RSS

Dennis Craig #2–31 Page Document

15 Jun

Declaration of Independence

Image by Cornell University Library via Flickr

Dennis Craig has drafted and recorded a series of documents (see, Dennis Craig’s Documents–#1) which appear to have caused the government to recognize him as an individual “sovereign”.

The first document is 31 pages long and an assembly of seven smaller documents.  The entire 31-page assembly has already been published (at the above link) on this blog, but for the sake of analysis on my radio shows and ease of comprehension, I’ve broken the 31-pages down into the seven sub-components:

1.  Affidavit of Identity

2.  Affidavit of Material Facts

3.  Exhibit B

4.  Exhibit C

5.  Exhibit D

6.  Exhibit E

7.  Exhibit F

And here’s another document that Dennis used to provide Notice to the Attorney General:

NOTICE TO AG

Advertisements
 
14 Comments

Posted by on June 15, 2011 in Dennis Craig, Sovereignty

 

Tags: , ,

14 responses to “Dennis Craig #2–31 Page Document

  1. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 16, 2011 at 3:44 AM

    Alfred,
    Ask Dennis Craig if you are one of the posterity of “We the People.” I want to know what his answer is.
    Thanks!!!

     
  2. palani

    July 8, 2011 at 8:02 AM

    I don’t know if I buy into the large “C” vs small “c” county description. I have read a single judicial decision that describes the body politic of a county as towns, villages, cities and townships. There is not any man, woman or child in any of these entities. They are all corporate.

    A county is an administrative subdivision of a state. It’s boundaries are legislatively determined. A major presumption of people is that, just because they live within the geographical boundaries of a county, that this makes them a PART of the county. It does not.

    I believe the controlling principle is from the bible where you are directed not to yoke an oxen with a mule. Also a legal maxim of law that states that like combines with like. Real man/real woman do not belong in the same classification as corporate entites (fictions of law).

     
  3. Al Thompson

    July 18, 2011 at 10:38 PM

    I think that these documents are the usual “patriot” nonsense. The most telling problem is that Dennis is using an affidavit which is a statement made under oath. However, only God can make oaths; man was never allowed to do that. Only God is sovereign; not man. Oaths are the chains of bondage and that’s why the United States Constitution is nothing more than a bankruptcy, tax, and slave document. It is not a lawful instrument of freedom.
    http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/03/swear-and-oath-tell-lie.html
    God’s commandments are the source of discipline and freedom.

    Another way I can tell is the illiterate use of capital letters with nouns. In doing that, the word could actually have another intended meaning. This kind of twisted spelling does nothing but to confuse the intent.

    Once I saw the word affidavit (oath document) I lost interest because it is utter nonsense. The words don’t really mean anything. While the document may have some kind of effect, it is hard to prove. And besides, I wouldn’t put it past the government to let one go through every once in awhile to sucker a few more “patriots” into using it and then lower the boom on them.

    Using man-made laws to me is like being in hell and asking Satan for a glass of water.

     
    • Donald

      July 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM

      To:Al Thompson

      I’m surprised no one has responded to your comment of July 18, 2011 at 10:38 PM. Are you

      familar with the “Book of Judges” in the Holy Bible? Do you think whoever “appeared” before those

      Judges were not required to tell the truth? If not,then the best liar wins. I believe The Supreme

      Being requires us to tell the truth or face the consequences,e.g.”penalty, if we don’t. If you are

      ever “required to testify” in court, how will you respond.etc.?

       
      • qu1nn

        August 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM

        Interesting :
        I cant speak for Al Thompson, but I could see his possible logic:

        I found the definition of oath here:
        http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,oath

        OATH, n.

        A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.

        so who is your g(G)od?

        I believe the answer in court would derived from Christs command as per Mat 5:37 “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

         
  4. Cheryl Kissell

    August 15, 2011 at 9:12 PM

    Donald….The biggest and best of ALL liars…IS OUR court system! Obviously their consequences are in the “after-life” and DO you think any of them care? I don’t see it.

    AND pray tell…what made you post what you did in response to Al? “What truth” are YOU referring to?

     
    • Donald

      August 16, 2011 at 7:36 PM

      To:Cheryl Kissell, August 15, 2011 at 9:12 PM

      If you don’t know what truth is/means, etc., I do not have the ability,etc. to explain the meaning of truth to you. Do you know what a lie is? Do you know what a liar is? My comment on July 26 to Al Thompson was based on numerous comments he made previously re: promising to tell the truth, as you/I/anyone should do if ever required to. Why in your opinion has he not responded to my message to him? You responded to it.

       
  5. Cheryl Kissell

    August 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM

    I wasn’t asking you to “define” truth…just wasn’t sure I understood your meaning in the context you used it. Court and Truth don’t go together today.

    He probably isn’t subscribed to comments? He doesn’t know something is being posted? Is Al the owner of this blog…or just a visitor to it?

     
    • Adask

      August 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

      Which “Al” are you talking about? Al Thompson is a visitor. Al Adask is the “owner” of this blog.

       
  6. Donald B.

    August 24, 2011 at 11:47 PM

    To: qu1nn Re: August 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM comment/Yea/Nay

    Yes or No to what?

     
    • qu1nn

      August 25, 2011 at 9:00 AM

      in regards to this question, above:
      “If you are ever “required to testify” in court, how will you respond.etc.?”

      some more clarification and further biblical verses regarding oaths/swearing:

      Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. ( Matthew5:35-37 )

      “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.” (James 5:12)

      and another neat one:

      “Of perjury I am silent, since even swearing is not lawful.” (Tertullian, A.D.200)

       
  7. Donald

    August 25, 2011 at 5:09 PM

    To:qu1nn Re: August 25, 2011 at 9:00 AM
    You have never been required to testify in any court have you?

     

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s