge of the subject–and your ability to write suggests that you might be an attorney or a cop.

      I haven’t had any significant criticism on this blog in a year or more, and now I’m getting three attempts within one week. Quite a coincidence, hmm?

      Your items:

      #1. I agree. Warrantless extradition should be impossible. I demanded warrants from the moment of my arrest. I was never given one. If there was a warrant, I never saw it.

      #2. Perhaps I’m using the term “extradited” improperly, but I was hauled in a van, shackled hand and foot to about a dozen other prisoners from Dallas, Texas to Jefferson County, Missouri. I regard transportation in shackles to be “extradition”. I waived the “extradition hearing” (where I’d have a chance to context extradition) in order to a) get out of the Dallas County jail; and b) reach a “sane” court in Jefferson County.

      #3. The “custody photo” you refer to is not of me. I try to add a graphic image to each of my articles to “dress up” my blog a little and give some clue to the subject matter of each article. The photo associated with that article was only chosen as an attempt to illustrate the generic process of extradition. If you run your cursor over that photo, you should see a blurb that reads “Miguel-Rodriguez . . . escorted by DEA . . . .” It’s not a photo of me.

      I was extradited/transported by a private, for-profit corporation.

      #4. I have no idea why the hands if the man running the jail were shaking. I presumed that they were concerned that they had arrested me without warrant and had come close to being caught in a wringer. But he didn’t say. Maybe his hands were shaking from the last night’s bout with a bottle of tequila. Maybe he had Parkinson’s. But I’d never seen his hands shake before, and he seemed sober and healthy. So I speculated.

      #5. You wrote: “Your writings who you to be very intelligent and educated. The omissions and generalities in those writings must be intentional. Do you realize how many times you forgo-ed identifying agency names and chose to use the pronoun “they?”” When I write, I attempt to write for my audience. For example, when I write for a court or lawyer, I try to dot every “i” and cross every “t”. If you read the copy of the document I wrote in the “man or other animals” case, you’ll see an example of my prose when I’m writing to “pro’s”. But what works when I’m writing for lawyers and judges (and I’m being sued for $9 million per year) won’t work with a general audience on this blog. When I write for a general audience, I try to write more generally, more colloquially–pretty much as you described. It’s not an attempt to be evasive, it’s simply an attempt present some fundamental ideas and principles in a way that an average person can understand without having to wade through a swamp of “ipso facto’s” and “e pluribus unum’s”.

      #6. You wrote: “there is just so much to your story which doesn’t wash. You say you were “never charged,” but were kept in jail for nearly a year without a “probable cause” hearing. Of course you were charged, and did receive a probable cause hearing. The arrest warrant is the charging document. You can be arrested without a warrant, but you CANNOT be jailed without it. After a warrantless arrest the first place you go is before a magistrate to determine if probable cause existed for your arrest and continued incarceration. That’s also where bond is set… if set at all. You simply cannot be charged and jailed without an arrest warrant being issued as soon as possible after the arrest, and this deals only with warrantless arrests.” Yeah, well, that’s a very nice theory, Ed. It’s like the “theory” that all judges are honorable. Nice theory, but it ain’t necessarily so. I can tell you that the description I provided is exactly what I observed happen in my case.

      I think I know why. Long before I was arrested, I had concluded that child support proceedings were ultimately based on the idea of a breach of fiduciary obligations that were tried in courts of equity based on express or implied trust relationships between the alleged “obligor” (fiduciary) and the child/beneficiary. Therefore, when I signed the waiver of extradition, I signed with the disclaimer “at arm’s length” above my signature. It was one of my “conditions” for signing the waiver. The “at arm’s length” disclaimer means that I agreed to be extradited on condition that I was extradited in the capacity of a non-fiduciary. As a non-fiduciary, I could not be prosecuted for breach of fiduciary obligations. I.e., if they accepted me in a non-fiduciary capacity, they couldn’t prosecute me for real or fraudulent allegations of child support violations.

      I also subscribe to the theory that the names “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED N ADASK” identify two entirely different entities. I could be wrong, but I believe the first is the name of a living man (me) and the second is the name of a legal fiction. I believe that the system relies on a process where they typically charge the fiction (“ALFRED N ADASK”) with an offense, and then trick the man (“Alfred Adask”) into representing, animating and even acting as surety for that fiction.

