Am I About To Be Labeled a “Domestic Terrorist”?

15 May

60 Minutes (Australian TV program)

Image via Wikipedia

There is some reason to believe that I may soon be portrayed as a “domestic terrorist”.  This article is intended to blunt that portrayal.

•  Last Friday, I received notice from the TV program 60 Minutes that today, Sunday, May 15th, A.D. 2011, (about 35 minutes from now)  they’d air a segment that includes me.  I haven’t seen the segment, so I don’t know how I’ll be portrayed—but I have reason to believe that I may be cast in a false light and/or defamed by tomorrow’s program.

The cause for my concern is the 60 Minutes description of the segment on their “Up Next” webpage:

Sovereign Citizens – Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer.” Watch a preview

In March, I’d spent my 2-hour interview with 60 Minutes trying to rationally explain that the concept of individual sovereignty was the fundamental principle that animated the American Revolution, was the cornerstone for American liberty, and could be traced to our God-given, unalienable Rights.  In the end, sovereignty is a spiritual (rather than political) concept.  Judging from the 60 Minutes description (above), the segment may be more akin to a sensationalized witch-hunt than an objective investigation into the subject of individual “sovereignty”.

Apparently, I am being being linked to Jerry Kane who (with his son, Joe) died in a recent shoot-out with police.  So far as I can recall, I’d never heard of Jerry Kane until after he died.

These kinds of express or implied associations (between me and anyone who’s died in a gunfight with the police) are dangerous to me in that they place me at risk any time I interact with police.  Insofar as police are led to believe that I’m cut from the same cloth as Jerry Kane, they may believe that I’m “armed and dangerous” (I’m not) and therefore increase the probability that I might be shot without cause.

I don’t know what the net effect of the 60 Minutes segment will be.  I probably won’t know the full effect of the program for weeks or months after the program airs.

But judging from the description and video preview (above), 60 Minutes may be promoting (or at least implying) the idea that I’m a “domestic terror threat”.  If so, that’s untrue and I have a well-publicized track record for at least 20 years to show that the only “violence” I’ve advocated is reading the law, educating yourself, and using your knowledge of the law and paperwork to defend against governmental oppression and to hold governmental officials and employees accountable for their misdeeds.

As big government becomes increasingly tyrannical, I can understand that its agencies might want to define any dissident who accuses the almighty gov-co of criminal or treasonous acts to be a “domestic terrorist” (especially if the accusations against gov-co are true).  But, hopefully, reasonable men and women will insist that a “domestic terrorist” is one who commits actual acts of unjustified violence for political purposes.  If so, that label does not apply to me.

Yes, I have long-recognized that violence against an established government may ultimately be necessary to stop tyranny and despotism (witness the American Revolution, WWII and the recent “Arab Spring”).  The very concept of using violence to “throw off” despotic governments is enshrined in the “Declaration of Independence” that we celebrate every 4th of July.  Our Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that the people would always have the means (firearms) to “throw off” a despotic government.  Both the Declaration and the 2nd Amendment anticipate the probability that even the American government would one day again grow despotic and that the people would need both the principles and means to “throw off” that despotism.

I have advocated that people be prepared for the possibility that violence may one day become necessary.  But I have not advocated that people commit violence—except as a last resort.  And I have never advocated that people start shooting now.

My reason for advocating firearm ownership is not to incite violence but to prevent it.  An unarmed people are easily oppressed and subjected to genocide by their own government.  Witness Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia.  When a government confiscates the people’s firearms, genocide is usually imminent.

Lots of people advocate the ownership of firearms.  I go a step further and advocate that the people be “armed” with both firearms and the reason for owing firearms.  That reason is not to go duck hunting in the Fall.  The reason for owning firearms—as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment—is to overthrow a despotic or treasonous government.

It was my advocacy of the reason for owning firearms that brought me to 60 Minutes’ attention.  I suspect that my advocacy of understanding the reason may be twisted by 60 Minutes to falsely suggest that I advocate violence.  We shall see.

However, yesterday, I sent an email to Clem Taylor and Jessica Haddad at 60 Minutes advising them that I do not consent to be cast in a false light and/or defamed by 60 Minutes.   That notice may have legal consequence, but I doubt that it will have any effect on tonight’s broadcast.

Here’s a copy of the text of the email:

Re: This Sunday on 60 Minutes NOTICE OF NO CONSENT

Hi Jessica & Clem,

I received Jessica’s email (below) about 3:45 PM CST.  It announced that you intend to broadcast a 60 Minutes segment this coming Sunday, that will include me.

I was initially excited.

Then I visited the 60 Minutes website and read the following description on the “Up Next” webpage:

Sovereign Citizens  Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer”

Judging from that description, it appears that the people at 60 Minutes may intend to use my interview to produce a segment that expressly says or implies that I am a violent extremist and/or domestic terror threat–and/or that I knowingly associate with violent extremists and/or domestic terrorists.  Both descriptions would be false.

If 60 Minutes does “cherry pick” a couple of my offhand remarks out an interview that lasted nearly two hours to describe me as violent or any kind of terrorist, that description would be false and defamatory.  Given your journalistic obligation to fully research your segments and given my extensive public background (including my A.D. 1992 candidacy for the Texas Supreme Court), such defamation would be knowing.  I have a documented public history that extends at least back to A.D. 1990.  This history has been expressed my radio shows, my magazine, my blog and a number of mainstream media reports.   That history demonstrates that my position has always been to seek a civil solution to our problems with government.  While I have always recognized that violence against government might be justified by government’s own institutionalized tyranny (as it was for our Founders in A.D. 1776), I have never advocated violence as an objective, but only as a last resort in defense of liberty.

Nevertheless, during the interview Mr. Pitts asked me repeatedly about a particular radio broadcast I’d done at some time in the past.  In that one radio  program, I explained that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of The United States of America against governmental tyranny by shooting, if necessary, politicians and governmental employees who engage in tyranny.  I attempted to explain to Mr. Pitts that my position on the 2nd Amendment was justified by the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights.  If 60 Minutes chooses to take my words out of context and without reference to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I might be defamed and falsely portrayed as an advocate of violence.

Here’s an article I wrote on the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights and first published on or about April 14th, A.D. 2011:

As you may know, my landlord (a middle class businessman) at Utopia (where the interview was conducted) warned that 60 Minutes might edit my interview so as to not only defame me, but attract so much adverse government attention as to cause in a “Ruby Ridge-” or “Waco-” style raid on my landlord’s property.  In fact, even though my rent was paid until the end of April, my landlord was so fearful of a possible government “raid” that he ordered me to vacate his property on Sunday, March 13th, and I did in fact leave on March 16th, right after the 60 Minutes interview.

After the actual interview, I mentioned my “eviction” to Mr. Pitts and Mr. Taylor.  They both seemed shocked that anyone would distrust 60 Minutes journalistic integrity.  Both men assured me that 60 Minutes had a reputation for fair and objective journalism and that I need not fear being falsely depicted on the final segment.  Until now, I have trusted in Mr. Pitts’ and Mr. Taylor’s assurance and in the 60 Minutes reputation for fairness and objectivity.

However, because the “Up Next” description of the segment on “sovereign citizens” seems so sensationalized and  biased against “sovereign citizens,” I am concerned that my trust in Mr. Pitts, Mr. Taylor and 60 Minutes may have been betrayed.

I am therefore sending this email to you as a Notice that:

1) I do not consent to be defamed by 60 Minutes; and,

2) I do not consent or otherwise agree to have any of my statements or images broadcast on 60 Minutes if those statements and images are used to cast me in a false light and/or are defamatory.

As I explained to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Pitts, I don’t expect the 60 Minute segment to be flattering.  I recognize that the issue of “sovereignty” is controversial.  But the issue of sovereignty is no more controversial than the Declaration of Independence from which our sovereignty flows.  I therefore expect the 60 Minutes segment to portray me objectively and in a way that’s consistent with the overall impression of the 2-hour interview and with my 20 year history of political activism.  If 60 Minutes can’t do that, and has instead chosen to defame me, I do not consent to be portrayed in the 60 Minutes segment on “sovereign citizens”.

CREED: At all times and places, I have been, am and will be as our Father YHWH ha Elohiym made me:  An actual, physical man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.  Unless otherwise expressly and voluntarily agreed by me in writing over my actual hand-written signature:  I exercise my actual rights of religious and political freedom of choice to declare that the venue of all of my conduct, speech, writings, agreements, residence and domicile is: without the singular “United States” and actually on the soil within the physical boundaries of The County of Dallas located within the border of The State of Texas–one of the several member-States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; that all of my conduct is intentional; that all of my acts and intentions take place in a Year of our Lord; that I act at arm’s length and without prejudice to my capacity as a sovereign Dei gratia; that I do not consent to act as, or as part of, any “double personality,” “double capacity,” and/or “double character”; that my duty of obedience is only to that government that exists under the authority granted by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym as per Romans 13:1-7 and is consistent with the express charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas” and “The Organic Law of The United States of America”; that I have not knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily consented to be subject by virtue of mere statute, rule, regulation, emergency, or alleged moral or obligation to the authority of any unincorporated, implied charitable trust; that my purposes are at all times religious first and/or political second and dedicated to restoring understanding and respect for the spiritual principles which provide the foundation for the republican form of government guaranteed at Article 4 Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States ratified in A.D. 1788 and by Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
Alfred Adask a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”
radio:  American Independence Hour T-W-Th, 10-11 PM CST, & WWCR shortwave 3.215; simulcast on;

blog at

From: “Haddad, Jessica”
To: Alfred Adask <>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: This Sunday on 60 Minutes


I just wanted to let you know that our segment will be airing this Sunday on 60 Minutes. Thank you for participating. I hope you enjoy the piece.

Let me know if you would like any DVD copies.

Best Regards,

Jessica Haddad

60 Minutes, CBS News

Of course, it’s possible that my concerns about defamation are unwarranted.  Perhaps the 60 Minutes description (above) is just hype to promote the program.  Perhaps the program will not be an invitation to a witch hunt but will instead be a fair and objective report of my position on sovereignty.

We’ll find out tonight.

In the meantime, what follows is an explanation for my concerns and my Notice to 60 Minutes.

•  There’s an ancient aphorism that “Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”

Here’s a modern variation on the same theme:  “Those who the government wishes to destroy, they first demonize—with the assistance of the mainstream media.”

Mainstream media complicity in creating boogey-men suitable for destruction by government can be seen in examples like Ruby Ridge, Waco, Saddam Hussein, Iraq (WMDs), the “axis of evil,” Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, Al Qaeda, “terrorists,” and even the former Soviet Union.  By means of mainstream media reports, villains are created (or exaggerated or hyped) so as to create a sufficiently “terrifying” target for the almighty government to vanquish.

So long as the public can be convinced that there’s a boogey-man, real or imagined, the people can be convinced that: 1) they need and depend on the government; and 2) they’d best allow the government to pass any law imaginable (or break the laws that exist) in order to vanquish the boogey-man.

At bottom, the idea of a boogey-man is based on the existence of an emergency.  So long as a boogey-man is out there, somewhere, and is out to get you, America—it’s an emergency!   Your fearless leaders will therefore spare no expense nor be inhibited by any law from “getting” the boogey-man du jour so as to protect you, the “’Merican people”.

When the boogey-man is destroyed, thankful Americans can line up to kiss the government’s ass as a show of their appreciation and eternal gratitude.  Our latest boogey-man was Osama bin Laden.

Mr. bin Laden became notorious for masterminding the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11 A.D. 2001.  Mr. bin Laden was no run-of-the-mill boogey-man.  Given that bin Laden caused Building 7 to fall at the speed of gravity for no discernable reason, and similarly caused the bodies and luggage of the passengers, and the wings and engines of the airplane that allegedly struck the Pentagon to totally disappear—it’s obvious that Mr. bin Laden was some sort of evil, supernatural, Mooslim sorcerer!

Recently, Seal Team 6 allegedly killed bin Laden.  What a relief, hmm?  I hadn’t been able to sleep right for a decade knowing that evil bastard was out there, somewhere (maybe under my very own bed!!!) plotting and planning to harm me!  Now, I (like you) know I can rest easy because, once again, the government has proved that it’s here to help us—the little people.

So, thank goodness, our gov-co was able to dispatch bin Laden—the boogey-man du jure.  We can now dance about like Munchkins singing “Hail, Hail, the boogeyman’s dead!  Which old boogeyman?  The wicked boogeyman!  Hail, Hail, the wicked boogeyman’s dead!”   (You may also feel free to kiss Obama’s butt.)

Of course, we don’t actually have bin Laden’s body to prove the boogeyman was killed (that body was allegedly dumped in the ocean).  In fact, if it weren’t for mainstream media, we might not have any “evidence” that this boogeyman really masterminded 9/11 or ever even existed, let alone was finally destroyed.

My point is that there’s a symbiotic relationship between government, mainstream media and boogeymen.  Thanks to boogeymen (real or imagined), government can usurp powers and rights from the people (witness the Patriot Act passed unread by Congress after 9/11).  Thanks to boogeymen, the mainstream media can sell a lot of newspapers, TV shows and advertising.    From the perspectives of government and mainstream media, boogeymen are good (and even “big”) business.

•  As I said, I offer these observations on boogeymen because I may be about to become one.

On February 22nd, A.D. 2011, Mr. Clem Taylor—a producer for the CBS TV program 60 Minutes—sent me an email asking if I would speak to him on the “sovereign citizens movement”.

Initially, I thought he was asking me for background information.  However, after a series of telephone calls and email exchanges, an agreement was reached wherein I would be personally interviewed by 60 Minutes on March 16th, A.D. 2011.

• There were a couple of problems in setting up the interview.

First, while I was flattered and excited to be invited to be interviewed by (OMG!) 60 Minutes, I was also anxious.  On one level, exposure on 60 Minutes might increase my stature (and perhaps income) significantly.  On another level, exposure on 60 Minutes might cause me a lot of trouble by “inflating” me into the stature of a boogeyman of the sort the gov-co delights in destroying.

I’ve been a political activist for most of 30 years.  In the 1990s, I led America’s biggest legal reform group. I’ve published the AntiShyster News Magazine for 12 years.  I’ve hosted talk radio shows off and on for probably 15 years.  I ran for the Supreme Court of Texas in A.D. 1992 (that’s supposed to be illegal) and received 201,000 votes.

The federal gov-co recognized my track record.  Back about A.D. 1996, they published a book on anti-government activists that rated me as one of the top 20.

Because it’s always dangerous to try speaking truth to power, I’ve always understood that my choice to be a “political activist” could be hazardous to my health.

I therefore understand that the mainstream media can be dangerous to “politically incorrect” people like me.  Insofar as I begin to attract national attention, I may also attract unwelcome national retribution from some agencies of “this state” or of the federal gov-co.

More, I understand from personal experience, that mainstream media can be used to discredit or defame a man or his ideas.

During the 1990s I attracted a lot of press—at least for a former construction worker.  Articles about me appeared in the Dallas Times-Herald, the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, etc..   I was interviewed by French radio, Norwegian TV, and Dateline NBC.  I was flown out to be on the Geraldo Rivera program.  As a “leader” in the legal reform movement, I was a big fish in a small pond.

With all of the media attention I had, I always received a fair shake.  Virtually everything written about me was fair and objective—with one glaring exception.

The exception was an A.D. 1994 interview by a Dallas TV news program concerning the issue of gun control (which I oppose).  The news program called to ask if they could interview me at my home.  I said Sure.  I expected the interview to last about 3 or 4 minutes.  The reporter would ask a couple of questions; I’d offer a couple of pithy answers; they’d say Thanks and be gone.

Silly me.

In fact, the news program sent an unexpectedly attractive female reporter.  More, she didn’t interview me for 3 minutes—she interviewed me for an hour.  More, she agreed with every word I said, seemed fascinated by my many insight, smiled at me incessantly and hung on my every word.  I was sure that she would soon be attending our Citizen for Legal Reform meetings.  And I even began to wonder if I’d found a “soul-mate”.

As I said, “silly me”.

When the TV news report aired a day or two later, there I was, speaking for less than a minute in support of gun control.  They broadcast an image of me saying words that were exactly opposite of what I’d tried to say.   I was embarrassed.  I was humiliated.  I was astonished.

How th’ Hell could my potential “soul-mate” have produced a report where I clearly said things which were absolutely opposite to what I believed to be true?   That interview galls me to this day.

It also makes me laugh.  The good-looking reporter played me for a fool.  Consummately.   She was a good-looking blond; I was a fool; the end was inevitable.  (No fool like a young fool, hmm?)

But that reporter also taught me a valuable lesson.

I can do live, public interviews with almost anyone.  So long as I have opportunity to fully express my ideas to a live audience, I don’t fear being misrepresented or significantly misunderstood.

But when you are privately interviewed for an hour, the interview is digitally recorded, and the final product is only 1-minute long, an editor has to sort through that hour of conversation to select which of your words will be aired to the public at some later date.

Thus, the editor controls whatever you will be perceived by the public to have said.  So long as the editor is honest and ethical, he will select those statements that most succinctly express your opinion.

For example, in my A.D. 1994 interview, I spoke against gun control for most of an hour.  It would be obvious to anyone hearing the entire interview that I was, in fact, absolutely against gun control.  An honest and ethical editor would pick out 1 minute or so of my statements that offered the clearest and most concise expression of my position.

But if the editor was dishonest and unethical, and if the speaker misspoke at any time during the interview, the speaker’s brief mistakes might be selected from the one hour interview for inclusion in the 1-minute that would be broadcast.  By means of this selective editing (taking words out of context), the speaker could be presented to the public in a manner that was clearly contrary to almost everything else the speaker had said.

