Does your ID Identify You–Or the “state” You “Identify With”?

07 Nov

English: Scan of an EXPIRED diplomatic drivers...

Scan of an EXPIRED diplomatic drivers license/permit.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“John” posted a comment on this blog that read as follows:

“A friend of mine a few weeks ago was taking a late night walk. He walked by a cop who had 6 people on the side of the road. The cop walked up to my friend and said, I need some ID. My friend said to the cop, “I am a flesh and blood living sentient man created in the image of God, do YOU rebut that”? The cop said, OK, have a nice evening, and he walked away.

“Same friend some years back was pulled over. They asked for a DL. He said I don’t have one. They asked who he was. He said I’m a man. They asked if he had any type of ID? He said at my house right up the block I can show you a birth certificate. They said never mind, we can’t use that. We have no authority over you. They let him go.”

John (and others) were discussing the subject of “identification”.  Most people regard “identification” as the little plastic cards that we carry in our wallets to prove “who we are”.  I have some doubt.

I suspect that the idea of “identification” may be less about identifying the particular individual by name, height, weight, etc., than it is about identifying the system of government that the individual “identifies with“.

I subscribe to the hypothesis that there are two “states” or venues. The first is The State of Texas (or The State of Oregon, etc.). That’s the de jure State that’s a member of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. The State of Texas was created and constituted by The Constitution of The State of Texas.

The second “state”/venue is “Texas” and/or “TX” and/or “STATE OF TEXAS” which I regard as de facto and a territory of the United States rather than a State of the Union.

If you’re using a Drivers License or virtually any other form of government-issued “identification,” I suspect that that instrument does not identify you, but instead identifies which of the two “states” you “identify with“. If you use an identification instrument issued by “STATE OF TEXAS,” then you have voluntarily identified with “this state” (the de facto territory) rather than with the State of the Union (like “The State of Oregon”). Once you have voluntarily identified with “this state,” the “officer” is free to kick you around however he likes because you have voluntarily “identified with” the territory and thereby shown yourself to be a citizen/subject of the United States.

This country started with two premises seen in the Declaration of Independence: 1) All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; and 2) the principle object of government was to “secure” those God-given, unalienable Rights.

If those premises were still in effect, the only “identification” any of us would need might be our physical appearance. If you looked like a man or woman “made in God’s image,” then every officer, official and employee of government would instantly know that their first and foremost duty was to secure your God-given, unalienable Rights.  They wouldn’t need to see some “ID” that certified that your name was “Bob” or if you lived at 44 S. Oak Street. All they’d need to see is that you are a man (or woman) made in God’s image.  Your physical body would be sufficient “ID” to prove that you are a man made in God’s image and endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

The only people who might need government-issued “identification” of the sort we see on a Drivers License would be government employees who had access to government facilities that were “sensitive,” “top secret” or some such.  Similarly, if you worked at a factory or a large corporation, those private institutions might issue their “ID’s” to each of their employees or officers.

But, so long as you could be “identified” as a man made in God’s image, and you were out on the street acting in a private capacity and without injuring anyone else, you’d be good to go. The government would have little or no interest in you, unless you summoned them to come help “secure” your God-given, unalienable Rights or tried to enter a restricted government facility. You wouldn’t need to be personally identified unless you had injured someone else, broke the law, or perhaps voluntarily entered into transactions with an institution (like a bank) that needed to know where you lived etc., in case you bounced a check.

My point is that my “identification” may not be about identifying me so much as signaling whichever “state”/venue I “voluntarily” identify with.

John’s previous story about a friend taking a late night walk tends to support my suspicion. That story is not proof. It’s only an anecdote. It may be that the police officer had had a bad day, didn’t want to screw around with another crazy “patriot” and simply let him go rather than get into a “paperwork war” that could take hours and hours of the cop’s time. The fact that John’s friend “got away” with using a particular strategy on his “late night walk” doesn’t mean that anyone else will ever use that same strategy again without winding up taking a “late night walk” in the local slammer.

But it might also be that John’s friend provided sufficient “identification with” the State of the Union to demonstrate that he did not voluntarily “identify with” “this state” (the de facto territory of the U.S.), and therefore the cop knew he had no authority over him.  (Supposing an average cop would have that much knowledge is hard to believe, but it’s possible.)