      I therefore complained repeatedly to Dallas County Extradition Officer “Woods” that the name on the waiver of extradition (“ALFRED N ADASK”) was not my proper name and I couldn’t therefore couldn’t sign the waiver. Office Woods eventually suggested that, beneath the line where I was to affix my signature, he write “true name: “Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK“. I’m sure he had no idea of what he was writing. I believe to this day that the Good LORD was guiding Mr. Woods’ suggestion. It wasn’t my idea, but I saw the implication instantly. By declaring that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias for man named “Alfred Adask,” I eliminated any presumption that there’s a fictional defendant named “ALFRED N ADASK” (which has virtually no meaningful rights) that is represented and/or animated by the man “Alfred Adask” (who has quite a lot of rights, but which rights are irrelevant since he’s not the actual defendant). By using the formula devised by Mr. Woods, I collapsed the names “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED N ADASK” into a single living man–me.

      Some people may dismiss the theory of the two names (“Adask” and “ADASK”) as hogwash. Maybe they’re right.

      But I added two conditions to my waiver of extradition: 1) that I be extradited “at arm’s length” (as a non-fiduciary); and 2) that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” be recognized as only an alias for my true name “Alfred Adask”.

      I agreed to sign the waiver. The Dallas court judge signed that agreement of waiver. The Dallas court clerk sealed that agreement of waiver. About a week later I was extradited/transported to Missouri.

      The people in Jefferson County didn’t realize what they’d done, until after I’d been placed in their jail. They’d extradited and jailed a man for a breach of fiduciary obligation who they’d accepted as a non-fiduciary. From that moment on, they didn’t have brains enough to figure out how to proceed against me and I didn’t have brains enough to know how to force them to release me. So we had a Mexican standoff for the remainder of the 344 days. During that time they tried repeatedly to entice me into acting as a fiduciary. Through the grace of God, I managed to avoid their snares. In the end, the judge scheduled a probable cause hearing (for the 344th day of my captivity). The brought me from the jail to the courthouse. Put me in a cell 50 feet from the court room. Tried to compel me to take a lawyer (if I had, I would’ve accepted the role of fiduciary). I refused repeatedly. I was never allowed into the courtroom. A public defender eventually came to my cell and announced that The judge had ordered that the case against me be dismissed and that I was free to go (without a penny in my pocket, incidentally) and return to my former home at Dallas–about 800 miles away.

      There’s more. But it’s 3:35 AM Sunday morning. I need to get some sleep.

      If you want some verification of my statements here, go to PACER–find the RICO suit I filed at the federal court at Dallas (it’s not hard to find; I’m the only “Adask” in their records)–read it. You’ll see that the facts I’ve alleged in this comment are virtually identical to the facts I alleged in the RICO suit that I filed in A.D. 2007.

      You may think I’m being “slippery,” but when you compare what I wrote in this comment to what I filed into federal court 4 years ago, I think you may agree that it’s unlikely that I’m resorting to the same “slipperyness” today that I restorted to in my first federal RICO suit.

      I know it all sounds pretty fantastic, but I can prove that I was divorced by a woman that I was never married to who did not take my name “Adask” when we were allegedly married, but did take my last name when she divorced me. The story starts there, and it gets stranger to the point of being fantastic. But it’s true.

  13. Ed

    July 31, 2011 at 12:03 AM

    And one last thing… FORGET the U.S. Constitution. Study the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court instead. The Constitution has to be interpreted (however pervertly) and that’s the job of the Court, not you or I, or any other individual or entity. Our interpretation of the Constitution is perfectly meaningless, even if there was room for 300+ million people to each have their own understanding of the document’s meaning.

    Look at it this way… if one can quote the U.S. Constitution with amendments verbatim, he is possessed with knowledge that has absolutely no value. All you can do is impress the neighbors.

    But! if he can quote verbatim every Supreme Court decision on constitutional issues, then he is a legal scholar of epic worth. These court rulings by the way ARE the law… not the Constitution.

  14. Ed

    July 31, 2011 at 3:10 PM

    Thank you for the reply. That clears some things up… some things are still as nebulous as before.

    The Constitution has no teeth. Not until its issues have been resolved by the Supreme Court can we have true “constitutional law.” The Fourth Amendment says that no one can be arrested without a warrant… period! Yet subsequent Court rulings identify all sorts of lawful warrantless arrest situations. Knowlege of the verbatim Constitution is useless information… knowledge of how the Constitution is to be applied is everything.