That’s what had happened to me in A.D. 1994.  Somehow, some way, I had made a couple of misstatements that were completely contrary to my fundamental opinion.  The TV news editor found and selectively used those misstatements for his own purposes and ultimately used my own words to portray me in a false light.

The danger of editorial misrepresentation is only heightened by the fact that most people can’t speak on any subject for 10 minutes without including about 2 minutes of stupid statements.   I like to think I’m better than that.  I like to think that if I talk for an hour, I only include (at most) 5 minutes of stupid statements or misstatements.

In A.D. 1994, I spoke for one hour to a TV news reporter.  I probably told them exactly what I wanted to say for 58 minutes, but I also gave them 2 minutes of stupidity or misstatements.  The editor chose to ignore the 58 minutes and broadcast a segment out of the 2 minutes of stupidity.

Did I say the stupid words?  Yep.

Should I be held accountable for my stupid words?  Yes—but, not exactly.  I should only be held accountable for my words in the overall context of the interview.  If I said I opposed gun control for 58 minutes and then misspoke to say or imply that I favored gun control for a minute or two, it’s simply wrong (and arguably malicious) to publish the idea that Alfred Adask favors gun control.

The editor might reasonably have reported that Alfred Adask is inconsistent; that he sometimes opposes gun control and sometimes advocates gun control and broadcast one of my statements opposing gun control and one of my “stupidies” advocating gun control.  But fairness demands that if the editor is going to pick just one of the positions I seemingly articulated, that he should select the position that I advocated predominately.  To select those few words which reflect my misstatements is evidence of bias and malice on the part of the editor.

•  More recently, I spoke to Byron Pitts of 60 Minutes for most of two hours.  I guarantee that under the stress of the interview, it’s a virtual certainty that I probably made 5 or 10 minutes of statements that, selectively-edited and taken out of the two-hour context, can cast me in a false light and/or defame me.  Similarly, I guarantee that the 5 minutes of stupid statements taken out of the context of 20 years of political activism, can also cast me in a false light and/or defame me.

Thus, I had reason to be apprehensive concerning the 60 Minutes interview.  But I also trusted in 60 Minutes’ reputation for fair and objective reporting.

Most importantly, I felt that no matter how much danger might be involved, the Good LORD had opened a door which I was obligated to walk through as an act of faith.

I therefore entered into an agreement to be interviewed.

•  My next problem with the interview was my landlord.

I was renting a travel trailer (about 300  square feet) as my home and also a little office space.  My rent was paid through the end of April.

60 Minutes producer Clem Taylor expressed great interest in being able to get some video of me and my “trailer”.  I speculated that he wanted to portray me as “trailer trash”—but I also speculated that he might want to show that even people who live in or near poverty can have an effect on national affairs.

But, 60 Minutes’ motive wasn’t important to me.  The Good LORD had opened a door.  I was going through.

Much to my surprise, when my landlord heard about the interview, he declared that he would not allow 60 Minutes on his property.  My landlord (a middle-class businessman with five employees) was afraid that a 60 Minutes interview would attract so much government attention to me that government might launch a “Ruby Ridge” style raid against my landlord’s property.

60 Minutes was similarly surprised (and disappointed) that they couldn’t get access to the places where I lived and worked, but arranged to conduct the interview at a “bed and breakfast” located about 3 or 4 miles from my home.

The landlord misunderstood the interview location.  He thought the interview as taking place somewhere around San Antonio (about 50 miles away) and that suited him fine.

But, on Sunday night, March 13th, my landlord realized the interview was only a couple of miles away.  He went ballistic.  Although the interview was not on his land, it was still too close.  Although my rent was paid through the end of April, he ordered me out of the trailer and off his land.

So I spent Monday and Tuesday arranging to get a friend and a U-Haul, packing my belongings and loading them.  The interview was held Wednesday afternoon.  I was headed back towards Dallas an hour after the interview ended.

I was surprised by my landlord’s reaction.  We’d been good friends for several years.  Nevertheless, his fear of the consequences of a 60 Minutes interview was so great that ordered me off his land and ended our friendship.

While I recognized the potential danger in a 60 Minutes interview, my experience with news media in the 1990s had almost always been positive.  I was apprehensive, but based on 60 Minutes reputation for objectivity, etc., I was optimistic.

My landlord thought I was a fool—and he might be right.  But, as I said, the Good LORD had opened that door, so I had to walk through.

But I can’t help wondering how many people are there in this country who also would be terrified by the prospect of having 60 Minutes come on their land.  I wouldn’t have thought there were any.  But my landlord’s reaction suggests that there might hundreds of thousands, even millions of Americans who are secretly afraid of what might be called the “government/mainstream-media complex”.

Has America become a country where we should be afraid to speak our minds in public?  Has the First Amendment’s right of free speech been compromised by the First Amendment’s freedom of the [mainstream] press?

•  The interview itself start off smoothly.  I’d researched Byron Pitts (the interviewer) before the program.  He’s a relatively young African-American who’s overcome great obstacles in his life.  As I recall, he grew up in the slums.  He not only couldn’t read when he was 13 years old, doctors thought he was a congenital moron and didn’t think he would ever be capable of reading.  But a school teacher took a special interest, worked closely with Bryon, and Byron not only learned to read, but made up his mind at age 16 that, before he turned 40, he would work as an interviewer on 60 Minutes.  He did just that.  His story is one of extraordinary achievement and inspiration.

I’d also seen a video of Mr. Pitts talking about Building 7 at the World Trade Center wherein he admitted that there were “questions” about the cause of the building’s collapse.

Given Mr. Pitts’ background as a mis-labeled “moron,” his years in poverty, and his willingness to at least implicitly admit that there’s something fishy about the government’s explanation for 9/11, I hoped he might be “sensitive” to some of the ideas I was trying to advance.

I was particularly hopeful that Mr. Pitts, being African-American, would be especially sensitive to my evidence that the government had declared the people to be animals in the drug laws (see,  Surely, if any Americans should be sensitive to the idea of being regarded as “animals,” it would be African-Americans whose ancestors were enslaved on the presumption that they were only “animals”.

Likewise, many blacks believe that the “war on drugs” is being used as pretext to subject them to “genocide”.  Therefore, I presumed that an African-American like Byron Pitts would be open to my evidence that, by declaring the people to be “animals,” our federal gov-co had indeed committed an act of genocide against the American people.  (See,

In fact, I’d explained the “man or other animals” and “genocide” evidence to producer Clem Taylor early on in the interview planning process.  I’m convinced that the evidence that our government views of the people as animals and is thereby guilty of genocide against the American people is one of the biggest stories in American history.  A journalistic career could be made on breaking that story to the people.  60 Minutes—famous for breaking extraordinary stories—would have to be crazy to pass up the “man or other animals” and federal “genocide” stories.

But Clem Taylor declined.  He was determined to focus on the “sovereign citizens’ movement”.  He had an agenda.   Apparently, 60 Minutes was more interested in evidence of American resistance to governmental oppression, than evidence that the government was, indeed, committing genocide against the American people.

So, I was hopeful that Mr. Pitts would be intrigued by my “man or other animals” and genocide evidence.  After all, those two concepts were intimately linked to the concept of individual “sovereignty”.  “Sovereignty” is only for men and women made in God’s image and given dominion over animals (Genesis 1:26-28) and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (Declaration of Independence).  By reducing Americans to the status of animals, the government was depriving us of our individual sovereignty and thereby causing the “sovereign citizens movement”.

Therefore, I steered the interview to the “man or other animals” issue.  Mr. Pitts let me proceed, expressed no interest in the concept, and when I’d talked myself out, moved on to another subject.  I’m sure Mr. Pitts understood that I could talk privately in that interview for hours about any subject I liked, but the 60 Minutes editor would decide which of my comments would finally be broadcast and heard by the public.

•  My hopes concerning Mr. Pitts were vain.  Perhaps, 60 Minutes’ “in-depth reporting” may be more interested in “effects” (people resisting government) than in “causes” (government oppressing the people).

Even so, the interview started smoothly.  Mr. Pitts and I walked around outside near a river, talked briefly and seemed to get along nicely.  He seemed like a decent man and I enjoyed talking to him.

I felt confident that I was not being called in to be subjected to character assassination and that the interview would go well.  My confidence remained until we went inside, sat down under lights and in front of cameras, and then, for the third time, Mr. Pitts asked if I’d previously said on one of my radio programs (I’ve done several thousand over the past 20 years; they selected one to focus on) that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was provide firearms for the purpose of shooting presidents, senators, congressmen, judges, cops and government employees.

I answered Yes.  I embellished the answer to more fully explain the purpose for the 2nd Amendment.

During the pre-interview process, Clem Taylor had repeatedly asked me the same question by email and telephone.  He seemed to ask, “Did you really say that on the radio?!” I more or less answered, “Well, of course.”

Mr. Taylor couldn’t seem to believe that anyone would make that statement on the radio.  I couldn’t believe that anyone would make such a fuss over the statement.  While the implications of my statement might be unpleasant (a possible shooting revolution), the statement was nevertheless obviously and historically true.

The first time Mr. Pitts had asked about my statement that the purpose for the 2nd Amendment was to shoot politicians, I wasn’t surprised.

But when he asked the question again, about 5 or 10 minutes later, the hair began to stand up on the back of my neck.  The question had been asked and answered.  Why ask again?

The third time he asked that question (about 30 minutes into the interview), I became afraid.  Apparently, 60 Minutes had an agenda.  The interview was not intended to be a “conversation,” but rather an investigation of a “person of interest” in the “sovereign citizens’ movement” that would presumably lead to some sort of “indictment”.

I could feel the right corner of my mouth begin to quiver.  I studied Pitts face to see if he’d seen any sign of my fear.  I wondered if the quivering was obvious enough to show up on the video.

My mind raced as I simultaneously: 1) realized (as others had warned) I was probably in a trap; 2) continued trying to talk “naturally” to Mr. Pitts; and 3) tried not to panic; and 4) tried to figure out what could I do?   In my memory, this mind-racing lasted about 3 or 4 minutes.  But, in actuality, it might only have lasted for a very intense 20 or 30 seconds.

I concluded that: 1) this “investigation” is about my words;  2) I know words; I am sometimes capable of linguistic precision; and therefore, 3) I had, by God, better try to be extraordinarily careful about every word I said from then on.

My fear was gone.  The quivering at the corner of my mouth stopped.  If I had to guess, the intensity level in my mind increased by 30%.  I may have still made some stupid, but inadvertent, statements.  But, if so, there were a lot fewer “stupidities” than I might otherwise have made.

I’m not a smiley kinda guy, but for the first half hour of the interview (especially outside) I was probably relaxed enough to appear somewhat affable.  But once I’d recognized the trap, I became as intense as an assassin.  I doubt that my persona during the remainder of the interview will ingratiate me to the viewers.  I probably began to resemble Zbigniew Brzezhinski.  But what can you do?  You find yourself in a fight for your life, it’s hard to keep smiling.

•  If I say so myself, I did well.  There were moments during the interview when I was pretty much amazed by my own performance.  I knew that my speech was as good as it had ever been.  Words and idea flowed.  I didn’t find myself forgetting or groping for certain words.  I may never be that articulate again, but I believe the Good LORD was helping me, guiding me, giving me the words.

Part of the reason I think I did well, is that Byron Pitts came back to that same question about the 2nd Amendment at least six, maybe eight times, during the 2-hour interview.  I don’t know what they were looking for.  Apparently, they wanted me to say something . . . or they wanted me to “explode” and say something with a particular style (“THAT’S RIGHT!!  I SAY KILL ALL THE POLITICIANS AND COPS AND DO IT NOW!!!”?).  But if they asked the question eight times, it appears that they did not get the answer they wanted at least seven times.

Repeatedly asking the same question about 2nd Amendment is pretty good evidence that 60 Minutes had an agenda.  Apparently, it was Byron Pitts’ job to get me to say “something” (I don’t know what).  Apparently, the interview was not intended to discover the principles underlying the sovereignty movement so much as to conduct an interrogation intended to generate “probable cause” for an indictment (at least in the mind of the public).

•  And it was an interrogation.  While we were walking around outside and developing a “rapport,”  Byron explained that we’d have a “conversation” when we sat down inside.  Great.  I like conversations.

But after five or ten minutes of interview inside, Byron asked me a question and I responded with a question to him.  He snapped back, “That’s not the way it works . . . I ask the questions . . . you provide the answers.”

OK.  Then it wasn’t really a “conversation” (where both sides get to ask and answer questions) after all.  It was an interrogation where Byron gets to ask and I can only to answer.

I didn’t mind.  So long as I’m not being beaten with a rubber hose, water-boarded, or sleep deprived, I can handle interrogations.  (After all, interrogations are fundamentally about words and after 20+ years of reading, writing, editing and speaking, I’ve become marginally fluent.)

•  I remember three other “moments” during the interview:

1.  When the inside interview began, I turned on a digital audio recorder.  I wanted my own record of everything that would be said.  Byron quickly asked, “What’s that?!”  I explained.  He accepted.  But I could tell that he was disturbed by the possibility that I might have a complete audio record of the interview.

2.  We were probably about 90 minutes into the interview and there was a moment when Bryon’s eyes and mine met and locked.  In recollection, we seemed hold each other’s gaze for about ten seconds. In fact, that “moment” probably lasted for an intense two seconds.

Byron’s eyes bulged in what looked like disbelief.  I don’t know what I looked like to Byron, but my emotion was one of absolute indifference.  I wasn’t the least bit intimidated or afraid.  He could not beat me.  He could not “handle” me in this interview.  I knew it and I believe that, in that moment, he knew it, too.

The interview lasted another 20 minutes or so, but it was over at that moment.

3.  The third “moment” occurred after the interview ended.  I got up to walk around, open a bottle of water, have a sandwich.  Byron stayed in his chair.  He slouched; he curled up in one corner of the chair; he had both of his arms wrapped around his chest and reaching to his back.  He seemed to be hugging himself.  He looked at me as if I were a monster.

I don’t doubt that Byron can do lots of things I can’t do.  He’s personable, likeable in ways I might envy.  But he’s not in my league intellectually—at least not on that day.

•  Learning that I could “handle” a 60 Minutes interviewer was empowering.   60 Minutes is about as big as it gets.  Speaking under the stress of being recorded for broadcast to 12 to 18 million viewers is “challenging”.  I had a couple of rough moments, but if it had been a 10-round boxing match, I think I won at least 8 rounds.

I have gone toe-to-toe with 60 Minutes and I won.

Of course, 60 Minutes might laugh at my self-applause.  They might say that I’m still a fool and I lost big-time.  Maybe so.

But my conviction that I won gives me a level of confidence I’d not previously imagined.  It’s hard for me to imagine another interview (or interrogation) where I’ll be easily intimidated.

•  My belief that I “won” the “10-round fight” is, on one hand, personally inspiring.  On the other hand, it’s meaningless.

The problem is that it’s really an 11-round fight.  The last round, the 11th round, is fought long after I’ve left the ring.  That’s the “editor’s round”.  That’s when a 60 Minutes editor gets to pare the two-hour interview down to the twelve minutes that will actually be broadcast.

So, if Byron won a round or two out of the ten, and the 60 Minutes editor selects only those two rounds for broadcast to the fans, the Sunday program will show clearly that Byron won and I fought like a chump.

If “selective editing” makes me look like a chump, I’ll be disappointed, but I won’t be surprised.  Byron knows who won the fight.  So do I.

• If I had it to do all over again, would I agree to be interviewed?

You damn skippy!

I’d be less optimistic and more wary from the git-go, but even if I knew it was a trap, I’d go again.  And I’d go in with much more confidence.


First, because I’ve believed from the first contact with 60 Minutes that our Father YHWH ha Elohiym had opened a door and it was incumbent on me to walk through it as an act of faith.  Whether I get mugged on the other side of that door is irrelevant.  If the Good LORD opens a door, I’m goin’ through.  Do not get in my way unless you want to get carried through that door, too.

If the Good LORD opens that door again, I’m going through again.

Second, rightly or wrongly, since about A.D. 1990, I’ve believed myself to be a “watchman” of the sort described in Ezekiel 3:16-20.  It’s a good, blue-collar kind of job and I spring from blue-collar roots.  Watchman suits me.

According to Ezekiel, if I see the enemy coming, I am to sound the alarm.  I attempt to sound those alarms by means of my radio shows and by means of my blog.  If the people listen to my warnings and are saved, great.  If they ignore my warning, their blood is on their own heads.

But if I see the enemy coming, and I fail to sound the alarm and the people are injured or killed, their blood will be held to my account.   My account.  Mine.  I’m not havin’ it—you understand?

I fear our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

I have more than enough to account for, all by myself, without taking responsibility for a bunch of other people who may get caught in the gears of “this state”.

So, you can bet that if I see (or think I see) an “enemy,” I will be sounding the alarm.

But there’s a problem.  I’m posted on some pretty low walls in some pretty remote places, so, even if I see the “enemy” (say, government committing acts of genocide against the American people), I can holler my warnings all day and only a handful of people will ever hear me.

My blog gets 20,000 views a month.  That’s peanuts.

My radio shows might reach as many as 20,000 unique listeners each month.  Clearly, I’m no Rush Limbaugh.

Over the past 21 years of writing, publishing and hosting radio shows, I doubt that I’ve reached more than one million unique individuals—and many of them, only once.  Again, that’s not much.

But I don’t mind.

If the Good LORD wants to post me on a low, remote wall, it suits me just fine.