I suspect that the purpose for your government-issued “identification” has less to do with ascertaining who you are than it does to ascertain what you are.  I suspect that your “identification” proves whichever “state” you have voluntarily and consensually identified with:  1) The State of Texas (member-State of the Union) wherein you may be a “sovereign”; or  2) “TX” (a territory of the U.S.) wherein (under Article 4.3.2 of the federal Constitution) you are a subject of the sovereign Congress.

I haven’t verified it, but I’m told that anyone who has/uses a SSN, is presumed to be an employee of the federal government.  I’m also told that you may need to provide a SSN to get a Drivers License and perhaps other forms of government-issued ID.  Again, I haven’t verified either of these statements, but insofar as they might be true, then it would follow that any ID that required a SSN as a condition of issuance might be deemed evidence that you were acting as an employee of the federal government.  This possibility is not so far removed from my notion that “ID” doesn’t tell people who you are, but rather which “system” you identify with.

If my suspicions are roughly correct, then whenever you produce a government-issued ID to a cop, you have just recognized “this state” as your venue, voluntarily consented to be treated as a subject, and recognized the cop as your “massa”.

If my suspicions are roughly correct, then your “identification” is ultimately a devise that indicates whichever jurisdiction (The State or “this state”) you have voluntarily consented to be subject to.   Your “ID” might therefore resolve any potential “conflict of law” between the jurisdictions of The State and “this state”.


Tags: , ,

69 responses to “Does your ID Identify You–Or the “state” You “Identify With”?

  1. chris s.

    November 7, 2012 at 1:40 PM

    I believe you are correct, there is no point providing I.D. , and there is a difference between ID and identifying yourself. if the police are pressing you for ID , they either have or do not have reason to arrest you , and failing to provide ID without an arrestable offense , or cause is a moot point anyways.

  2. chris s.

    November 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM

    I also see you have had some dealings with winston shrout , any opinions formed yet .?I am fixing to order my 1st program..

  3. patrick

    November 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    Glad I have diplomatic immunity :)

    I wonder if the decisions in WA and CO today might be a vehicle to assert broader state rights against the foreign occupier, US.

    I’m talking going through admiralty law maybe even through treaty…treaty law is highest. But if the state were to reassert and claim its status as Nation, distinct and separate from fed US, recognized by treaty perhaps to kick the foreign occupiers back into their swamp land…

    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

      November 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM
      Glad I have diplomatic immunity :)
      Can you share a portion of it with me? If I can afford it, I’ll buy some of it,if you’re willing to sell a portion of it. I’m surs. …:) :)

  4. Harry

    November 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM

    Al, you say you are a man made in your Creator’s image . But you must remember that there appears to be another man in play here.

    “Man” is defined as 1) an adult male; 2) Humankind. Also termed mankind. 3) A HUMAN being. 4) Hist. In Feudal Law a “man” is a vassal; a FEUDAL TENANT.

    A feudal tenant??????????

    If I recall correctly someone commented on this Blog that in a Wisconsin Court Case the judge made the point that “the obligation of FEALTY [to pay property taxes] ARISES out of one’s citizenship, not because he does not hold his land of no superior. Status is everything and “status” also means estate because it signifies the conditions and circumstance in which one stands with regard to his property.

    A “person” is defined as being a “human being,” “a man,” “mankind,” a feudal tenant,” “a member or indivisible part of a corporation who enjoys the rights of the people.

    What jumps out at me here is that this “human being” type man is also a feudal tenant or vassal while the man made in the Creator’s image is born a freeman and a freeman is defined to be a freeholder, an allodial landowner not a feudal tenant.

    So Al, could the “man” in view in the “man or other animal” phrase actually be an animal? Of course it depends what type of man is in view?

    The “man” who is a “human being” is defined in the word “human” to be a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens); MAN; broadly: any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the PRIMATE belongs, Webster’s Colegiate Dictionary, New World Edition 1998

    Primate. any of an order (Primates) of mammals comprising HUMANS, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers). Websters 1998

    Do you have dominion over the animals or are you the highest form of animal youself?
    Something tells me it is very important to make the distinction at the immediate poine when someone in authority asks you to identify yourself.

    Connect the dots and it appears to me there is a clear distinction between the “MAN” who is a primate and the “man” who is made in the image of his Creator.