    If the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment was about the right to keep and bear lawn mowers… guess what? You’d be undergoing background checks to buy the Murray with the 40″ deck. Another falsehood we are told almost since the cradle is that there are 3 branches of government. Ain’t so! Because, ALL Legislative and Executive issues eventually must be decided by the Judiciary. Put more simply, all Legislative and Executive issues are subject to sole and complete review by the Judicial Branch. However, all Judicial issues are also reviewed by the Judiciary. Hence, all power eventually rests with the Judicial Branch of government.

    Back to your arrest. If the police officers were aware of the existence of an arrest warrant taken out for you, then they were perfectly within existing law to arrest you at home without having warrant in hand. However, the warrant would need to be produced as soon as possible. Since the warrant was in Missouri, that would reasonably take time. Telling you that you would see the warrant later is legal… and required.

    Yes, the “teletype” was from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Created in 1969, the system had to go through the courts to see if police could arrest on NCIC information sans warrant. They can, since no cop can carry 500 million warrants around with them. Showing you the teletype is legally satisfactory too… you may not even see the real warrant until the extradition team shows up, or when you get back to Missouri.

    You sir, WERE arrested on a valid warrant. At no time were you subject to a warrantless arrest. That the cops didn’t have a physical copy of the true warrant with them is wholly irrelevant. The fact that your name was in the wanted persons system and the police verified the validity of the entry with the originating agency makes your arrest as much a warranted arrest as if the cops had a copy of your arrest warrant in every pocket.

    Take note too that warrantless arrests are not illegal per say… most arrests made by police ARE warrantless arrests, with the warrant being taken out later. A cop may make 10 or even 100 warrantless arrests to every one he makes with a warrant. And, it’s all perfectly legal.

    An “improper date of birth” doesn’t invalidate a warrant. It’s called clerical or harmless error, and can be modified later. The important legal issue is this… did Missouri get the man it intended to get? If so, it’s automatically harmless error (incidentally it wasn’t always this way. Back in the 60’s you could have had your way until all the exceptions to the notorious Exclusionary Rule ate the rule up).

    So far, your rights have not been violated. The fact that you demanded to see the original arrest warrant doesn’t entitle you to it. In any case, the Texas cops didn’t have it. All they needed to show you was the NCIC confirmation “hit”, and they didn’t even have to do that. The law requires you to take their word on the matter.

    Your are probably right that the Carrollton Police and Dallas County Sheriff’s Office didn’t give a damn that they didn’t have the warrant. They probably didn’t care for the price of tea in China either. In both cases they don’t have to care, and in your case they had all they needed to be legally sufficient. To them you are probably just one of 1,500 or so other inmates.

    Telling you that you could be held in Dallas “up to 180 days” is legal or illegal depending on the circumstances. If you were told this as truthful information, then it is legal. If you were told this in an attempt to get you to waive any of your due process rights (including extradition) then it would be illegal. Texas must extradite you with Missouri’s help by a certain length of time or release you. What is that time in Texas… 6-months? Sounds about right, but I don’t know the law of alll 50-states.

    You were never “extradited to Missouri.” When you waived your “right to have an extradition hearing”, you waived extradition… it’s all the same thing. The ORI (Originating Agency – whoever wanted you in Missouri) could now come pick you up and take you back to Missouri without first receiving an extradition order signed by the Texas govenor.

    But yes, most persons do waive extradition. They are not doing good time waiting around for months in the wrong state, and fighting extradition usually means they spend more time behind bars. But, all states routinely and forcibly extradite persons by mutual agreement with other states. The states are no stranger to the process.

    So far, I don’t see where Dallas did you wrong. Sounds textbook legal to me. You could have sued them of course after the old adage of “One can sue the Bishop of Boston for Bastardy….” you just might not get anything.

    So, onto Missouri. Missouri officials would have picked you up in Dallas, and either drove or flown you back to Missouri.

    Let’s talk about your black guy on check forgery charges. Apparently, he was in jail on state charges, but if the FBI was involved there there must have also been a violation of federal criminal law. Remember the double-jeopardy guarantee in the 5th Amendment? Well, it doesn’t apply in dual state and federal matters. Bank robbery is both a state and federal offense. In theory a person can be convicted of the same bank robbery using the same evidence in BOTH state and federal courts…. and it is NOT double-jeopardy. That’s why reading the Constitution isn’t of any value… one has to read the case law relevant to the Constitution. And, the courts have said that dual state & federal prosecution isn’t double jeopardy.