And if the Good LORD opens a door for me to holler my warnings from a very high wall (like 60 Minutes), you can bet I’ll be hollerin’.

Byron Pitts told me that 60 Minutes reaches between 12 and 18 million viewers each Sunday.  Let’s suppose 15 million watch my interview tonight and 14 million leave absolutely convinced that Alfred Adask is the biggest a-hole that’s ever been on TV.  By the time the program is over, those 14 million may all be convinced that I belong in a cage in Guantanamo.

But that still leaves one million listeners who might see through the editing, see through the bias, and understand my “warning”.  That’s more people in 12 minutes, than I’ve probably reached in the past 21 years.  As a watchman, there’s no way I can pass up that opportunity.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that 60 Minutes might be so skillful at editing my interview, that all 15 million viewers leave convinced that I’m a “domestic terrorist” who’d be best shot or locked up in Guantanamo.

But that’s not my problem.

See, Clem Taylor and Byron Pitts are also “watchmen”.  They’re journalists.   Whether they know it or not, they also “stand on the wall”. They’re also obligated to sound the alarm if they see the enemy.

I’ve done everything I can to make Clem and Byron see the enemy (governmental genocide).  They’ve seen or had reason to see that “enemy”.  If Clem and Byron nevertheless refuse to “sound the alarm,” and any of those 15 million viewers are subsequently injured or killed, their blood will be called to Byron’s and Clem’s accounts—not mine.

Not . . . mine.

•  Look at what I’ve learned:  I can go toe-to-toe with some of the best in the business.  I may not be a champion but—with the grace of the Good LORD—I am a legitimate contender.

That knowledge means a lot to me and it could not have been acquired without first going through that door.

•  Finally, I might be wrong.  Maybe 60 Minutes will give me a fair shake tonight.  Or, if they don’t, maybe they’ll give me a fair shake the next time they ask for an interview.

So, would I go again?  If the Good LORD opens the door, you can bet I’m comin’ through.

Written at arm’s length within the venue of The County of Dallas, The State of Texas, The United States of America, and The Kingdom of God by me, Alfred Adask—a living man made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”).


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

194 responses to “Am I About To Be Labeled a “Domestic Terrorist”?

  1. Jay

    May 15, 2011 at 6:52 PM

    Your sovereign movement are seriously paranoid and an obstacle to true progress in the US. Your hate and ignorance will devour you eventually. You won’t accept this post anyways, but now you know how the average person feels about you.

    • william duff

      May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

      you are funny……. didn’t you hear what they said? there are 3 million of us. they are also lying about that number by at least a factor of 10

      don’t you get that our paranoia is going to destroy you too?

      wouldn’t your time be better spent by taking a fully rational look at the substance of the controversy and making an attempt to calm the fervor? I agree that ignorance is bliss but it can also be the basis for very hard times.


      • Adask

        May 16, 2011 at 4:54 PM

        Thanks for appreciating my humor. I’m beginning to think that my real future may be in stand-up.

    • Dan

      May 16, 2011 at 9:04 PM

      Jay: Is your Federal probation officer going to reduce your probation time for you spouting this pab(u)lum?

    • Mr. Truth

      May 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

      I am not a sovereign movement member and I had not heard of Mr. Adask until I saw his interview on 60 minutes. I would agree with others commenting here that despite 60 minutes’ attempt to portray Mr. Adask as a radical, they instead made themselves look foolish in light of Mr. Adask’s rational statements.
      I encourage people that doubt Mr. Adask’s claim that U.S. citizens have corporate “doubles” to view a documentary entitled “Kymatica” (available for free here:, especially the segment from 28 minutes to 34 minutes.
      I personally do not subscribe to everything described in this documentary. However, there are definitely grains of truth within it.

    • pop de adam

      May 17, 2011 at 11:08 PM

      What progress? No one here is upset, you are that

    • HM2 USN

      May 18, 2011 at 5:37 AM

      Hey Jay,
      Speak for yourself and not the average person. I’m willing to bet your point of view now represents the minority of people in this country… go peel your Obama/Biden bumper sticker of your Prius

    • Sam

      May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM

      Did you notice that this feature of 60 minutes was sponsored by Viagra?
      Jay it looks like the sponsor has influenced you.

  2. Chris

    May 15, 2011 at 6:55 PM

    I watched it. They painted you as a crazy domestic terrorist.

  3. indio007

    May 15, 2011 at 6:55 PM

    Why did you let him get away with “sovereign citizen”. It’s an oxymoron.

    As subject.
    The word “citizens,” as used in a treaty between the United States and a foreign monarchical state, must be construed in the same sense as the term “subjects” or “inhabitants,” when applied to persons owing allegiance to the United States, and extends to all persons domiciled in the foreign state. The Pizarro, 15 U. S. (2 Wheat) 227, 245, 4 L. Ed. 226.

    A “citizen” is a freeman who has kept a family in the city. Roy v. Hanger, 1 Rolle, 138, 149. The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrases has entirely resulted from the change of government The sovereignty has been changed from one man to a collective body of people, and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the state. “Citizens,” under our Constitution and laws, means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress. United States v. Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 7S5, 788 (citing 1 Kent, Comm. 292, note).

    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM

      There was a lot to talk about. We talked for two hours. They reported about 4 minutes of my interview.

      • william duff

        May 16, 2011 at 5:53 AM

        next time you will demand editorial power. right?

        they didn’t want to do anything more than do another hatchet job on we the people……..

        william duff

    • cynthia on mary-land

      May 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM

      You are one of the few that not only recognizes this but truly Comprehends (not ‘standing under’) it (smile). I wish there were more…

      • Adask

        May 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM

        That’s a very nice compliment. Thank you.

    • Jeff Ganaposki

      July 5, 2011 at 9:37 PM

      “Free inhabitants” who are noncitizen nationals of the United States of America are still afforded protection of their natural and personal liberty…
      Of course, an inhabitant has a domicile (a permanent, legal home). I infer that to have a domicile, one must absolutely own (as private property) land and a home to qualify. Thanks to the double whammy of national socialism (1935) and lack of lawful money (1933), few Americans qualify.

  4. Liz

    May 15, 2011 at 7:00 PM

    I just watched the 60 minutes segment with you in it. I didn’t know of you before this interview, but you struck me as completely rational and that the 60 minutes segment was the typical smear piece on people who are in favor of small government.
    Once again, the mainstream media leaves me disgusted and appalled.

  5. Amanda Shiron

    May 15, 2011 at 7:03 PM

    Your are a domestic terrorist,dude.

    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 12:27 AM

      No–I’m not. I haven’t advocated shooting anyone. I haven’t advocated bombing anyone.
      I have advocated that people read books and own many dictionaries (I have at least a dozen). I have advocated that people study law and American history to learn the fundamental principles on which this country was built. As I explained in another response under this article, those principles are found in the very same “Declaration of Independence” that your celebrate (but don’t bother to read) every 4th of July.
      My weapons of choice are words–not bullets. But I recognize that if push-comes-to-shove, it may be necessary to use bullets. That recognition is not unique or original to me. The Founders understood and embraced the very same recognition.

      • bob gudinas

        May 19, 2011 at 4:55 PM

        Mr. Adask,
        It was a great treat so watch you on 60 mins. the other day.
        Like you, i know that i am a State sovereign citizen
        I feel sorry for all those people who went through the PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL system. they were certainly
        dumbed down. The fed and state govts. have gotten too big for thier britches, that’s obvious. I also share your views as to the peoples power to change govt. if needed.
        I am fighting, in the court system, on state’s rights to compel me to have a drivers license. I was falsely arrested, kidnapped, and imprisoned, without warrant.
        we’ll see how that goes. of interest to you might be the website, i like so much; this is a treasure trove
        of facts regarding taxes. fighting them(irs) too.
        member: we the people,,oathkeepers,sedm
        and others. hope i’m not deemed a terrorist. we know who the terrorist really are. it’s time for change.
        write back, would love to hear from you. sincerly, bob

      • Adask

        May 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM

        Hi Bob,

        I’m swamped. The influx of email and blog comments has been so great that I can’t seem to find time to sleep. When things “cool down,” we may be able to talk. Right now, I’m so buried in correspondence I can’t seem to do anything else.

        Thanks for reading my blog entry.

    • saxa

      August 28, 2011 at 12:10 PM

      re: Amanda Shiron only according to some in government………..

  6. JosephSHaas at hotmaildotcom

    May 15, 2011 at 7:17 PM

    Hey Alfred, What do you think about that J.J. Mc Crap saying of “Sovereign Citizens” who think that they are ABOVE the law!? Best wishes to you, — Joe

    • Adask

      May 15, 2011 at 11:06 PM

      Most “sovereigns” used the word the same way the police use it: a label like “whore” or “nigger”. Very few understand what “sovereignty” means because they don’t understand sovereignty’s source: God.
      We are all subject to the government’s law. But government’s “law,” is also subject to the People’s “law” (our State and federal constitutions). And the People’s “law” is then subject to God’s law.
      Modern “sovereigns” who claim to be above the government’s law are no better or worse than modern government officials and employees who claim to be above the People’s law (the Constitution). And they are no better than the rest of us who think we are not all subject to God’s law.

      • Michael

        May 18, 2011 at 7:48 PM

        Well stated Al. We are only subject to government’s law as long as it does not violate God’s Law. Romans 13 does not teach, like most 501c3 religious organizations believe, total unquestioned submission to government. Most Laws today are repugnant to God’s Law. Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.”

      • AMH

        May 18, 2011 at 8:34 PM

        I think it’s a Freudian inquiry on the part of CBS, as Media is the Fifth column of Democracy. In that paradigm, their not just testing the waters to see how many people subscribe to the ideas you espouse, they are or let me suggest that they could be practicing a form of social hygiene as they understand it.

        They assume sovereign citizens are to the State as Liberation Theologians are to Catholics and DaVinci Code fans are to Protestants. They think we’re practicing something syncretic and therefore GUILTY of political syncretism. That is where the charge of Reilgious Theocracy comes in.

      • Don

        July 12, 2011 at 3:38 PM

        They say: sovrun

      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 1, 2015 at 7:39 PM

        May 15, 2011 at 11:06 PM
        MY FEELINGS EXACTLY !!!!!!

  7. Apogee Apex

    May 15, 2011 at 7:22 PM

    Mr. Adask-
    I caught the last ten minutes of 60 minutes slam piece on you and can’t thank you enough for your courage to even speak with them, knowing the risk you were taking by doing so. Those of us who know the dirty tricks our terrorist government plays against those who stand up against it will be watching and spreading your word, loyally. Little does 60 minutes know they just did your / our cause the biggest favor possible by bringing it to the public. Even though they slandered you, many people will now go to your sight to get the truth, not the slanted story they told.
    In peace,

    • Adask

      May 15, 2011 at 10:30 PM

      I hope you’re right.

  8. Mike

    May 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM

    One tell-tale sign of your inability to adapt is the length of your text. Outside an author, only a person with too much time on their hands would take so long to get to the point, if they have a valid one at all. Outside of that, everyone in your movement is angry and physically unattractive – a toxic mix of character traits. So face it, this has nothing to do with our government and everything to do with your own insecurities and failings in life. You’re probably asked all the time why you don’t move out of the USA, but the answer I’m sure you never give is this: “I’d have a problem with the government of any nation I inhabit so moving would solve nothing.” Trust me, I know from experience.

    • Doug

      May 17, 2011 at 6:24 AM

      Mike, you sound like the typical, superficial, consumer idiot that would buy the B.S. spewed by the mainstream media. Inability to adapt? Phuck YOU! I do NOT have to accept that our government has conspired with countries like China to sell us, the people, up the financial “river”. I do NOT have to accept a cop coming into my home, uninvited, without a search warrant. And these are only two of thousands of examples! If you had paid attention in school as a child, you would already have drawn parallels between the US Government and the German National Socialist Party cicra 1938… oh wait, I’m sorry, you really ARE that uneducated so let me shorten the text for you… the Nazi’s. American Idiot by Greenday is the song by which your life functions.

      • Don

        July 11, 2011 at 8:18 PM

        Way to go Doug !!

  9. We Are Newest Boogeyman

    May 15, 2011 at 7:37 PM

    Just saw the 60 Minutes hit piece. I didn’t see any journalistic integrity there. Just govt/mafia propaganda. I’m very glad you put up this post, although I was only able to read half of it so far. I’m glad people can search for your name and immediately come upon this post which so articulately and intelligently tells the truth about the 60 Minutes piece.

    And yes, Mr. Adask, the whole point was to label you, and really anyone who dares to speak against the govt, as terrorists, who will be murdered by the police in droves in the coming months.

    And the police chief in the piece was so nice to personify exactly what we are talking about. He said if you speak out against the police, you should be put in jail, regardless of any “free speech” rights. That is exactly the kind of mafia/dictatorship attitude these people have that treats us citizens as property to be controlled and used for their own purposes.

    I don’t know why, but I hadn’t heard of you, Mr. Adask, before this piece. But I will be a fan from now on. Thanks, 60 Minutes!

    Please be careful, sir, and be sure to have a camera and voice recorder with you everywhere you go. I would even rig a camera to record all the time you are in your vehicle.

    However, the fact that they saw an urgent need to do this elaborate propaganda piece means we must be threatening their criminal enterprise. If we were just incidental morons, or weren’t telling the truth, they would ignore us!

    Also, thanks for the reminder to always distrust any interviews one gives the media. I would recommend to anyone who talks to the media to have your own audio or video recording of the interview so you can distribute it in response to inaccurately edited “news” stories.

    • We Are Newest Boogeyman

      May 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM

      I got to read the rest of your post–excellent! Thanks for the extremely articulate detail of the interview, your feelings, observations, and analysis. I could see through the editing, bias, and pre-determined agenda to see you were extremely intelligent, articulate, and possessed a high amount of integrity.

      I also read the part where you said you recorded your own audio of the interview. Bravo!! Please post it in its entirety so those who want to know the truth about 60 Minutes and your interview can hear it.

      Thanks for your efforts on behalf of all of us, Mr. Adask.

      • cynthia on mary-land

        May 16, 2011 at 1:16 PM

        I also would be very interested in hearing the FULL interview from YOUR recording and hope you have the ability to have it uploaded and available through your own UNFILTERED site (smile).

      • Adask

        May 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM

        I’d like to hear it, too. Unfortunately, the battery in my brand-new Olympus digital recorder was defective. Before the interview was over, the battery died, the recording was lost. THAT pisses me off.

  10. indio007

    May 15, 2011 at 7:50 PM

    for the record, 60 minutes is deleting comments from their site. I posted the above there and they deleted it within 5 minutes.

    You remedy isn’t with their “society”

  11. Joe

    May 15, 2011 at 7:54 PM

    I worry about what is happening to this country. How our elected officials tell us what we want to hear to secure votes. President Obama told us during his campaign that he would bring jobs back that had been outsourced offshore. In April of 2009, he addressed the issue with the words…. “We have to be competitive in a global market”; and in so many words, forget about what I said.
    We the people do not elect presidents to come to the aid of global markets, or lobbyists, or gunslinger CEO’s or corporations or Wall Street rich bankers. The government’s duty is not to create jobs, it’s duty is to create an environment that is in the best interest of the people.
    Some politicians have lost touch with what their true mission is once they’re elected and it’s not just to get elected to another term. That’s irresponsible and is a conflict of interest.
    With that said, as 5th generation born American that served during Vietnam, it goes against my core values to think of fighting in any way with my fellow Americans.
    It was a tragedy that the 39 year old son of the police official was shot and killed. My heart goes out to him, but attitude speaks louder than words, so though I felt his pain, I also felt his attitude. Under the circumstances I’m not sure he can serve effectively any longer based on the attitude he displayed on 60 minutes. I think he has too much pain to deal with. When government officials start to rule with revenge instead of serving rationally, it’s not in the best interest of the people of this country.
    And In the end, I support American citizens… the people.

    • cynthia on mary-land

      May 16, 2011 at 1:29 PM

      There is a handful that have done ‘deep digging’ and found documentation to prove that what is presumed to be our proper government in point of fact is NOT, but rather a corporation Posing as ‘government’. As such, we blindly Operate under Public/Commerce in a Capitalistic economic system run Under a Federal government, while presuming to be ‘free market’ under Democratic government, however the Original Foundations were more focused on Common Unity economics under a Republican form of government.
      Too many confuse politics with government with economics and blindly accept the ‘status quo’ or ‘mob rule’ instead of taking up the pen and mantle of True ‘Power of the Purse’ in terms of economics, rule of Law vs corporate legal, much less demanding return to morals and ethics over greed and politics.

      If More were to follow Adask’s role model combined with Common Unity by encouraging Positive organizations to join their membership and put pressure upon those in government as the Living Man and Woman they are, outside of their Corporate Position/Title, we *might* get better results — but then again it could just escalate the Retaliation…

      The Power is in having the Man/Woman Recognize they Do have a Choice, to either be a Part of the Problem, or Part of the Positive Change and Solution, and they are not Alone, rather their local Common Unity and Church is willing and able to help them should they choose to Leave their government employer or military post, etc.

      If we Removed the Private Federal/Digital Dollar economic system and returned to Barter/Service Trade and Local economics, combined with morals/ethics, and Caring for our Neighbors, we would have NO NEED for Police, Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, etc.

      Rather a Return to the proper Republic for which we, the Common Man, were Meant to be On (not ‘in’ as dead fictions).

      Best to all –
      cynthia upon-the-land
      Peaceful living woman
      nothing more, nothing less

      • Don

        July 11, 2011 at 8:32 PM

        cynthia on mary-land May 16, 2011 at 1:29 PM

        Your message as seen above will more than likely have you also listed as a domestic terrorist. If so, welcome to the club.