    The man created by our Creator is the mannor of man who is a living soul and to whom has been given dominion (i.e. absolute ownership) over the primates and other lower animals. In fact the manner of man that was created by our Creator has been given dominion over the earth itself and such men of this distinction are to occupy this earth until their Creator in His Son returns to relieve us of this duty.

    • Adask

      November 7, 2012 at 3:09 PM

      Whether other “men” are actually “animals” is unknown to me. Maybe they have a choice to be “animal-men” or “men made in God’s image”. I don’t know. But if there is more than one kind of “man,” I am the specific kind of “man” who is “made in God’s image”. My Bible says so. My Freedom of Religion guarantees that my description of myself must be recognized.

      • patrick

        November 8, 2012 at 2:38 PM

        I claim my divine spirit having a human experience status…can you rebut that!? :)

    • Virginia

      November 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

      Beautifully said brother!

  5. Greg James

    November 7, 2012 at 2:45 PM

    Can someone tell me more about this stuff and how it works? It is all confusing, and I want to be sure it actually works. I don’t want to attempt to go through with this whole UCC thing and it be for nothing, then it have some effect on me being able to own a business or buy property and things of that sort. Please email me at

    • James Barnes

      November 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM

      Greg, people can give you information, but it involves an entire paradigm (world view) shift to use it in your mind and life. Trust me, I got physically sick and my mind and body fought for 2 weeks when I came to the realization that EVERYTHING I knew and believed in was a fraud, scam and deceit to control my creator given life. Screw the UCC, when you realize “who you are” all their deceit, lies and bullshit can literally go in the shitcan where it belongs. You cannot be ignorant and free is a fact! So you’ll need to read and study and learn yourself so you can defend any of their bull with YOUR words and understanding. I’ll give you a few place to start in learning, after that it is up to you, if YOU don’t know your rights then you have none! There is only one law, DO NO HARM and this also falls in line with Biblical text also, approach everything from that perspective and your entire life will change. Every encounter you have with the criminals called cops, and courts will teach you and empower you more to live YOUR life. I have had no state issued license since 2003 and no state issued ID period since 2007 and I live my life as I see fit however have been arrested 3x by ignorant men with badges and guns whom are so clueless they leave you an easily prosecutable tort when you act in honor, always. So far I’ve been nice enough not to pursue those, but the next time it happens, I will as 3 strikes and they will learn a lesson. I’m a peaceful man not a pushover and I have a gun too if necessary to defend my life from these psychopaths that now infest our protectors of the peace.

      Here are a few links really listen and read these and understand the implications behind the words, to gain the full knowledge and power in them.

      Als Blog here is full of good info and insights and all of his Antishyster stuff is to be treasured. Full of reasonable insight and logic can teach you a lot of wisdom if you are open to learning and have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

      Why you never talk to the police!

      Michael H. Keehns book in .pdf format. Perceptions is very good and I’ve verified 96% of the facts he states in this, which means you can do the same. Don’t trust anything you haven’t verified yourself. Otherwise you’re giving yourself to possible if even innocent misleading. His entire website has a lot of good info on it just take the book part off the web address.

      Marc Stevens is a standup guy and has been helping people for over 13 years in the trenches in the courts by dispelling the fictions that abound and listening to his podcasts, shows and book “Adventures in Legalland” (worth every penny of the 20$ it costs) can teach you an awful lot about the deceptions and trickery in the courts. Also look for his “standing” cross reference for a great source of info for every “state” it’s on the site.

      Dean Cliffords stuff is the simplest and most revealing way to learn a lot his videos have evolved since they began and he even tells you where hes made mistakes in the past and how to correct them he’s out of Canada but the same things can easily be applied here right in the US. I know they work, I’ve used them.
      Watch them from the bottom to the top… even save them and watch many times, very good info, can teach a wo/man open to learning a lot.

      Barefoots World is another treasure trove of info, to glean knowledge and wisdom from.

      Then use your reason, conscience, and mind to determine what is real fake and break the chains of your government indoctrinated public schooling look into the trivium and logical fallacies as this will help you protect yourself from deception. Well hope this helps and welcome to the mind revolution.