    So, it means nothing to Missouri that the black guy had been “cleared by the FBI”, just as it means nothing to the FBI that the guy might be cleared by Missouri. I’m betting that your source of information on the black guy’s case is hearsay, or from the black guy himself. It makes no sense that Missouri would want to prosecute a man they knew was innocent, all the while allowing the real felon to walk free to continue his crimes. The fact that the black guy wasn’t tried or convicted doesn’t mean he was innocent either… many factors go into the decision to prosecute or not. Just as one is not guilty until so found, neither is he innocent unless such a verdict is issued.

    The $35 check guy is a real enigma. Did you get your information from him, or the rumor mill? Because it can’t be so.

    No one has ever been extradited anywhere for a bounced $35 check. A bounced check is an insufficient funds check… a misdemeanor if the check is under the cutoff for a felony (normally $500 in most states). So, the worst offense that Check Guy could have committed is misdemeanor insufficient funds, and he would never be extradited on a misdemeanor. Now, check Forgery is a felony, as is a “No-Account Check” (writing a check on your own CLOSED account), regardless of the amount of the check. So, this story can’t possibly be true although I understand you honestly believe it.

    The government cannot make money on extraditions… it’s a lose-lose situation. In the old days a lot of wanted people were picked up out-of-state on NCIC hits, only to find that the originating agency refused to come pick up the arrested person…. because of the cost. Then the requirements for use of the system changed… no agency can enter a wanted person unless they agree without condition that they will travel anywhere in the country to pick up the person. I have not seen an agency refuse to collect their defendant in many years.

    I can’t understand the flow of extradition profit money in your case. Jefferson County IS the State of Missouri when it comes to the criminal code. That’s because Jefferson County courts deal only with state law… indeed the court itself is a STATE court which just happens to be located in Jefferson County. Jefferson County may/may not have a few county ordinances, but these are small offenses. There is no such thing as a “county felony”, and only felonies are subject to the extradition process.

    I really can’t understand why the federal government would be paying Missouri to do Missouri’s job of enforcing its own criminal statutes. That would apply if you were an illegal alien due to a special program, and the feds do offer grants to the states, but the feds paying a state to prosecute its own state charge? That’s like you paying me to mow my own yard. I can tell you this… I have never known an agency to make money by extraditing anyone. Extradition is a costly process, and most jurisdictions don’t even enter all their felony warrants into the NCIC because there isn’t money in the budget to pick them all up. Only the worse felonies find their way into the nationwide system.

    I’m lost on the was/wasn’t married in Jefferson County thingie. I’ll pass.

    On the Garland cops attempt to arrest you. Police cannot serve arrest processes on any person who is in a third-party’s home, unless the homeowner waives his rights, and/or you step outside. Otherwise, the police also need a search warrant in addition to the arrest warrant. Interestingly, if the Garland cops HAD kicked in the door to arrest you at your friend’s house, and over the friend’s objection, you still would not have YOUR rights violated because you lack a legal term called “standing.” The only person with standing would be the homeowner friend. Only his rights would be violated.

    Still, why is Missouri wanting you again? It HAD to be a completely separate charge from the first time. It certainly was not a reactivation of the warrant which had already been discharged. And, Garland police must not have wanted you too badly not to leave a cop camped outside your friend’s door while the others went to get a search warrant to hand your friend, allowing them to enter and nab you.

    But, Garland did come back months later… still without the search warrant? Strange procedures. I don’t know enough to comment further.

    On Article 4.2.2… you WERE charged. There was an arrest warrant issued for you… that IS the charge. Jefferson County didn’t put you into the wanted persons computer system for nationwide pickup unless a warrant had already been issued. Neither would Dallas have put you in jail without a warrant, or initiated extradition procedures to include accepting your waiver. And, neither would Jefferson County have traveled to Texas to pick you up without a warrant, or kept you in the Jefferson County jail without a warrant.

    There is no federal statute of limitations for a Title 42, Section 1983 action. Some courts use the applicable state time limitations on torts. If two years is a limit, then it is a state limit; not federal.

    You are correct on the four-year RICO limitation. The Act contained no limitation, but subsequent case law did establish a time limit.