  12. Rich H

    May 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM

    I normally don’t watch that kind of media filth, but my girlfriend received a call from a co-worker and we were told that 60 minutes was talking about sovereign citizens.

    So I was watching and they were babbling about violence while showing semi-crazy looking individuals. Then all of a sudden they showed Adask. Make no doubt it. They made you out to be a supporter of violence without cause. I knew it to be false, but all the other people watching definitely will have the impression that you advocate shooting officials. Gather your wit and sue!

    As far as sovereign citizens, they have some misinformation and lack knowledge in law, though they do have some of the basic ideas correct at times. I, personally, would never claim to be a citizen. As mentioned above, a citizen still implies that you are subject under jurisdiction, which is not sovereign.

    I read most comments on the 60 minutes site. I didn’t comment because I don’t necessarily want to be targeted any more or take time just to have my comment delete or edited. Hopefully, this will draw more traffic to the truth and back fire on them. Pray and give glory to the Lord so that righteousness shall prevail and the oppressors receive their judgment.

  13. Gil Anthomy Neveaux

    May 15, 2011 at 8:25 PM

    Hmm? I guess you could sue 60min or you had to sign off on a release to be on the show.I stopped listening to your show on WWCR but,Now that I have a target I can see…well Al you are on notice that whatever your agenda was for being on 60 min,(one if not the biggest pupit of the government)it will someday see the light of day be it good or bad.I see the first post made points of the very title of the segment.I’m sure Al may have had no way of knowing what the title of the 20 min or so part of 60min would be called.For that I’ll look the other way.I’m no the bubble if Iike the idea of you being on the program at all.That’s why your on notice…now you know thw law here so that means whatever you want it to.You may or may not want to lose sleep over it.However,any time I see someone on 60 min. my red flag goes up.I think if you just got to be on national TV you got an agenda that usually above and beyound what your promoting.The worlds of GIL-Scott-Herion comes to mind.”The Revolution will not be Televised”.I’m still licking two cuts the CBS network has given me by just taking my slogans and pretty much saying well thats just tuff son…kinda like you when I needed a break.So believe me Al you are on notice and all thoese who would SHOOT the wounded when they are looking for real answers and real help.I may or may not listen Tuesday night but,I Know in my heart a good revenge would to just try to live a good life before God…in the end its the only thing that anyone can do.For now I feel my hands are clean of any of the evil thats being done.

  14. Jim

    May 15, 2011 at 8:43 PM

    I don’t watch corporate media, the mouth piece of corporate government but I heard you were to be on and against my better judgement watched. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Pitts are not journalists. This segment reminded me of a so called black op. The brevity of your time relative to this segment was no accident. I hope Taylor and Pitts come accross interviews of soldiers who were assured there would be no consequences regarding their “war” conduct only to have unstoppable nightmares of what they done. The soldiers were not proud of their conduct and the thought of meeting the Creator with this baggage was more than they could handle. If something should happen to you for telling the truth due to the misrepresentation of the 60 minutes group will likely mean their worst days are ahead of them. Remember Judas figured the thirty pieces wasn’t such a good deal after all. Thanks for trying.

  15. Jon

    May 15, 2011 at 9:26 PM

    In an interview of this kind, there is nothing you can say that cannot be twisted, in some way, by the editing process. It’s made infinitely worse when the producer for the project had a designated message before the interview had begun. The word sovereign is worthy of an hour programme by itself. There are many well meaning people who throw that term around, particularly in courts or in front of politicians and they have not thoroughly thought through the context they might be using it. For a child of God Almighty, the word sovereign in context of a sinner is absurd. Christ suffered and died that we might get within a country mile of God’s presence. To run around the neighborhood shouting “I’m a Sovereign” or standing before a committee of professional politicians, the term uttered before them is ludicrously unhelpful to your cause.
    “60” Ticks is in the business of propaganda, and occasionally they do nice stories about people. Mr. Adask is a gentleman on the radio. His interviews are well done, though they are not therapeutic to his soul as he reports. I knew precisely how they were going to portray him, and despite their efforts, Mr. Adask did very, very well.
    It’s heart breaking to see how our country has declined. It’s amazing to see how God has placed scales over the eyes of America as our society devolves. I pray that peace comes over the landlord and that he find solace in the Word of God.

    • Don

      July 11, 2011 at 8:50 PM

      To Jon:
      You’re a good man. I have been forced to conclude by never ending circumstances/experiences, etc.that the corrupt fedzilla,statezilla, are just a reflection of most of the people in this country. Most of the people are utterly corrupt, otherwise we would not have utterly corrupt fed & statezillas.

  16. Jethro

    May 15, 2011 at 9:43 PM

    No doubt the 60 Minutes intended the story as a hit piece — they committed fallacies such as Hasty Generalization, Straw Man, Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Fear, Guilt by Association, to name a few. When interviewing JJ McNabb, notice they never asked her where the proper boundaries of government are, and if (deadly) force is ever justified in resisting tyranny. The W. Memphis police chief came across as an arrogant bureaucrat.

    When Al was on camera at first, they framed him in such a way as to make him look menacing. They also got the most ‘shocking’ quote for the tease. But that said — and perhaps this is because I have read Al’s blog for some time — I didn’t think their hit piece worked. Al came across as rational and thoughtful. The idea that force against government is a last resort isn’t a new idea, it’s a very old one. You handled yourself well, Al, especially under the circumstances – bravo!

    BTW Al, did anyone ever tell you that you favor Michael Douglas?

    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 12:09 AM

      Nope. Nobody’s compared me to Michael Douglas.
      However, I would say I’m increasingly favoring my father. And not when he was young, either.
      But if I have to look like someone, I suppose Michael Douglas will do.

      • Don

        July 11, 2011 at 8:53 PM

        I think Michael Douglas “favors” you, Al.

  17. Adask

    May 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM

    Here’s an email that I received:

    Subject: 60 Minutes
    Sent: Sun, 15 May 2011 20:33:24 -0600
    Dear Sir,

    Well done and thank you…

    After spending 27 years in the investment banking business…

    After 33 years of marriage, four children and three

    After testifying on three spereate occassions before the U.S

    After walking the halls of the Dirksen Federal Building with

    After sitting in the Oval Office….

    After so many opportunities to see and smell the fungus on the big
    toe of the U.S Government, I actually thought that I was one of
    only a few who had strong and unflatterring opinions of our
    government’s nature; it’s breadth and scope of disrepair. Instead,
    this evening, I see a kindred spirit in you. Thank you for
    speaking with the strength of a well articulated thought.

    I stand with you. Please let me know how best to lend assistance.

    Strength and honor,


    Guy W. Courtney

  18. Fernando Saíd Quezada

    May 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM

    First off…dont start with the American Revolution when trying to talk about this. All I hear from it is your attempt to establish a coup against organized government, like in the American Revolution. Secondly, never speak to the media about such sensitive issues. I use paper work and I educate myself in the law and basic human rights to fight oppression from the public, and I use the government and organized government documents to defend and protect myself. The part of the segment that I watched showed individuals who had killed and murdered officers of the law, so this “domestic terrorist” as defined within your statement does apply.

    Here I would like to point out your control of the term “sovereign citizens” and what the mentally deranged individuals are using it for. They taint and dilute any purpose you had with violence against the organized government that keeps you safe. I do not agree nor do I object to your beliefs in a tyrannical government, but I do object to your radio address over inciting acts of violence against government officials. I too have had objections of government organizations, their competence, jurisdictional practices on maintaining order and questioned their competence at leading within their elected offices. Yet I have never said that THEY needed to be persecuted and murdered.

    I went forth and began educating myself and trying to point out flaws within the system, but in no way should you advocate the destruction and dissolution of government just because of the incompetent office holders you note as the probable cause for you and your followers to become “sovreign citizens.” I have not done any research on your practices nor have I viewed the full 60 Minutes broadcast.

    Out of sheer chance I turned on the television and heard what you where saying midway through your segment. I stand opposing you only for the fact that you sound like you want to over throw the government along with the original rebels which defected from English rule. Try not to use the rebellion against the English and establishment of a new country as your opening or defense.

    I use the words “criminal” or “treasonous acts” to label those that try and go against organized, written LAWs, and not government officials doing their job as listed within their office requirements. Instead of impeding justice, why not help correct it.

    And on a side note, saw the video a few posts down with the gentleman filming an officer. Im sorry for cursing, even in writing, but shit bro try following what the officer tells you and stop resiting arrest once they tell you you are under arrest. That would save so much time and effort by the courts and get people to stop of opposing officers just for doing their job. Trust me. Why the hell are you going to act like a child and fight the officer?

    The label of “domestic terrorist” does, in sense, apply here. Especially when you quote the creation of this country with your “political purpose.” Then you continue to state that you may justify violence against established government and again with the rebellion that fought against English rule!
    Is your quarrel with the U.S. Treasury Department? The Department of Motor Vehicles?

    Why are you quoting the document that created this country to try and over throw it? Especially a document written at a different point in history. What I’m understanding here sounds like trying to establish an organized militant force against organized government just so you can reword the original legal documents that created this country. Please decide what government organization you oppose and instead of complaining, trying to incite a riot and wanting to over throw it, why not help it and make it better instead of inciting those individuals that use your classification as “sovereign citizens” to justify violence against officers trying to protect you and all the citizens of this country.

    Is your quarrel with the U.S. Treasury Department? The Department of Motor Vehicles? Or please specify which government organization you have an issue with.

    You should rephrase your definition of “last resort” mainly because it may differ from one of your followers definitions of it. You should worry more about your neighbour or some individual walking down the street wanting to murder you for your money or just because he doesn’t like you rather than saying that The United States government is plotting to commit acts of genocide similar to Nazi Germany. And please, as a personal favour, please stop referencing Nazi Germany without knowing the entire history of Germany and at least knowing a little German(my opinion again).

    My reason for owning a firearm along with permits to conceal carry is to defend myself against these individuals, that I feel fit similar psychologically defective criteria to the ones that commit acts of violence under your cause, “sovereign citizenship.” I receive death threats out in public from random individuals just because they know who I am and what I stand for, basic human rights and equality. I try to prevent oppression from common citizens against other common citizens, and not this big oppressive government you so oppose.

    My main question is why? What is your goal? All because you don’t want to pay your taxes? Is that what I’m getting from your cause? You don’t want to pay taxes or have a valid drivers license and social security? You don’t want to exist in any government network so you can commit these acts of TREASON against organized government?(my opinion)

    Why not defect and buy your own land far, far away from the United States. Go buy desert land in the Middle East along with others that feel organized government is oppressive(my uneducated opinion).

    You not wanting to register within the American system while actually living here sounds like you trying to covertly overthrow the government, at least that’s the fears that your words insight in me. From your letter to CBS, I honestly don’t think the creators decided that one of them would need to get executed, when you referenced the second amendment, and made sure to put it in there as a way to over throw their newly created government.

    In my research I have studied and read through the legal code describing ‘treason’ as well as ‘genocide’ and I don’t exactly refer to them to use against the established government which has them written specifically in their federal codes. My equal fear of a government ordered jail sentence without warning, I also keep myself from going public with my equally yet opposite purpose, organization and cause.

    My cause is more to protect common citizens from violent and oppressive individuals by using The Government and their laws to protect myself and weaker individuals that are oppressed and harmed emotionally and psychologically on a daily basis in public settings. Please don’t agree to an interview and then retract it once it will seem bias and mixed with other segments from other cases that reference “sovereign citizens” that will seem unflattering and defaming.

    Note: Please refrain from referring to GOD in a possible response to my comments on your statement about your 60 Minute interview, nor any personal attacks. Constructive criticism is preferred, if not mandated just to continue this educational process of two competent individuals.

    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 12:05 AM

      You asked what is my main objective? You also asked that I refrain from referring to “GOD” in my response. Well, I can answer your first question, but I can’t do so without referring to God.
      My primary purpose is to try to serve the Good LORD.
      My secondary purpose is to try to restore understanding and respect for the fundamental principles on which this nation was conceived. Those principles were first enunciated in the “Declaration of Independence” and are: 1) “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; and 2) “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men . . . ”
      The Founders believed that the primary purpose of government was to secure to every man, woman and even unborn child, their God-given, unalienable Rights. Those unalienable Rights comprise the foundation for individual “sovereignty”. Today’s government does not even recognize, let alone “secure,” those God-given, unalienable Rights. I hope to help cause government to once again recognize and “secure” those God-given, unalienable Rights

    • Luke

      May 16, 2011 at 12:49 AM

      Your comment contains no less than twenty-two “I’s” + fifteen “my’s” and “myself.” That’s a minimum of referring to yourself thirty-seven times.

      • Adask

        May 16, 2011 at 1:06 AM

        Damn! I thought it was 38. Thanks for counting.

      • cynthia on mary-land

        May 16, 2011 at 1:38 PM

        In response to Adask’s response:


        May 16, 2011 at 1:06 AM

        Damn! I thought it was 38. Thanks for counting.

        cynthia: (chuckle) I love your sense of humor! As well as candor and honesty. Keep it up!

      • hipshotpercusion

        May 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM

        Use the “Farce,” Luke.

      • bob gudinas

        May 19, 2011 at 5:00 PM

        it’s about the individual, not the mob

    • Jim

      May 16, 2011 at 6:26 PM

      Fernando your all over the place. In “your research” should be available to others. One could review your research and an educational process could begin. In Ameriica a limited government was formed and the fundamental documents would be the evidence. Some “evil disposed men” seemed to have circumvented the restraints of limited government . Are you interested ? Do you care?

    • Doug

      May 17, 2011 at 6:38 AM

      Fernando, you sound like a good little follower. And you do mean well. You really do. But in the end, your precious government will detain you in a reeducation camp too.

    • Don

      July 11, 2011 at 9:16 PM

      The best thing Fernando Saíd on May 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM IS
      my uneducated opinion).

    • given-cynthia

      July 12, 2011 at 1:33 PM

      You should study more on the True Meaning of the term government. govern = control, ment = mind. You clearly are ‘under’ them as you have no comprehension of the ramification and complications of ‘the system’ ‘they’ created to keep ‘us’ under control based on fraud, deception, and corruption.

      My preference is true self-govern, and local common unity, truly Local.

      Many here will most likely concur, in particular in relation to Privacy, no relation to ‘piracy’.

    • Richard

      September 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

      To: Fernando Saíd Quezada

      Your a friggin idiot. Why don’t you go suck on a government (gov.-co.) teat.

  19. Johnny Appleseed

    May 15, 2011 at 10:34 PM

    Answer to settle question of sovereign recognition is for dejure,bonafide 10th Ammendment standing people to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment. What impairs the 10th Ammendment is that no U.S. citizen qualifies as being one of the people. All circulated American govt. documents,irrespective of which govt. created them, are 14th Ammendment federal citizen recognition documents. This and use of ferderal reserve notes or what circulates through federal reserve system charachterize one as not being one of the people. No one today has ever excercized inalienable right to vote. Thus answer is to become “people” directly vote new rights or reaffirm old rights and reserve them under the 10th Ammendment by recording vote in public record. No rights have ever been reserved by people under the 10th Ammendment. Its a new question of law. Only takes one white male,born in state,in each county to embody all the “people” in a state. Such “people” vote, all 50 states, is what limits and constrains U.S.govt. authority and jurisdiction. First vote shold be to make 10th Ammendment standing all inclusive irrespective of race,creed,color,religion,etc. Everyone gets to vote in the future as to how they want representatives to vote. This repopulates the abandoned Republics, protects the people from lien power of U.S. govt. creditors, and makes visible true will of people.

    • cynthia on mary-land

      May 16, 2011 at 2:01 PM

      Curious your perspective to Kurt’s comprehensive Withdrawal of Consent available at in relation to the 10am Amendment vs the 14th on the Federal or UNITED STATES (not to be confused with American Constitution) vs STATE (not to be confused with state) Constitutions?

      • Johnny Appleseed

        May 18, 2011 at 4:17 AM

        Kurtkallenbach work would probably be deemed frivolous. Withdrawal of consent can more readily be done by simple withdrawal of one’s signature authorization nunc pro tunc ad infinitum. All consent is tied to application form signatures evidencing oneself as moving party to contract with govt. In law signature requires two elements,form and substance. Form is hand written script on paper. Substance is one’s authorization to enter contract ,knowingly,willingly,intentionally. That there is mutual assent, good bargain,mutual meeting of the minds,good faith,absence of fraud. Withdrawing substance renders all past signatures nonbonifide. Can only withdraw for good cause shown,like mistake or govt. bad faith,etc. One can testify under penaly of perjury upon presentment of past signatures that they are now not your signature, Doesn’t matter how many hand writing experts testify to contrary. They can only testify to form element of signature not substance. Law requires both. Thus correct answer is no ,thats not my signature. Government possesses nonbonafide signature ergo putting forth fraud before the court.

      • Adask

        May 18, 2011 at 8:18 AM

        That’s a very nice insight. Your signature does not merely consist of the physical “form” of your handwriting, it also includes the substance of your intent when you signed your name. While it may be true that you signed a particular document, did you intend that by affixing your physical signature that you would waive your God-given, unalienable Rights? Did you intend, when you affixed your signature, to be treated as a citizen, subject, fiduciary or even animal? The signature includes both the physical act and the mental intent. The existence of the physical signature is relatively easy to prove. The particular intent behind each, particular signature is presumed by the government, but actually known only by the signatory. If the government presumes my signature means something that I did not intend, that presumption can be broken by a sworn statement of my intent or even a series of questions.
        For example, if a prosecutor asks “Is that your signature?,” you might respond with a question like “What do you presume that that signature means?” “Do you presume that the substance and intent of that signature was to waive my God-given, unalienable Rights?” etc. etc..
        You might ask, “Are you only asking if that’s the form of my signature or are you also asking about the substance/meaning/intent of that signature?”
        Once you begin to ask questions about the meaning/substance/intent that the government presumes to be attached to a particular signature, the government should be hard-pressed to admit its presumptions on the record concerning the meaning/substance/intent of a signature.
        Again, the difference between the “form” and “substance” of a signature is a very nice insight.

      • Johnny Appleseed

        May 18, 2011 at 4:53 AM

        Addendum. Govt. will interpose counterclaim that one is impairing obligation of contracts. Thus one should restore both parties to that point in time as if one never contracted. Withdrawing signatures requires return of govt. property. Such as birth certificate, marriage license,SSN, etc. One has right to not contract just as one has right to contract. Likewise govt. fraud,such as denial of guaranteed right to enjoy republican form of govt. outside equity juriprudence,vitiates all contracts. Research subject matter thouroughly. Don’t be swayed into believing anyone.

      • shupec

        May 18, 2011 at 7:49 AM

        In response to Johnny Appleseed May 18 2011:

        Greatly appreciate your solid and well worded response. I’ve heard of this process from Other/s and added it to my Pursuit of Freedom ‘do list’ to research and upon confidence will take Action.

    • bob gudinas

      May 19, 2011 at 7:22 PM

      Well said, and it appears you have some law study behind you. are you a former student of Ed Rivera?
      or, Like me; a student in the founding documents of this country? bob

  20. G R Perry

    May 15, 2011 at 11:16 PM

    It’s plain to see that the “power brokers” are realizing their power is being erroded, when they go to the lengths of engaging a news magazine show, such as 60 min, to spread their Fear, Mis-information & Propeganda. We know who the Real Terrorists are. Why else did we need the 9/11 disaster, but to bring into effect the Homeland Security Act, and Martial Law? Their gig is almost up and they are already running scared.

    • bob gudinas

      May 19, 2011 at 7:25 PM

      you forgot one of the most important….
      totally un-American

  21. Hack on the House

    May 15, 2011 at 11:20 PM

    Fight the man…..yea…i aint paying for nothing and ill take wat i wants,.,that gods will for the free folks….yeaaa

    • Adask

      May 15, 2011 at 11:37 PM

      Properly understood, the sovereignty concept is not a “get out of jail free card”. Nor is it an excuse to live at someone else’s expense. Sovereignty is ultimately about living under and in accord with God’s law. You support yourself with your own work. You provide charity rather than welfare. Sovereignty is not about exploiting others; it’s about not being exploited by others. It’s not easy and it’s not lucrative. It’s not a scam, it’s more like a commitment of the sort made by some of those religious communities that still travel by horse and buggy.

      • murphy

        May 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM

        you don’t have to be into “god” to be sovereign. God doesn’t mean the god of the bible, though that’s what everyone assumes. God is not defined, so therefore, god is who or whatever you wish to understand it to be. Even athiests will attest that not everything is understood, and most, if they are intelligent ones, will agree that their standpoint isn’t necessarily the correct one.
        Yes sovereignty does flow from god, and whichever god you choose to follow is the correct one for you.

      • bourne

        May 20, 2011 at 4:16 AM

        These days, sovereignty is more a “get inro jail free” concept…

  22. indio007

    May 16, 2011 at 12:01 AM

    I know this is off-topic but this really needs to get out. The Indiana Supreme Court nullified the Magna Carta. NO JOKE! This is getting no press . You would think overturning 800 years of common law would get some press.
    Ind. court: No right to resist ‘unlawful police entry’,0,2225708.story

    This is bad folks.

    • bob gudinas

      May 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM

      They can’t overturn the Magna Carta; but they can be treasonous to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
      Under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment;
      these judicial officers should be taken out for treason.

  23. T.S.Law

    May 16, 2011 at 1:10 AM

    I wonder if there’s a way to sue CBS for slander which can result in abuse from frightened law enforcement, similar to triggering a riot. Also, suing for equal time under the law. I don’t know if the parasite has paid politicians to remove the laws in which the media has to present fair time for issues. Similar to when when the New Orleans District attorney Jim Garrison sue to have equal time on the same network that did a piece making him look like he was a nut for being the only state official in the country to honestly investigate the assassination of JFK. Again notice which dog yelped when a tail was stepped on. The dog was the media. That media is own by judeo-terrorist. If someone really in this movement doesn’t suing for equal time the ADL or some judeo-terrorist will place someone in to pretend to be that protestor, which he will make the movement look like a further bunch of nut cases

    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 1:27 AM

      I’m wondering the same thing.

  24. pop de adam

    May 16, 2011 at 1:27 AM

    I forgive you, you called it, as it would happen.

  25. Luke

    May 16, 2011 at 2:47 AM

    Sovereign Citizen Movement – CBS Hit Piece

    • cynthia on mary-land

      May 16, 2011 at 2:07 PM

      There is additional reason to believe that the issue with Jerry Kane (spelling) and his son is an ENTIRE FABRICATION as well. Jerry’s family have done extensive Discovery and Research along with truly Knowing Jerry and Son, and have provided Solid Evidence with forensics that the local and County Police are engaging in Conspiracy and Fraud against them. Do the Research, Deep Digging, and you will find – Those being made out as the Boogey Man are only being Used and no Truth is being Spoken by Media.

    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 1, 2015 at 8:04 PM

      WAIT A MINUTE !! Go to 4:26 in the Video. The Police Chief (<?) SAYS at 4:28, "IF Brandon & Bill had KNOWN these were Sovereign Citizens they would still be with us today". WOW !! What is he SAYING? I know what I think he is saying, then again, maybe not.

  26. Mike

    May 16, 2011 at 7:28 AM

    Lunatic fringe or cutting edge? Allow the growing size and scope fo the Tea Party movement as well as the exploding interest in Liberty answer the question.

  27. Chris

    May 16, 2011 at 12:32 PM

    I listen to alot of your shows &i do know that you are nothing like how they made you out to be..
    You do have another weapon you know,a weapon that could let all know how that interview really went,a weapon that could alot more to get the message out. That weapon is your recording of the interview. Publish it here, put it on you tube. Use the right title and people that are looking for the 60 minutes story will have the opportunity to hear the REAL interview

  28. John

    May 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM

    Can you get a copy of the full unedited interview? I think that is one stipulation I would require before agreeing to be interviewed. Then you could publish that entire interview yourself. It’s one thing for them to edit and make cuts due to time restraints, but if they are in anyway sincere no matter how bias they may be, they should not have an issue with agreeing to give you a full downloaded copy of the interview. If there is anyway you can get that then you could post it in its entirety to show your interview in the full context without any distortion of the facts.

    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM

      I will ask 60 Minutes for a full copy, but I doubt that they’ll give me one at this time. You’re right. I should’ve asked for one as a condition of the interview. I didn’t. Big mistake.

    • murphy

      May 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM

      make sure to stipulate that you want it in a readable open source format as well..otherwise, they might send it to you in some proprietary format that you cant read unless you spend thousands of dollars in software….

  29. Anon

    May 16, 2011 at 3:42 PM

    Yeah I think 60 minutes exaggerated a series of small violent anarchist incidents into a “movement”. Typical media conglomerate.

    Be safe!!..

  30. Allan Cronshaw

    May 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM

    If this is you, Al, I am Allan from the NYC Legal Reform protest. You also published a number of my letters in the AntiShyster. I would like to portray your movement (Sovereign Citizens) in a very different light. I would probably place the article in my Blog at Brother of Yeshua/Jesus .

    Reply to me.


  31. shawn

    May 16, 2011 at 7:31 PM

    i wouldnt worry about the lable to much. being a vetran of a forein war and a gun owner, iv seen several dhs docs. that already have me peggd! it doesnt seem to be a big deal…. yet!

  32. Bernie

    May 16, 2011 at 7:40 PM

    I think that most sane people ‘saw’ through the hatchet job and saw that you were a peaceful person.

    For like minded people, you should check out
    which has peacefully established a proper government by re-inhabiting the vacant de-jure positions in our government.

    Each state has also been re-inhabited:

    The idea is we will be ready when the current de-facto government collapses.

    • Johnny Appleseed

      May 18, 2011 at 6:18 AM

      Fatal flaw is that everyone in any state is recognized as being a resident. Ergo a U.S. citizen residing means a federal citizen residing in the state. Being resident is akin to being an extension of the U.S. govt. in whatever state one resides. All State action by effect only applies to the real dejure people recognized [i.e. Governors,Members of Legislatures,and Supreme Court Justices. Its a “tell the people what they want to hear” facade. If U.S. govt. succumbs to final stage of bankruptcy it takes all U.S. citizens down with it. As everyone is recognized as being a 14th Ammendment person one is directly tied to the debts and obligations of the U.S. govt. Being under 14th means one can’t challenge or question the debt. One would have to seperate,perfect one’s standing under the 10th Ammendment to protect all American govt. and 14th people by Writ of Cert paid with gold to compel all creditors to perfect their claims in U.S. Supreme Court. 10th standing provides means to challenge and question by supeona dueces tucum to have private banks,formerly Federal Reserve, produce all books and records. Such private banks have lean power. Thanks to treaties , trade agreements, and never fully diclosed terms of “New Deal”,creditors can maintain debt collection under international law where the creditor governs the debtor. Greatest threat to constitution is U.S. govt., being world’s largest debtor,subjected to final bankruptcy. Only remedy is offer of debt forgiveness in exchange for all U.S. citizens to self contract out from under constitution to whatever world charter they mandate. States rights are impaired in this scenario, thus just cause and necessity to seperate. Govt. may want to rethink its attack upon individual/ “people” sovereignty. Govt. can’t protect itself or the people,nor fashion a remedy while insolvent . Its the lenders of last resort possessing priority lean power against America. This is the consequence of being U.S. citizen in a democracy.

      • shupec

        May 18, 2011 at 8:00 AM

        I agree with you in full, in particular the issue and ‘reality bites’ regarding “United States Resident” presumption. Even though a presumption can be rebutted even ‘legally’ who is to say that ‘they’ will accept your written withdrawal of consent regarding the ‘label’ of resident and its True meaning? With the growing violent ‘hit them first’ US mentality there is also the reasonable conjecture of being added to a ‘hit list’ if one does Serve Notice.

      • Johnny Appleseed

        May 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM

        Addendum. Serving notices and filing counterclaim paper documents with affidavits is not enough. Why everyone keeps losing cases is because no one can self create rights and remedies govt. is required to recognize. Emphasis on 10th Ammendment reservation of rights by minimum of 3,143 American born white males outside D.C.,one for each county in America,is whats necessary to activate new right creation process. Whats different is that it directly attaches to the oaths and affirmations of all public officials, law enforcement and judges. It becomes constitutional right to sue all govt. bonds govt. attestations are tethered to,be it blanket bond or otherwise. Oath bonds are govt.’s achilles heel. 10th Ammendment is a voting process. States vote their rights into existence then record them in State register. What 10th rights have people reserved? Recordation of rights reserved is not erased by govt. actions. U.S. Supreme Court already held people have right to change their govt. Each 10th standing people vote becomes constitutional law because its an action within the body of the constitution. Thats the Founding genious of ” people respectively”. After 1st vote to create all inclusive sponsorship out of 14th Ammendment so everyone can vote 10th rights and powers, votes like all jurists have right to try all law as well as fact thus reactivating jury nullification, people reserve right to define good behavior thus putting end to bad judges,right to sue govt. charter by Writ of Quo Warranto ,right to compel all recordation of votes. Right to compel Representatives to dedicate a Cray computer to tally and record by paper process every opinion of every Ameican on every given subject matter Legislature intends to vote upon as this makes visible true will of people,right to resolve all political/judicial questions with finality, right to grand jury recall of Representatives voting contrary to clear will of people whereby compelling Representative to show just cause and necessity . Failure results in reserved right to grand jural impeachment removal from office. This cleans up political process by negating special interest power, corporate money interests,forign lobbies and whatever else Representatives pander and cater to apart from people. There is no end to the check and balance people power of the 10th Ammendment. Only requires self reliant white males to begin process by crossing 14th Ammendment threshold. U.S. citizens can’t activate 10th Ammendment. Likewise govt. can’t kill or corrall every white male once process started.

      • bob gudinas

        May 19, 2011 at 5:12 PM

        who in their right mind would want to be a U.S. anything?
        what you actually are; is a (Constitutional )citizen of the U.S.
        NOT a (Statutory) citizen of the U.S.; unless you filed a
        1040 U.S. Individual return under perjury claiming you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien. we; unless otherwise elected, are all state Nationals. you may be whatever you elect to be, and a court cannot dispute the claim.
        I choose to be a non-resident alien non-individual
        non-citizen National. how’s dem apples?

      • bob gudinas

        May 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM

        Dear Johnny,
        all interested should go to,
        then to Taxation,
        then to Citizenship,
        to found out WHO we really are, as opposed to who they would have us believe we are. Presumption is lack of Due Process, which is against God’s Law and the Constitution.

  33. massvocals

    May 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM

    i think you should have viewed any thing there where going too air I personally think the straw-man is con the name in all caps is misnomer frankly no connection to the SSA account in fact there collection of names has been handed over to the investigation of this and that trust on line shit you should have stuck too the constitution and the fight to remain free form the system of things by contact why did you do what you done ?? sir

    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 8:27 PM

      Long story. Too long for now. But you have to realize that you didn’t really see “me” on that interview–you saw the “editor”. I.e., the editor decided what bits and pieces of me that he’d use to create a image to broadcast to the public. That image is necessarily not the “total” me. It’s like choosing a girlfriend based on only being able to see a couple of her toes–you can’t tell what the whole package looks like until you see the whole package. Similarly, you can’t tell what was said in that interview, or who I am, unless you see the whole interview.

  34. Dan

    May 16, 2011 at 9:06 PM

    60-Minutes is one of the reasons I no longer own a television. Thanks for keeping me informed.

    I wondered why you moved.

  35. Bob Connaughton

    May 16, 2011 at 9:42 PM

    You’re an incredible moron, sir. Don’t pay a lick of taxes and yet you’re so poor you live, or lived, in a fucking trailer on someone else’s land paying them rent.

    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 10:49 PM

      Yes, I live in poverty. But that doesn’t necessarily make me a moron. It’s entirely possible that you spend more money on a good, weekend drunk than I spend all month.
      But I also have the “power of poverty”: Time.
      While you are constantly hustling to make more and more money so you can buy more and more “stuff,” I’m sitting at my desk reading and writing. While you may sometimes be driven by panic to scrounge up enough money to pay your mortgage or your property taxes and your car payment, I am sitting at my desk, reading a dictionary.
      I understand that my life is not for everyone. But it suits me because, I like to learn.
      On the other hand, folks like you are so busy hustling, you don’t have time to learn.
      So, while it’s true that I may be subject to financial poverty, it’s also true that you are subject to intellectual poverty.
      More, there’s something to be said for the “power of poverty”–it got me on 60 Minutes. When do you suppose they’ll be calling you for an interview? Do you actually have anything new or insightful to say? Or do you just have “stuff”?

      • bourne ultimatum

        May 17, 2011 at 1:36 AM

        great reply, touche’!

      • Myles

        May 18, 2011 at 4:27 PM


        Great reply.

      • bob gudinas

        May 19, 2011 at 4:58 PM

        well put ! scratch that…. well placed !

      • Don

        July 12, 2011 at 12:07 AM

        To my hero Al Adask:
        The 2nd word in Bob Connaughton is fitting. Actually, we are all “paupers” because of the way the so called money system IS. If I had a million frns I would be still be a pauper.

    • Johnny Appleseed

      May 17, 2011 at 3:28 AM

      Through lens of law and court David Rockefeller is a pauper. His family dynasty is founded upon common law business trusts[i.e pure trusts/blind trusts outside govt. statuatory scope and purview]. Basically trustees own all their assets. Rockefellers are beneficiaries controlling the assets. Their paper documents to property are certificate units having no commercial value. This makes assets invisible. They use tax exempt foundations for what they choose to be visible. Don’t judge book by 60 minute cover.

    • Doug

      May 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM

      Hey Bob, here’s something better. Why do you blindly, willingly, unquestioningly submit to the federal income tax? Do you have any clue as to what took place in 1913? Do you have any idea what happened at Jekyll Island? Do you understand that the taxes you pay to the IRS go to fund illegitimate foreign conflicts and economic terrorism in other countries? Well Bob, it looks like it is YOU who are the moron. Now, go back to sleep you silly sheep.

      • bob gudinas

        May 19, 2011 at 10:26 PM

        Hey Doug,
        Nice to know there is a group of us out here who know
        ‘THE TRUTH” , as in “
        Tommy Cryer’s site.
        Happy to share a great site for ALL interested in
        where they stand regarding state and fed taxes: SEDM.ORG
        The states seem to think they are States under the Buck
        Act and through ACTA agreements with the Feds. Look for definitions in 4 U,S. Code section 110 I sure as hell do not have a Domicile on a territory or possesion of the U.S.
        Point made?
        Oh ya, they WOOF, Bark and Snap their jaws
        , real intimidating, I usually file their unsigned notices and letters in the appropriate recepticle. Any time they want to snap me up and have me expose them; is a day long awaited. Interested in continuing intellectual conversation?

        look me up on facebook and i’ll give you my email.