    And whoa! This is too long already. Based on what you’ve written, I don’t see any chance of success with either a 1983 or a RICO action in any case. Maybe you were denied your rights, and maybe Jefferson County is a racketeering criminal organization. But, I don’t see it here.

    I do think that much of the year you spent in jail was due to your own stubborness in refusing to accept legal counsel. Unfortunately, both statutory law and criminal procedure seems to be your weak points. To have any hope of success against the system you are either going to have to become expert in legal affairs, or accept legal expertise from those who do have it.

    Never represent yourself. Even lawyers hire other lawyers to represent them. They are following that sage wisdom that “he who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

    • Adask

      July 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM

      You still haven’t identified yourself. What do you do–besides assure people that its “impossible” for the government to break the law? You speak with some authority, but you don’t identify that authority. Why not?

      In 344 days, I never saw a warrant. I never saw an actual charge or charging instrument. I can believe what you write (that such warrantless arrests are impossible), or I can believe what I saw. I’ll believe what I saw.

      If there was a warrant and my rights were never violated, why wouldn’t they bring me into the court room? Why was my case–allegedly based on two felonies–ultimately dismissed by the judge without even giving me a probable cause hearing? I don’t know the answer, but I believe they knew from the beginning that they didn’t have probable cause to arrest or hold me. That should also be “impossible”

      I can’t prove it, but I believe that any breach of fiduciary duty is based on the presumption that the two parties (plaintiff and defendant) have previously and voluntarily entered into an express or implied trust relationship. The existence of an implied trust relationship is presumed from 1) the implications of the plaintiff’s complaint; and 2) the assent of the defendant. If she implies that there was a trust relationship between her and me and I fail to expressly deny that relationship, the relationship is presumed to exist. Once I not only denied the existence of a trust relationship between myself and the plaintiff, but produced a waiver of extradition (signed & sealed by a judge & court clerk) that I had agreed to go to Missouri on condition that I go “at arm’s length,” they didn’t have two witnesses to the existence of an implied trust. Without my silent assent, there was no implied trust. Because I had never signed a trust indenture, there was no express trust. Without my “implied” witness (assent) to the existence of an implied trust, they didn’t have the two witnesses needed to prove the existence of the implied trust relationship.

      While I was in that jail, the prisoners came and went like customers at Walmart. Most were there for 3 or 4 days, took a bond or cut a plea bargain, and were released. There were only two men in that jail longer than me, and they were guilty of murdering their wives or girlfriends. After I’d sat in that jail for 3 or 4 months, I began to wonder why they hadn’t prosecuted me, and I concluded that they couldn’t prosecute me. Why? They needed something to make their prosecution “legit”. What could it be? The woman making the allegations was there, the prosecutor was there, the court was there. I deduced that whatever they needed but didn’t have must come from me. I concluded that they needed me as a “second witness” to prove the existence of the implied trust relationship.

      It is possible that I was arrested and detained throughout in the capacity of a “material witness” rather than defendant. If so, that might explain the lack of arrest warrant and lack of extradition warrant.

      Their system relied on detainees going into a panic mode and seeking a bondsman or public defender to “get me outa here!” I trusted in the Good LORD. I never asked for a bond. I never asked for a plea bargain. I refused to accept a Public Defender. On the last day, they tried to get me to agree to take a personal recognizance bond. They let me out of jail at absolutely no cost to me, if I’d sign their bond. I knew the bond would give the court jurisdiction (it said so on the bottom of the bond). I knew they didn’t have jurisdiction. I refused their offer to “get out of jail free”. A few minutes later, the public defender came back to my cell (in the court house) to announce that the judge had dismissed the charges against me.

      As for your advice that only fools represent themselves without a lawyer, if I had employed the Public Defender, I’d be a convicted felon today. One of the major reasons I’m not pissing on command into a cup is that I refused to employ an attorney.

      I think the reason for that may be that that “ALFRED N ADASK” (the actual defendant in this matter) was not “Alfred Adask” (the man). I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that if I had agreed to employ the services of a Public Defender (or any other licensed attorney), I wouldn’t be hiring that attorney to represent me (“Alfred Adask”) but rather to represent “it” (“ALFRED N ADASK”). I suspect that if I hired an attorney to represent “it,” I’d be “representing” “it” and be deemed to have acted as a fiduciary on “it’s” behalf. On my signed/sealed “waiver of extradition,” I’d denied that “Adask” and “ADASK” were two different entities. If I’d hired an attorney to represent “ADASK,” I would have refuted the earlier denial. If “ADASK” is some sort of legal fiction, it can’t appear in court unless someone represents it. It may be that I’m the only one who could (initially) represent “ADASK”. If I refused to represent “ADASK,” it might not be able t6o appear. If “ADASK” didn’t appear, the case might not proceed.