    • bob gudinas

      May 19, 2011 at 5:15 PM

      oh well, another one of the sheeple caught up in the
      zionist’s matrix

      • Adask

        May 19, 2011 at 6:59 PM

        Yep–ohhh, welllll. Nothing to see hear, folks. Just keep on movin’.

    • bob gudinas

      May 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM

      we all pay enough taxes as it is. INDIRECT taxes, that is. Sales,excise,gas,smokes,property,phone, liquor,etc
      ad nauseum..
      However; if you are referring to Income tax, and YOU are paying it….State or Federal …..and YOU don’t directly work for them, or collect benefits from them……..YOU are the Moron
      who has been misled into thinking you are subject to
      the U.S. jurisdiction.

    • Richard

      September 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

      To: Bob Connaughton, no real value to your comment. Nothing more than an empty judgment. You’re an idiot. You should get together with Fernando Saíd Quezada and compare notes.

  36. Rimfire

    May 16, 2011 at 9:48 PM

    I am interested in your perspective on how religious and spiritual freedom is to be extended to those who do not believe in or follow the ancient blood god YHWH, or to those who have absolutely no interest in converting? I am very familiar with the bible and have no interest in it as a spiritual or other guide, so where does this place me within your own framework?

    I have experienced what it is like to be at the ‘mercy’ of religious fundamentalists and have spent decades healing from the experiences ( I am not suggesting that you are one, I am pointing to the propensity of right wing fundamentalism in religion). It is my personal experience that tolerance and the practices of the major religions do not go hand in hand; I’m wondering if, in fact, what is being suggested in all this ‘reform’ is nothing more than a shift from a secular dictatorship to a religious one, little more than a pendulum swing. It has been my experience that, while I am more than happy to leave religionists to their own thing (provided they do not trample the rights of freedom for others), religionists have not been happy to leave me to my thing.

    Is what you are seeing a New World Religious Order, with the foundation being your personal religion of choice? I am not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering where your focus is actually heading.


    • Adask

      May 16, 2011 at 10:37 PM

      Very few people appreciate that the Declaration of Independence is not simply a political document; it’s a profoundly spiritual document. The spiritual principles enunciated in that Declaration are virtually unprecedented since the time of Judges in the Old Testament. They are the foundation for “American exceptionalism” and the principle reason this nation rose to power, prosperity and glory. I believe the Declaration is the high-water mark of the Protestant Reformation.
      Insofar as we have forgotten those principles, this nation is sinking back into poverty and bondage.
      My objective is to remind people of their spiritual heritage.
      As for those of you who do not believe in the God of the Bible, if you are content to be treated as an animal rather than a “man made in God’s image,” that’s your choice. But you will not impose that choice on me. On the other hand, if you would like to have standing to claim Liberty and some relief from big government, but don’t believe in the God of the Bible, then you should at least learn to fake that belief. As a citizen, inhabitant, person or animal, you’ve got nothing. You’re a subject and the government is your master. As a man made in God’s image and endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights you have access to liberty and the government is your servant. So far as I can see, the choice is black and white. There is no middle “grey” area. So, take your pick. Choose this day. Would you rather have government as your servant or your master?

  37. Art Patten

    May 16, 2011 at 11:56 PM

    Al after seeing the interview I was incensed. Can we sue?
    I’m pulling up case law on it. The entire interview would be Prima Facie evidence of their cherry picking excerpts, to cast you in a bad light, this could very well show a concerted/ intent and effort to defame you.

    I think we should use a BAR CARD agent maybe even the A.CL.U. LOL
    The interview for me was so distressing because I have known you and listened to you for years. Seeing you portrayed in a light to antithetical to whom and what you really are just makes me livid. Oh excuse me for expressing anger, which is now equated with domestic terrorism!!
    I think action against them is the Federal Court of Claims maybe a viable option. Id say they committed some violation of Federal FCC law. Maybe an administrative claim against them, after all they misrepresented their intentions.

    The problem is with a tort action you must show injury, you might have to have an executor to your estate sue them after your demise; they very well might have placed your life in jeopardy.

    Some irate brainwashed law enforcement thug, like that West Memphis Police Chief, along with some good ole boys might take it upon themselves to in-fact engage in valiantly justice. Maybe 60 minutes has already injured you by placing your life in harms way, due to their biased yellow journalism, Maybe you already have standing to sue.

    You are my friend, what they did you they have done to all of us!!. Just look at some of the comments on this post.
    Americans have no fundamental understanding of whom and what they are. Your not anti government Al, they are!! They are the fools that think they are free in a Roman Praetorian Administrative law state. They wouldn’t know a constitutional republic if it hit them over the head. They are brain dead fluoride damaged U.S. citizen imposters, who have no idea of what a true American is. They think patriotism is waving a flag, voting, paying taxes, listening to Limbaugh. and enlisting and supporting imperialistic foreign wars to get Alqaeda I.E. the toilet seat people created by the CIA in 1978

    That idiot Fernando that posted above hasn’t got a clue. The poor old fool doesn’t realize YOU CANT OVER THROW THE GOVERNMENT AL!!!. FDR ALREADY DID THAT IN 1933.!!!! ALL FEDERAL COURTS WERE DESTROYED IN 1947!!!There is no rule of law Fernando you moron!!!

    Fernando and people of his ilk have no fundamental or historical, understanding of law. To say 1776 was different than 2011 is the statement of a historical idtiota.The parallels are uncanny. Fernando you’re an idiot! Alfred you’re a great man!! Questions Fernando??? I didnt think so imposter

  38. bourne ultimatum

    May 17, 2011 at 12:24 AM

    1st of all, the 60 Minute interview was the first time I had ever heard of Alfred Adask and, having become fairly informed of the sovereign(and related)movement(s) over the past year I can say it took alot of friggin’ guts to go on that show as it is my opinion that, especially after the feds and globalists have sort of tied off the whole Bin Laden hoax, it is clear that the next boogieman(men) in the USA will be of a homegrown variety, that is, domestic “terrorists”, and media and movies have been pointing in that direction for at least a few years now.

    The 60Minute interview was absolutely part of a defamation campaign, I have no doubt about it, and that’s why I would never ever go on a show like that(imagining, of course) nor ANY other show involving the mass media propaganda complex since it is and always has been an arm of the tyranical gov’t/globalists.

    To the discerning and intelligent viewer, Mr. Adask came off very well, like the “real deal” in terms of the truth of things, albeit the truth part had a very small window to appear through. Other than that, to average, john Q,sheeple, brainwashed, diseducated member of the ‘Merican public, the whole pierce, including and especially the intro about the fool and his son who went “postal” on the cop-oh, yea, then they brought in the cops dad, oh what a coincidence-anyway, the whole thing had a definite introductory witch hunting intent to it-100%, no doubt about it. Of course they mostly focused on Mr. Adask’s mention of “shooting politicians” etc.(think AZ congresswoman shooting last year), I mean the police state just took a big leap forward, and they are rolling out all the new surveillance gadgets(see “google@home, for e.g.) faster than you can say George Orwell and it’s like Big Brother is here, FOR REAL.!

    I respect Mr. Adask’s intent in thinking that maybe a million or so viewers might actually be positively exposed to the movement by this interview and thats about the only redeeming quality I can see in it-well, I was so exposed and am now a “fan” of Mr. Adask-especially after subsequently checking out some of his youtube stuff about man/animal/law/genocide-yea, thats the real sh^t right there, a profound insight.

    You have alot of courage Mr. Adask, I am a former union carpenter, well, still doing some-you have my respect.


    • Myles

      May 17, 2011 at 5:59 PM


      I felt your comment was accurate and something which I was able to relate to myself.

      I was also not aware of Mr. Adask but I will now be following his blog. I felt he came across quite well in spite of having his story combined with a tragic situation which has little to do with what I feel his views may be.

    • Richard

      September 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

      To: bourne ultimatum

      Excellent commendation for Al (Adask) who is the real deal when it comes to “sovereign political power holders”. He is well aware that he is a sovereign political power holder and no “person”, idiot or otherwise, is going to take that away from him. He is guided by the divine no doubt about it.

  39. Johnny Appleseed

    May 17, 2011 at 2:50 AM

    Consequence of the “New Deal” is that it led everyone to self contract out of the state republics. All govt. documents everyone applies for are 14th Ammendment federal citizen recognition documents,irrespective of which govt. created or circulated. This created presumpt -tion of law that there are no dejure,bonafide “people” for govt. to serve. Only sovereigns in America recogniized are Governors,Members of Legislature,Supreme Court Justices and the President. U.S.citizens don’t qualify. States also can’t claim U.S.citizens as being state people.

    • Johnny Appleseed

      May 17, 2011 at 5:25 AM

      Sovereignty relates to Doctrine of Recognition. Its tied to rights of conquest and succession. All American govt. sovereignty is derived from a source outside of itself. This is what makes America unique in respect to other nations. In International law there is no sovereignty outside of govt. Thus outside rule of law democracies is anarchy. In America whats outside American democracy rule of law is the guaranteed Republican form of govt. rule of law by People. Sovereign recognition is not limited to American govt . Foreign nations abroad can recognize 10th Ammendment standing “people” votes recorded to disband U.S.govt. on grounds of just cause and necessity. Thus U.S. govt. would be unauthorized to speak,act,veto,or represent in world forums . Remember,to recognize U.S. govt. sovereignty,the source from whence its derived must also be recognized. Repopulating position of law and authority the Founding Fathers occupied requires 10th Ammendment class of “people”. Only they can vote out what govt. voted in. Seperate, vote,record,serve all govt. notice 10th rights reserved, thus expand rights of people whereby creating govt. limitations and constraints. No need for violence. Its all a new question of law. Can 10th people directly vote outside present civil right vote for representation? Can “people” reserve 10th rights seperate from state? There are 3 parties in the 10th Ammendment are there also 3 seperate walls of seperation?

      • Johnny Appleseed

        May 19, 2011 at 7:16 PM

        One final note. 10th Ammendment as it relates to people is uncharted territory. Within it is the potential to pioneer world peace. It could sponsor the human race into being sovereign individuals. We are all one family,brothers and sisters in blood,sharing one common ancestry. Collective people sovereignty requires individual sovereignty. Sovereignty doesn’t appear by mere assembly. Individual sovereignty makes everyone equal under the law whereby reinverting the master-servant relationship where all govt. eventually becomes TRUE servant. Such sovereignty breeds hope,inclusion, and empowers all with the ability to collectively effect change when representation fails. It leads to TRUE greater good. Process begins by changing oneself in respect to law. Once 10th standing perfected make legal notice in county paper for all 10th people to come forth and vote. First ,vote right to do whatever it is “people” want to do. This creates the foundation validating “people” have a right to do something. Thus the individual can do whats been voted thereafter once all govt. has been noticed of 10th right reservation. When dealing with U.S. govt. aforesaid is repeated except “people” vote recorded is to notice State govt. what “people” require and if State will do it. All “people” in all counties by effect are moving their govt. to provide remedy,protect “people”or perform a duty. Thus 30 day notice of default for failure to perform its duty to protect “people” or provide remedy is served on State. Followed by 30 day notice of final default. Followed by 30 day notice of collateral equitable estoppel as exhaustion of “people” remedy complete and subject matter finalized. . 10th people can now vote to empower and create “rolling Grand Juries” to mediate all disputes between govt. and “people”. Such Grand Juries can sponsor and resolve 14th Ammendment people disputes too. Grand Juries will also be vested with 10th reserved right to appear in any court of law or equity and be witness to or party to any/all govt. proceeding regardless of branch. 10th reserved right to jury of one’s peers requires present juries to have minimum of one 10th standing jurist. Anything can be done provided that its voted into existence by 10th people and reserved under the 10th Ammendment. Votes, notices,Grand Jury findings are filed in public record and county paper or similar medium. All States, U.S. govt., and United Nations are perpetually noticed each time a new 10th Ammendment right is reserved. Regardless of how process is to be perfected whats key is getting State to move action for “people” first. State failure activates “people” part of 10th Ammendment. Aforesaid 90 day service of process accelerates resolution to all govt. problems,even gridlock. Thank you Mr. Adask for being a gracious host for allowing me to contribute in ending hate,violence, and the escalation pattern of abuse of law, process, and authority causing it.

      • Adask

        May 19, 2011 at 11:09 PM

        My pleasure. I’ve appreciated your contributions. Thanks.

  40. bourne

    May 17, 2011 at 8:38 AM

    “There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”

    (Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Etiene De La Boetie)

    • Jerry Babb

      May 17, 2011 at 8:13 PM

      Al Check out WE THE PEOPLE, Where is the constitution lobby, Bob Schulz. IT might be slow to come about but i think something good could happen. also we need a third (WE THE PEOPLE PARTY ) , THANKS for what you do .

  41. Bill Martin

    May 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM

    Alfred my friend, as usual, you are correct on all counts. From the little bit of the interview that got through, I can tell you did your usual excellent job of clearly stating your case. Your suspicion that a mainstream outlet would stoop to editing your words into an attempted hatchet job also proved correct. Unfortunately for them, however, I believe the truth of your meaning will get through to more people than 60 Minutes supposed when they broadcast that segment. Sent with highest regards.

  42. 94hardbody

    May 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

    I don’t know how many people that read my comment will ever be interviewed for a news magazine, but the only protection that you have is to have your own representative record the complete interview, with timestamps and everything.
    The corporate whore media will not stop at denigrating anyone that does not fit their “model” of what a “good ” citizen should be.
    People ask me why I have 49 guns when I can only shoot 1 or 2 at a time. My reply is, “Because I have 46 friends.”

  43. Thomas Lotzer

    May 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM

    Hey Al,

    I was a member of Citizens For Legal Reform back in the day. I helped when we picketed the Federal and County Court buildings downtown Dallas. I really miss the weekly meetings. Remember the 2000+ crowd we had one week?

    Nice to hear you are still active in the movement. Hope you are doing well.

    Even though the piece only played a small piece of your interview, many will search out more details – especially now that Alex Jones is interviewing you today.

  44. Brian Kelso

    May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

    Mr Adask, I thought you should know that there are many more who are going to stand by you. I have never heard of you until the 60 minutes smear piece, and must say Thank You 60 minutes for introducing me to you. If their efforts were to steer people away from you, it certainly backfired. Yesterday I talked to a few Sheriff in my area near Los Angeles about the 60 minutes program- I try to talk to peace officers every chance I see- and they have met a few Sovereigns who were friendly engaging and nowhere near hostile or confrontational.

    Most importantly Thank You for having the courage and focus to protect our Constitution.

    Godspeed, sir.

  45. Myles

    May 17, 2011 at 4:44 PM

    As our government grows larger and more costly, as Democrats and Republicans do little more than argue rather than solve problems, as our unemployment continues to grow, people lose their homes and savings and watch countless news stories that illustrate the downfall of the country I am sure that the number of people who listen to your views will increase.

    I watched with interest when the Republicans were going to shut down the government to make a statement to the Democrats. Congress would have continued to be paid. Our troops in harm’s way would have not been paid. The families of many of these troops would have had their source of income cut for those who relied on their military spouse.

    As I grow older my faith in our government continues to decline. This is no longer a matter of political party, it is a matter of the collective government in this country not doing much of anything in an effective manner while spending more money and imposing more restrictions on the general public.

    The story on 60 Minutes on 5/15/11 had points of violence that probably worried people. I would have liked to see the story broken up into multiple broadcast segments as many of the things that you said are hitting home with an ever increasing number of Americans every day.

  46. lster921

    May 17, 2011 at 5:03 PM

    Thanks for being in the fight.
    Those of us that are being demonized on a daily basis for our ideology of American ideals, know the truth and keep teaching where we can.

  47. Dan

    May 17, 2011 at 8:18 PM

    I heard Adask on the Alex Jones Show today and, having listened to the broadcast twice, I’ll say Al tore the gobmit, AND their propaganda minions 60-Minutes, a new asshole during the Jones broadcast.

    Adask’s citing of Constitutional law and court rulings supporting it, also read the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights of which most people are unaware of and just hearing it validates everything that Adask said about the American government and sovereignty.

    Read it here:

  48. Debra Caruthers

    May 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM

    Loved your spot on the Alex Jones show today! He has posted three YouTube clips … here is Part 2 of 3 where you talk about the Preamble:

  49. HM2 USN

    May 18, 2011 at 5:29 AM

    Most people realize that 60 min is just a mouthpiece for the establishment and could see through their desperate attempt to demonize you. Its funny how it completely backfired and propelled your message to a broader audience. I think you articulate well, what a lot of us are feeling. Keep up the good work!

    • Adask

      May 18, 2011 at 7:59 AM

      Yeah, it is funny. Yesterday I was on Alex Jones. Today, Fox News. Tomorrow, another big national radio show whose name escapes me. For the past 3 days, my blog is averaging about 8,000 hits a day (it usually averages 700). 60 Minutes attempt to discredit me has actually helped me enormously. And it’s not over. I have a hunch that before this is over (and it might be 2 or 3 years to the end), 60 Minutes just might decide to fire Byron Pitts for 1) failure to adequately “demonize” me; and 2) promoting (rather than discrediting) what he calls the “sovereignty movement”.
      Incidentally, I appear to be getting about 30% more hits off the Alex Jones radio show, than off 60 Minutes. That shouldn’t be too surprising since Alex Jones caters to “my kinda people”. But 60 Minutes is supposed to attract 12 to 18 million viewers per program, so I might’ve expected 60 Minutes to generate a larger response than Alex Jones. But, in fact, one hour with Alex Jones has produced the better response than 12 minutes with 60 Minutes. .

      • shupec

        May 18, 2011 at 8:11 AM

        I clearly remember reading a segment of your own original post above in which the interviewer ‘curled up’ because he realized that he had FAILED… i.e. You were Successful in not only Defending yourself but also Standing on Solid Ground in Properly explaining your thoughts and reasons for doing what you are as a Thinker and Writer in Defense of America (i.e. not UNITED STATES). Certainly not in those exact words, but my interpretation.

  50. ninjamaster1

    May 18, 2011 at 9:48 AM

    I watched the interview, it was clearly an attempt to smear Adask’s ideas. They wanted to make Adask appear to be crazy, but what if its true, then what does that make the Gov? I think it gave credibility to Adask and made 60 minutes look very biased. Im glad these ideas are being discussed, Adask did very good on Alex Jones, I agree its the Gov who does not follow the law, ignoring our unalienable rights from God.

  51. Katherine Szot

    May 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM

    What people do not realize or understand, is that Sovereignty is not about just paying taxes, driving without a driver’s license, or owning a gun.

    It is about the God given rights that have been taken away and the oppression placed upon the people.

    I am an educator of the Republic. The laws, ordinances, statutes and millions of other “rules” have been perverted and subverted by purposeful deception and out of context statements.

    The IRS, according to Supreme Court Rule, has no authority or jurisdiction in the 50 states, only in the territories and in DC. However, by direct misquotes and substitution of words, we have become the chattel of the government. How many lives, homes and families destroyed by this non-governmental organization?

    Haven’t anyone of you seen of or heard of the billions of dollars in slush funds seized at the Vatican Bank? This is the money that was taken from your mouths and put in to the “elite” pocketbook.

    Are you tired of your loved ones dying in wars that were not Constitutional; that we have become the world police with out any authority?

    Are you tired of illegal searches, seizures and false imprisonments that take your families, money and freedoms away. IF you are lucky enough to have the charges dismissed ( and I have seen it happen) your life is destroyed, your family shattered and most of all your future gone?

    And why is this all happening? Because we have lazily given away what the blood of many brave souls have sacrificed, including my husband’s, to be uneducated of what our great documents and history have provided.

    We have forgotten where we came from in history and repeated the atrocities we have pointed the finger at others for perpetrating. Wars based on lies are not preventive in nature, they are invasions that defy the rights and laws of everyone around the world.

    Our big brother policy has bred contempt, murder and self- proclamation of greatness, when we have become what we said we would defend against.

    Wake up Amerika!!!! We are not what we think we are, and surely we have become what we tried to stop.

    • eve

      May 19, 2011 at 11:54 PM

      well put.

    • messianicdruid

      May 20, 2011 at 12:30 PM

      God is not mocked. We reap what we sow.

      If we will not serve God {with all our hearts, soul, mind and strength}, He appoints task masters over us to bring us to repentance {change of mind}.

      Since 911 everybodies been saying “God Bless America”.

      “God Bless America” is a prayer. The way He answers this prayer is to turn America from her sins. When We The People begin to repent – the prayer is being answered.

    • Don

      July 12, 2011 at 10:19 AM

      Katherine Szot: May 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM

      Re: Families destroyed,total destruction etc. YES & yet look at what a burn on a thumb can do. That & the “punishment” to the one causing the burn on the thumb goes all the way to the top court in the Nation. See Boyd v. U.S. in/on this site.

    • Richard

      September 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM

      Re: Katherine Szot’ comment:

      “The laws, ordinances, statutes and millions of other “rules” have been perverted and subverted by purposeful deception and out of context statements”. While that is true (change, add, or remove a word to change the meaning/intent of the law), the fact is, the alleged/purported laws, ordinances, etc. ad naseau don’t even apply to us, the people, that is to say if you are not on their payroll their regulations do not apply.

      Supporting evidence of the above stated fact came to me in the form of a job offer from a mining industry service company owned by Komatsu. Reading through the fine print of the General Statement, Legal and Ethical Compliance Policy of KAC Employee Code of Conduct, I discovered the following:

      “I agree to, comply with and follow set standards, general guidelines of conduct, company policies and customs and practices, and all laws and ordinances that are applicable to a corporation; to avert violations of law or ethical standards as well as possible conflicts of interest.”

      Suffice it to say, I tendered my offer of acceptance to the company with that sentence lined out and initialed (with a cover letter explaining my position). The HR guy says “you can’t do that”. I then explained that a contract is at least a meeting of the minds; a common basis of understanding, and that was my tendered acceptance. The HR guy consulted with the Komatsu attorneys and came back with a “you can’t do that”. I then thanked him for his time and wished them luck finding a suitable candidate.

  52. Chet Plume

    May 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM

    Brother, I heard you on AJ and had to come here to read for myself. You have this native Texan’s support. I have got your back. Keep up the good work. I have more reading to do to help me in this INFOWAR.

  53. free_man

    May 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM

    Al, first of all, thank you for your time. Would you please elaborate on the seriousness of how the God of the Bible is everything behind the truth movement. Without the God of the Bible, man has no holding in “sovereignty”. I have friends and associates that are either new agers, agnostics, or other beliefs outside of the God of the Bible, and are very knowledgable, yet I’m afraid their fight is in vain. God of the Bible is “sovereign”, and by His grace, we “understand” or better yet: “stand under”. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you again. And thank you for your stand.

    • Adask

      May 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM

      That’s a subject I’ve been meaning to write about, but it’ll have to wait until things cool down. I’m so busy answering email and blog comments that I can’t do much more. A couple more days and life should get back to “normal” (whatever that is).

      • Johnny Appleseed

        May 21, 2011 at 5:00 AM

        Perhaps in the future you could discuss how 501c3 tax exempt status impairs true seperation of church and state. All churches are legal fictions of law with a commercial charachter regulated in commerce. They’re viewed through lens of law and court as being effectively connected to commerce. Govt. asserts sovereignty over such churhes by Commerce Clause. I.R.S. gets invoved because federal reserve notes or negotiable instruments are circulating within the church. There’s also the nexus of the priesthood also being legal fiction of law statutory persons. Subject class of citizen. Key point of relevence is that the church exists within the body of govt. scope and purview. Thus there is no true seperation. Govt. is master sovereign over all 501c3 churches. This by effect positions govt. as an intercessor between church and one”s God. Another topic is that federal reserve notes are held by U.S.Supreme court as “circulating evidence of debt.” Debt can’t pay debt. 501c3 churches, figuratively, are guilty of leading everyone astray and ratifying the sin of stealing from each other as no one is paying substance of value. Everyone is led to accept a valuable consideration based on debt as a means of discharging other debts and obligations. Whats more, 501c3 churches act in concert with govt. to teach everone to be a “bond servant” to every govt. debt and obligation. Ergo voluntary servitude. Legal slavery. As no 501c3 goes through a true seperation process and high court did carve out religous seperation doctrine,does this mean non-501c3 religous groups can seperate on case by case basis? Seems religous seperation conjoined to political seperation [right to not contract] would be a nightmare for prosecutors to contend with. Another topic could be ” for unless one is reborn. . .” . With everyone today recognized in equity jurisprudence as automatically being a legal fiction of law person, being reborn would be returning to flesh and blood human being recognition. Often wondered if it doesn’t relate to spiritual conversion but rather exiting the body of govt. where one is truly under heaven’s jurisdiction. Thus not doing so limits one to being meek who inherit the Earth with the remnant thrown in lake of fire. Mortal spirit is tethered to flesh. Faith without works is dead implies action necessary or Lord knows one not. Be not of this world. Overcome the ways of the world seem to imply overcoming govt. claim to sovereignty and juridiction being thats whats overcoming the people. Finally, theres the topic of the 10th Ammendment being what wounds the Beast system as its the safe harbor in America for fleeing Christians refusing what might be electronic fund transfer biochip “mark”. Christian battle fought could be by reserved 10th Ammendment right to invoke Disbandment Clause of the Declaration of Independence. Affirming vote results in,most likely, Russia recognition of all U.S. govt. power fully divested. Original Founding delegation of authority reclaimed by 10th Ammendment standing people. U.S. govt. international standing made illegitimate. Thus cornerstone of Beast sytem “wounded”. Another aspect of 10th Ammendment power. Best wishes and God Bless.

    • messianicdruid

      May 20, 2011 at 12:24 PM

      I tend to agree with free_man. I, myself, am not sovereign, BUT God is Sovereign and I am His. He will protect and defend His own. Take warning…nuff said.

  54. Russw1970

    May 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM

    Mr. Adask,

    I agree with most of your points of view, but once 60 minutes focused on the bit that the 2nd amendment is for shooting peiople in the government, I knew you were going to labled a looney. The average stooge just can’t handle strong language like that, it’s just rejected. I know the whole ‘hit piece’ was slanted, I just wish you had a better way of explaining it or at least gave a better impression that it was a metaphorical phrase.

    I’m a federal employee, and after talking with my sheeple co-workers (those that watched it), they do indeed think your a looney and will never see past that statement.

    I’m glad Alex had you on the show, I’ll have to add to the list of people I follow…

    Take Care,

    • Adask

      May 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM

      I did provide some credible language to explain my position. I explained that the purpose for the 2nd Amendment is found in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (see, 60 Minutes chose not to run my full explanation.

    • Don

      July 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM

      Russw1970,May 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM

      Looney, yes & they also have their looney bins to put us in. I know for I have been there too. Declared incompetent to stand trial & considered dangerous because I did not & could not get a “driver license”. I have never been “issued” a valid binding S.S. Number & that “Number” is required to get a driver license. When I told the judge that S.S. was a voluntary system & that NOBODY is required to get a S.S. Number he said “well if I were you I would be volunteering to get one.”

  55. robert cohen

    May 18, 2011 at 4:11 PM

    If you are so much against this country & what it offers why don’t you leave it. I’ll tell you why. Cause your’e an asshole-whiner. You have it too good here. In any other country they would put your ass in prison & that would be the end of it. Don’t bother replying with some bullshit rhetoric of how you’re some kind of hero or patriot. You’re part of the problem-not the solution.

    • Adask

      May 18, 2011 at 4:54 PM

      Maybe it’s just me, but your comment also sounds a lot like whining. In any case, I don’t have a problem with the “country”–it’s the government that I have a problem with.

      • Richard

        September 23, 2012 at 8:45 PM

        Truth be known, there is no country because there are no citizens. A Citizen or citizen theoretically has a duty (legal obligation) to obey the laws in exchange for protection provided by the “government”.

        A review of various supreme court cases will reveal that absent a valid contract between you and say a police department, for example, there is no “duty to protect”.

        No duty to protect = No allegiance due. Blog that!

    • Don

      July 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM

      robert cohen-May 18, 2011 at 4:11 PM

      Take a long run off a SHORT DOCK!!

    • Richard

      September 23, 2012 at 8:11 PM

      To: robert cohen

      Although Al answered you with a proper response, I feel compelled to tell you to stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  56. Ayelyah

    May 18, 2011 at 5:53 PM

    I just listened to your interview with Alex Jones where you were completely exonerated from all the false innuendo’s of 60 minutes with the facts they left on the cutting room floor.
    Your discussion with Alex was nothing short of explosive information, thank you for your hard work. The 60 minutes attempt at demonizing you and all truthers will and is backfiring on them right now. More Positive exposure of truth is coming to you for the waking up of the masses.
    God bless you greatly.

  57. James

    May 18, 2011 at 6:27 PM

    I’m just another voice from the liberty-loving wilderness here chiming in. When I saw the preview for that piece, I knew exactly where it was headed. You held up well sir, even in your severely-edited state. Keep up the good fight, and know that there are many of us who, despite the idiotic manner of 60 Minutes trying to associate you with murderous goons, we didn’t take the bait.

  58. TOM

    May 18, 2011 at 7:17 PM

    Mr. Adask is not a free-loader or a criminal because he doesn’t think people should pay income tax. We all pay a lot of taxes that support our country–gas, sales and liscenses of one type or another. In fact, a great portion of the income tax, which isn’t legally mandatory, goes to the federal reserve bank, which is not a government entity anyway. They had some oversight recently that showed they spent your tax money to influence mainstream media….Can’t wait to hear more of Mr.Adask on the Jones show. He had interesting ideas and was articulate, unlike some of you posters, who deal in personal attacks–you guys keep proving us right about you with every idiotic comment.

  59. indio007

    May 18, 2011 at 9:30 PM

    No doubt Tom is 100% right. Income Tax is voluntary. The voluntary act someone does to be liable for income tax is to use Federal Reserve Notes.
    The US is a single payer system. That single payer is the Federal Reserve Bank.

    They put up the collateral for which all FRN purchases are made. They have a first lien on everything purchased with them. This is why you get a NOTICE of Tax lien.
    The lien is exists by operation of law.

    It’s your own fault is you do work for shitty paper.

    • bob gudinas

      May 20, 2011 at 6:59 PM

      The ACT is applying for a Social Security card with it’s
      attendent benefits. (franchise) It is perjury to state that you are a U.S. citizen on the application. But they won’t convict
      or chastize you for the error; they will just take your money.

  60. beh

    May 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM

    this was interesting, as I am glad that someone has the guts to stand up and say, hey, the governemnt is getting to dang big, taking over too many programs that are none of their concern! Although I dont advocate anyone shooting an official, I do believe in the right to carry a gun for my own protection. Ive had a sheriff who made my life hell, and lied on a report, and since he was a sheriff, his report was believed. Im not some person who is angry with my position in life, I am a nurse who has given over 26 years of her life to helping others. If I knew how to do a lein against this particular officer, Id do it in a heart beat.
    But, I do also believe what comes around goes around. As far as paying taxes, I think you should have a right to decide, as well as assuming that you wont recieve Social security when you are of age, if you didnt pay taxes… other than violence, Im with ya!

    • Adask

      May 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

      I, too, don’t advocate violence. However, I recognize that it is sometimes necessary. More, I recognize that our founding documents also recognize that reality. 60 Minutes took my statement out of context. They sensationalized a statement of historical truth and turned it into “must see TV”. They refused to present the reason for my statement, even though that reason had been explained to 60 Minutes during the 2-hour interview and explained by an article I published and which I specifically sent to 60 Minutes. You can read the rationale for my statement here:
      Thus, it appears that we might be in agreement on everything you mentioned.

  61. James

    May 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM

    The Federal Income Tax is nothing more than a guarantee to pay the interest on securities held by the international banking cartels that have the entire West by the balls as debt slaves. Yes, those same cartels that have created and funded most of our wars, and that push socialism (and its many offshoots) to cartelize whole economies and enslave whole populations for their own gain.

  62. Tenacity

    May 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM

    Hello Al, Terry in Colorado here. Sorry I missed your call last evening. Red and I are very much looking forward to having you on Walls In Our Minds this evening. For those who would like to listen to the stream or join us in the online chat, here’s the link. The call in number for anyone that would like to ask a question is (347) 838-9176. The 2 hour Show starts at 8 p.m. Central.

  63. John Loughton

    May 20, 2011 at 1:42 AM

    Isn’t it just typical how they label all of The Sovereign Citizens Movement as Terrorists, but when a cop murders someone which happens often lately their colleges will come to their defence & plead like that they done nothing wrong, so therefore if a cop kills someone thats ok , yer right. Cops often abuse their power to violate peoples rights & so often are the criminals , just look at G20 Toronto Canada , they burn cop cars & smash street windows. Rarely do anyone of their sort be jailed or rempremanded for that matter. Can we really trust the government when they engage in this criminal behaviour, not to mention many of those sick pollies seem to be implicated in PEDOPHILIA & RAPE, such as Tony Blair , Gordon Brown, IMF chief who just quit & Bill Clinton who’s said to have had 150 kids & adullts murdered. This clip would give most the impression that all Sovereigns are all badies , but rest assured theres more suffering at the hands of authorities due to their rights being violated.

  64. messianicdruid

    May 20, 2011 at 12:10 PM

    Al, Have you a checklist to use when interacting with corporate entities {policy enforcers} and other servants of the system?

    Although I have studied these things for years, something to keep in the billfold to limit damage or be able to ask the right questions, make the right proposals at the right time might be useful.

    Or just a checklist for people who want to study and comprehend the issues, from most important to less important… Thanks a lot

    • Don

      July 12, 2011 at 11:22 AM

      messianicdruid-May 20, 2011 at 12:10 PM

      SERPENTS is more accurate.

  65. Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

    May 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    The very format of infotainment shows like 60 Minutes, like most so-called MSM “news” broadcasting, is anathema to truth.

    Your appearance was thus a priori doomed to reflect the NWO plutocratic money “theology” of CBS, Mr. Adask…as you predicted.

    If you weren’t on the plutocracy’s (NWO’s) terrorist list before this perverted presentation of your philosophy you can bet you’re on it now…along with myself and innumerable other Americans.

    However, I believe you did accomplish what you sated beforehand that you probably would accomplish insofar as drawing attention to yourself and your philosophy is concerned…you have attracted like-minded and souled people to your blog.

    I didn’t arrive here via the 60 Minutes interview because I do not watch television.

    I naturally drifted over to to Ask Adask because after the Binladen assassination, wagging of the dog Oblather stunt – I became thoroughly disgusted and disaffected with atheistic and left-leaning blogs that fell in lock-step line with it.

    The Binladen theater and those blogs’ doggedly and mindlessly placing their compliant imprimatur upon the reality of a lie at last revealed to me the depth and extent of their impostiture.