      I don’t know what actually happened in my case because the judges never explained to me why they did what they did. I’m left to infer and deduce.

      I do know that I was arrested for two alleged felonies, transported to Missouri, held for 344 days, and finally released on the day scheduled for my probable cause hearing without being allowed to enter the court room.

      You say it’s “impossible” for me to have been arrested without warrant. Well, it should also be “impossible” to hold a man for 344 days without a probable cause hearing, but it happened. It should be “impossible” for a man charged with two felonies to be released from jail without a bond or even a probable cause hearing–but it happened. It should be “impossible” for a man to be divorced by a woman he never married–but it happened.

      There are a number of seeming “impossibilities” in this case. Insofar as even one of these impossibilities is true, my rights were violated and, contrary to your opinion, I did have a legitimate cause of action against those responsible for my detention.

      People reading this blog understand that our government commits the “impossible” on a regular basis. We know it because we’ve seen it.

      You, on the other hand, seem to have learned what is “possible” and “impossible” from a book. Insofar as that’s true, you have a belief based on a theory. I (and others like me) have knowledge based on direct personal experience. Our knowledge can trump your belief.

      You write like a man who should know a great deal about the inward workings of the system. You write like a man who may need to believe that certain instances of injustice are “impossible”. You write like a man bent on defending, rather than objectively perceiving, the “system”. I suggest you rethink your choice of words and begin to use “extremely improbable” instead of “impossible”.

      Our government is a racket. The people who work for government may not want to believe that, but its true. The people who work for government may not want the public to believe that the government is a racket but, increasingly, the public not only believes it but sees it to be true.

      I suspect that you are going to be called on to explain, justify or discredit a lot of “impossibilities” over the next few years. I also suspect that sooner or later, you’ll be forced to admit that this government commits “impossibilities” every day.

      It’s those “impossibilities” (acts of institutionalized injustice) that bring people to websites and blogs like this one. While folks like you assure us that certain things are (theoretically) “impossible,” we know from personal experience that the impossibilities happen every day.

  15. Richard Cole

    September 18, 2011 at 3:35 PM

    I too live in Texas, Anderson county. I was arrested 5-5-2011 on alleged child support. I filed a counter suit via affidavit form. Sent a copy to the persecutor, child support office Putnam county,Indiana, Ex-wife, and one for filing in putnam county and a prepaid envelope for my returned copy. That was sent certified mail to all parties. That was on Aug11 2009. I was sent a writ of body in October 2009. They allegedly say they sent a certified copy to me on the 23rd of July, but they sent it to the wrong address. My proper address was on the affidavit in big bold font. Ray Charles could have seen it. I could not lawfully recieve mail at my residence unless I filled out a postal card to do so which I already was using a private mailing source, so I had no desire. For the record, I was paying child support until I was laid off due to my high blood pressure and shortness of breath. I am still waiting on my short term disability to be paid. I have hired an attorney out of San Antonio,Tx to file for my social security benefits. That was filed when I was arrested, and as soon as ss found out I was locked up, they released my paperwork and my employer also released me because I did not respond in a timely manner. I couldn’t, I was locked up. I had no way of knowing. Either way. Child support is out of control. Something needs to be done. I am out on 7500$ cash bond. My next hearing is the 18th of Sept. 2011 and again in Oct 25th 2011. They are gonna nickle and dime me until I am broke. Now you can be arrested for getting sick. The states and counties get money to lock you up. I hate to say this, but its time to get our confederacy back.

  16. Starting home Business

    April 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM

    I just wanted to take a couple of seconds and tell you that I liked the
    blog post. I genuinely don’t think many people know what amount energy that goes into making a good web site. I am sure that this is sort of random but it bothers me occasionally. At any rate outstanding blog site.

  17. Rose Neeley

    June 7, 2014 at 10:34 AM

    What is the matter with you people… You need to get a R E A L life. If you hate the government so much, there’s plenty of places you can go and live like an animal.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s