    But first I stopped off at Alex Jones’ blog after listening to a Celente “economic martial law” prediction rant on Gary Null’s blog – I had bought Jones’ “Descent Into Tyrrany” just after 911 for that book had always agreed with my own intuition and intellect about 911 while Michael Moore and his disavowal of Bushist complicity in 911 struck me as asinie and suspicious considering that Bush & Co. had stolen, via SCOTUS, the 2000 presidentiad.

    Let me also state that among “leftists” I was always being derided for my constant defense of Catholocism and literal embracing of the Bill of Rights and I was already sick of the absurd atheism and Evolutionist, socialistic madness they swore to.

    I do believe that you, Alfred Adask, have opened my eyes.

    • Adask

      May 31, 2011 at 7:36 PM

      Speaking of being on the “plutocracy’s terrorist list,” I sometimes wonder what would happen if I made a FOIA request to the FBI for my file and the FBI reported that there was no such file. I’ve spent 28 years trying to needle the gov-co, and what if I’d never attracted enough attention to even cause them to open a file?!! What an embarrassment! What an humiliation! It would be tantamount to never having lived.

      • Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

        June 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM

        Rest assured that you are indeed on the Devil’s list, Mr. Adask…

        If whoever has a soul and knows it is on that list you’re on it.

        If, whoever knows he is a man made in the image of God is on that list and you are such a man, Mr. Adask, a man dedicated to opening the eyes of others to their God-created manhood and womanhood (among other Devil-threatening things you’re dedicated to doing), then you are one of the few who are probably considered by the Devil’s advocates and his goons to be on the “Ten most wanted” list…even if they pretend to deny it.

        And I think you would feel honored and thankful, not embarrassed, not humiliated, if “they” were so cowed by your righteous soul so as to “officially” ignore your existence.

        And it would not be “tantamount to never having lived” because the real and Godly life can only have being when you and the rest of us can shout with joy that we are free of the Devil’s (corporatist government’s) “legalities”, “presumptions”, “implications” and deceiving wiles and snares.

        “The two enemies of hope are presumption and despair.” –
        Catholic chatecism.

      • The Village Idiot

        August 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM

        I think you should file a request, I did a while back… And have never laughed so hard in my life. I’m convinced that the FBI (at least in the ’80s) couldn’t find their @$$ with both hands.

  66. Think

    May 23, 2011 at 9:50 PM


  67. Scrogmeister

    May 31, 2011 at 6:43 PM

    3 million!
    They wish, the established governments have got to the levels of wealth and future wealth off the backs of hard work by the tax-payers, what do they do, demonise us for standing up to them…One day people will have to wake up and act like Egyptians.

  68. Don

    July 11, 2011 at 9:47 PM

    To bourne:

    Re: “get into jail free card.” That’s the way it’s been for me for the last 21 years, It’s a hard ro 2 ho by yourself.

  69. Don

    July 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM

    To Johnny Appleseed:
    Howdy Pardner. Two friends & I went to the Supreme Court of New Mexico a few years ago & I asked the Supreme Court Clerk: “What is the current cost to file A Common Law Petition for a Writ of Mandamus”? She responded: “One hundred & fifty dollars.” I said: “I don’t think all 3 of us can come up with a hundred & fifty dollars, will you accept one hundred & fifty federal reserve notes?” She said: “No, we can only accept cash.” This is true!! I am acutely aware that “The Supreme Being hates liars & I’m telling the truth. We got the same response from every court we went to. We were prepared for that kind of response & had the paperwork already prepared to “counter” her demand for “dollars.”

    • shupecn-cynthia

      July 12, 2011 at 12:57 PM

      I sure that many would be very interested in a copy of the ‘counter’ demand for ‘dollars’, is there maybe a site or file sharing location you are making document copy available? If by email only feel free to email copy to shupec9 at gmail dot com. I will then post to wordpress montgomerymaryland to help others.

  70. Don

    July 12, 2011 at 8:19 PM

    To: shupecn-cynthia-July 12, 2011 at 12:57 PM

    Hi! I’m responding to your message as best as I can. I’m computer stupid & do not know how to bring up cases, some people can. I accidentally went to a site a few months ago & some people there knew how to do it. They brought up cases on me that I still don’t know how to do. I aroused their “interest” by simply asking anyone there to explain how a federal reserve note IS also a “dollar.” My request opened up a barrel of vipers. It seems they have access to “links” (?) to do this. I learned recently how to cut & paste & I will paste the link to one of my cases that is on that site. … 24&scilh=0. Let me know what happens if you try this link. It seems like sometimes it works & sometimes it does not,which is another confusing thing computer wise for me.

    Now, To your main point as I understand it. As best as I can remember, A “Demand to proceed without payment of the required filing fee” was the “title” of the document,as best as I can remember. I’m not trying to be evasive. I do recall writing that the clerk refused to accept 150 frns.If you know someone who knows how to access cases, it (all the paperwork) is filed with the Supreme Court of New Mexico. Before I say anymore does or did, in case you are married, your family name which most people call “last name” begin with a V ?

    When we’re trying to give the “essence” only of a matter, sometimes it makes the point even more confusing because of other details left out. At least it is that way to/with me.

    When my friends(?) went with me to the Supreme Court of N.M. I had already called other courts about this “filing fee.” One clerk at another court said 75. I said 75 what? Yen, franks, 75 what? The response was: “You know what I mean,75 dollars.” What I’m trying to say Cynthia(?) ALL the courts demand “Dollars” for the “filing fee.” Keep in touch maybe as time goes on I will learn how to correspond better & understand computer lingo etc. better. My E-mail address is: I have one case filed with the District Court of the United States that includes 25 years of research. I would like for you to be able to get that. Wow!! was that ever a WAR.That particular case was instantly converted by the clerk into a “Title 42 Civil Rights violation” case & the clerk changed the court I “petitioned” to the “U.S. District Court.” Thanks for corresponding with me.

  71. Joseph S Haas

    August 12, 2011 at 9:48 AM

    Peggy Poor of “The Upright Ostrich” back in the 1980s, R.I.P. of she was the publisher of this quarterly newspaper I think it was, of me a subscriber back then, took her advice to write for my FBI file too of I remember it mostly made up something like inquiries to various Federal agencies over the years of some like index of when you write in they record you to see if there’s some pattern for them to investigate. Since then the only F.B.I. agent I remember meeting in person where he introduced himself was Phil Christiano out of the Boston branch here in New Hampshire on the Ed Brown anti-IRS case of me telling him to tell his bosses in Washington to take a long walk off a short cliff or whatever as they are a bunch of goons! of when I said that I “think” that maybe sometime in the future I might put a “Citizen’s” arrest upon 1st Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard on the 4th floor of the Rudman Block in Concord, N.H. for cutting those checks to the thieving attorneys going over to Portland, Maine in violation of the 6th Amendment as pre-trials are a part of the trial and as on the witness list I resented having to pay for extra mileage costs to attend OUTside the District of N.H. to that of Maine. An A.G. investigator (to where Howard used to be our Attorney General), Paul Broder, when contacted for a check-and-balance protection of my rights as by Article 12 of the N.H. Constitution said that their U.S. Codes can control over us inhabitants (and Article 30, Part 2 Citizens) because we supposedly live in the First “District”. Since then he called my cell phone to apologize, but that the end justifies the means to these Federal Marshals too and so off to the FCI’s my friends go to be warehoused. Of next to new Federal Rep., former Mayor of Manchester, N.H. Frank Guinta who I met with in person back in June at The Rochester Job Fair that he will look into it and get back to me by the end of July. Of me still waiting for a reply of why my tax money from work through my employer to Uncle Sam goes to these teachers in the U.S. Dept. of Education who do not teach, as there are no courses with classes in “correction” on this subject matter that a tax is NOT a debt in the F.C.I.’s of America, of the Federal “Correctional” Institutes. Like where be the civil process for determining the tax a debt first? Then the Writ of Elegit process to offer up to half the apples of the tree and NOT this repeat of “He has” #10 of 18 in our Declaration of Independence to send more swarms of officers to eat out our substance! To not only take the apples but the tree and land plus building for the entire real estate, and nail a KEEP OUT sign on the R.O.W. leading to the land saying that “they” of the Feds now “own” when it be merely a seizure of an attempt at to TRY to forfeit but only after the Abatement process is concluded that gets to an Art. 20 N.H. Trial by Jury finally! in these real estate cases on-going with my POA from Ed & Elaine Brown, of Frank saying he’s for jobs, then why put Dr. Elaine Brown out of business? If she owed the money, then a Receiver could have been stationed in her office to collect their cut of up to half from each patient in to there to the #__ dental hygienists she had on her payroll of now out of their jobs. My tax money going to feed and warehouse to produce excrement donations into the local sewage lagoon! This crap has got to stop! Literally. So back to The F.B.I. of the word “Investigate” of them just as worthless as the N.H. A.G. “Investigator” too. They only investigate to the point of being an irritation like a horse fly. To swat ’em dead. The horse flies that is. (;-) As for the FBI goons who KNOW that these travels are against 18USC3232 also but never report these judges to the Federal Reps to have them impeached as thieves, then I call these FBI goons thieves in the 2nd degree. And my tax-payer money goes to pay for this crap too!? Totally disgusting!

  72. William Pugnacious Glutes

    September 14, 2011 at 2:33 AM

    Dang ,you use lots of big ole smarty pants words.

    • Adask

      September 14, 2011 at 2:51 AM

      Well, dang! You sure use a lot of itty-bitty, country-fied words.

  73. Jon

    November 10, 2011 at 12:12 AM

    I can’t believe that you, Adask, do not see the connection between you and the murderers from West Memphis. You claim we should bear arms in order to kill those who would affect your rights as a “sovereign.” How is this any different than what those murderers did? They thought the local police were trying to enforce laws they themselves did not agree with.

    Secondly, you say you are doing “God’s work.” I thought the bible said “love thy neighbor?” How do you presume to love thy neighbor after you speak about murdering US government officials?

    If you really don’t like our country how about you get the hell out? I already know the answer to all of these questions. You are remarkably stupid!

    • Adask

      November 10, 2011 at 3:02 AM

      I don’t make a claim that we should bear arms to kill those who would affect our rights as “sovereigns”. I read from the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights and realize that our Founding Fathers implicitly made that claim as part of the purpose for the Bill of Rights. I am, for the most part, merely informing people of what the Founders declared. I don’t ask anyone to believe me. But I suspect that some people might be willing to believe Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington. More, I doubt that many would invite Jefferson, Madison and Washington and their generation to “get the hell out” of this country.

      As for loving this country, I do. It’s the government that I can’t stand. And unlike a lot of folks, I’m smart enough to understand the difference.

      • Joseph S Haas

        November 10, 2011 at 8:09 AM

        Certain “government” officials that is, right Al?

        To get the bad apples out of the barrel, as they say.

      • Jon

        November 10, 2011 at 2:09 PM

        You are either not very intelligent or completely insane!

        The right to bear arms came out of a need to defend our nation from invasion by an outside force, not a need to keep our politicians in line. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington did not want American citizens to attack our own government representatives.

        Nobody can stand the government. They cheat, steal, and lie on an hourly basis but I’m not going to hurt them for it. I am going to participate in the electoral process in an attempt to remove them from their positions. I do not need a weapon of any kind for that.

        I stand by my statement, “get the hell out.”

  74. Adask

    November 10, 2011 at 2:04 PM

    It’s not so much the individual “bad apples” that need to “recycled”. The governmental “barrel” itself has become corrupted and unconstitutional. Our State and federal constitutions expressly guarantee a “republican form of government” at the State level. What do we have? An unconstitutional, “national democracy”. If we returned to a constitutionally-guaranteed “republican form of government,” most of our “bad apple” problem would be eliminated.

  75. Adask

    November 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM

    Jon, you be dumb. The purpose for the Bill of Rights was declared by our Founders in the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights (see, That Preamble (drafted by the Founding Fathers) explains that the purpose of the Bill of Rights (which includes the 2nd Amendment) was “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Constitution’s] powers.”

    Foreign invaders could not “misconstrue or abuse” the powers granted under the Constitution. The only persons who could “misconstrue or abuse” the powers granted under the Constitution were those elected or appointed to office in the federal government. There is no question or doubt: THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment’s purpose is thus to protect us against our own federal government. Perhaps you can think of a way other than shooting to use the “arms” protected by the 2nd Amendment to “prevent the misconstruction or abuse” of the powers of the federal Constitution by federal officers and employees. I cannot.

    Clearly, the 2nd Amendment was ratified in order to guarantee that the people of the States of the Union would always have the means to shoot and kill those officers and employees of the federal government who were guilty of misconstruing or abusing their powers under the Constitution.

    And you want me to “get the hell out” for quoting the Founding Fathers?

    I’m the one who’s trying to restore a constitutional government. You’re the one who supports a fascist dictatorship.

    You call me “insane” for quoting the Founding Fathers. You apparently regard yourself as “sane” for insisting on an idea that may be popular with tyrants, but has no basis in constitutional fact. You sound like a cop: someone selected for employment as a knee-breaker for the gov-co based on your low IQ and inferior education. You sound like a man who can be counted on to unthinkingly “just follow orders”. Even when you see the evidence to the contrary, you can be relied on to maintain an opinion that is contrary to the truth. You’re the kind of guy who can be depended on to defend his ego, rather than admit the truth.

    As to whether I’m “not very intelligent” or “completely insane,” you might want to call 60 Minutes them if they’re in the habit of featuring guests who are “completely insane”. You might also ask if they’re in the habit of featuring guests are “not very intelligent”. If you read this blog, you might also see evidence that my intelligence does not fall into the “not very” class (where yours, however, might fit nicely).

    My points are 1) I’m fairly intelligent; 2) I’m not completely insane; and 3) I have evidence–the Preamble to the Bill of Rights–to support my opinion on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

    You, on the other hand, have no evidence to support your opinion. Judging from your writing, you’re not particularly intelligent. So how are we to explain your misguided opinion? Are you “completely” (or even partially) “insane”?

    Read and understand (if you can) the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Show me where my understanding of that Preamble is wrong. If you can show me where I’m wrong, I’ll admit I’m wrong. If you can’t show me how my interpretation of that text is wrong, then you should admit that your criticism of my “insanity”and your demand that I “get the hell out” are wrong.

    Until you can show me that I’m wrong, or admit that you’re wrong, I stand by my statement: Jon, you be dumb.

    • Jon

      November 10, 2011 at 9:48 PM

      I’m glad to see that I have struck a nerve, it’s amusing. Regardless of your feelings on the purpose of the second amendment, for which you are definitely wrong, you never responded about your claim of faith in God.

      …”shoot and kill those officers and employees of the federal government who were guilty of misconstruing or abusing their powers under the Constitution.”

      I am an atheist but I have experience with many religions of the world. In what religion would they support your statements of murder? While Christianity has instances of grotesque acts I don’t believe that modern christians would condone your beliefs.

      Also, it sounds as though you want to be judge, jury, and executioner which would abandon the American justice system. Do these political/government officials deserve a trial?

      I am definitely not wrong, murder of political figures is not what our founding fathers had in mind. I only hope your insanity does not spread to widely!

  76. Adask

    November 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM

    You don’t get it. I’m not advocating that anyone kill anyone. I am not violating any principle of my faith. I am simply observing that the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment for the purpose shooting–if necessary–those officers and employees of the federal government who “misconstrue or abuse” their authority.

    If such concept is insane, it’s not my insanity, it’s the “insanity” of the Founding Fathers.

    I agree that the Founders did not advocate the “murder” of political figures. They advocated freedom from oppressive government. And they recognized that IF a government became oppressive and unresponsive to the people’s best interests, then it would be appropriate and “rightful” to shoot the SOBs.

    As for being the judge, jury and executioner, that’s a position first occupied by an oppressive government bent on the “misconstruction and abuse” of the powers under the Constitution. If the government becomes oppressive, then it’s “rightful” for the people to use the 2nd Amendment to respond in kind.

    As for you being “definitely not wrong,” where is your evidence? It seems to me that you should have some evidence in support of your argument that’s more tangible than your personal opinion before you start claiming your notion is “definitely not wrong”.

    My position is supported by evidence. Your position is supported by hysteria. You insist on believing what you believe, even when evidence to the contrary is presented. If you can’t refute the evidence, a reasonable person might admit that his opinion is at least “possibly not wrong”. It seems to me that a person who clings to an opinion after he’s been shown evidence to the contrary is at least unreasonable, possibly irrational, maybe insane.

    Seeing the truth has at least as much to do with courage as it does with intelligence. “None so blind as those who won’t see.” You refuse to see. That refusal is not a failure of intellect, it’s a failure of courage.

  77. Joseph S Haas

    November 13, 2011 at 2:35 PM

    F.Y.I. See: “”How to Kill Gov’t Employees and Be Home in Time for Jerry Springer” over at: for the Bob & Valerie Wolffe Family of Vermont in the Ed Brown ant-I.R.S. case. — Joe

  78. Ummer

    November 29, 2011 at 3:35 AM

    I note that terror solely comes from God. And thus a war against terror… to me sounds like a war against God.

    Interesting Jon, you say “I’m glad to see that I have struck a nerve, it’s amusing.” typical polytheist/atheist … ah you’re an atheist. That was my first thought… but… who knows, you might be one of those who considers yourself as “God”.

  79. Richard

    September 23, 2012 at 8:36 PM

    Note to Al: not to beat a dead horse . . . rather than Sovereign or Sovereign Citizen (an oxymoron as pointed out above by someone else), the correct terminology/reference in my estimation is “Sovereign Political Power Holder”. Doesn’t it just sound right? Like music to my ears.

    Enough study of American History and the development of laws of the land in America will reveal this. Plain and simple, and as you are well aware, the people are the soverigns.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s