      • Greg James

        November 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

        I’m not completely ignorant. I understand alot of this stuff, but what I don’t understand exactly is how to live life outside of their control. How do you get a job if you don’t use your SSN? How do you drive without being harassed or get a license plate for your car, things like that. How do you get a house? That is the part I am not understanding. I understand nearly everything else, because I am a reader, and researcher. Those are the questions I can’t find solid answers to however

      • Adask

        November 10, 2012 at 2:04 AM

        A primary object of this blog is to discover an answer to your questions. So far as I know, no one has a perfect answer to those questions, but some seem to have found answers that may be helpful.

      • Don

        November 10, 2012 at 12:25 AM

        @state issued

        People seem to know what “issue is” when they have a child, but they don’t seem to connect it or think Government “issue” is anything to think about. James, I have been in so many of the “several States, I can’t remember them all, but I do remember that it seemed like all the statezilla savages were from the same family, no matter what state I was in. The lowest IQ for the most part,were the Jailers. Then, again, I came across a few, extremely rare, gov-co agents that were kind. Thanks for helping Greg.

    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM

      Screw the UCC-
      James Barnes is right Greg. Don’t touch it with a 20 foot pole.James entire message to you is true.

      • James Barnes

        November 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM

        Greg, I have no contract with the state therefore no obligation to do anything for them except do no harm. I have been harassed several times but I’m always let go very quickly because I know who I am and these days they just leave me alone because I’m not worth the trouble to them. Make your own job, or if an employer won’t hire you because you won’t give them an SSN (get them to say that though) That’s discrimination and a violation of so many rights you could own the store. We are buying land through “private contract” and all monies paid are considered lawful money and are buying with the understanding when paid we get fee “simple absolute ownership” (Blacks Law) only a 7 year loan too. You have to make your answers for a lot of this, are you owned by others, or a man with your own mind, will and conscience? We were trained from very young to obey authority and you have to break that training to get anywhere and BE YOUR OWN AUTHORITY (that is the world view shift I was speaking of) or they will always run YOUR life. Gets easier the more you do it but is scary at first. :) Break out of the chains of your mind, always be honorable, and no man can command you without being the criminal in the situation. Freedom, Peace and Love to you brother you can do it! I have faith in all good men.

  6. Virginia

    November 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM

    Ooops…….I meant brother Harry!

  7. David Ewing

    November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

    And to continue the story or your ID, probably as soon as 2013 when you go the renew your drivers license you will be required to give biometric information to the State. It will consist of a digital scan of your right finger and a scan of your right eye. The 666 part will be a barcode on the back of your license so cops can merely scan it and read the numer off of it without even having to touch it. Barcodes have a 6 at the beginning, center and end of the code. Your license identifies a ‘man’, that man being you. This is being implemented in India as we speak. Check YT for the video. EVERYONE will take the mark of the beast or they won’t be able to work, drive, cash checks, or make any electronic transactions. The value of the dollar being destroyed will keep any of it that remains in circulation from being used after the banking collapse. We should be to this point within 3 years. For sure 144,000 people will not take the mark. Here’s wisdom; be one of the 144!

    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM

      David Ewing
      @ November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM comment

      Government issued ID is for Government Issue, like in “offspring.” Right ??

  8. Anon4fun

    November 7, 2012 at 5:23 PM

    Adask: {If you looked like a man or woman “made in God’s image,” then every officer, official and employee of government would instantly know that their first and foremost duty was to secure your God-given, unalienable Rights.}

    Even so, the police, etc. would still have a need to know which man or woman “made in God’s image” you are. Simply knowing that you are a man or woman “made in God’s image” does not identify you specifically or tell them if, for example, there is an arrest warrant out for your arrest.

    {I haven’t verified it, but I’m told that anyone who has/uses a SSN, is presumed to be an employee of the federal government.}

    This federal government employee connection to the SSN is a potential gold mine of understanding on this topic.

    The way I understand it, the all-caps likeness to your name (e.g. JOHN SMITH) is your job title as an employee of the private US government corporation. In this capacity, you also have an employee ID number, your SNN.

    Regarding the unreferenced musings by the water-muddiers as to what “human” means, we see this in the Declaration of Independence:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    • pop de adam

      November 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM


      One simple rebutal to the presumption of being a “government employee”, is I haven’t recieved any of my government paychecks. If they get the benefit of presuming we are all employees, at least they could reciprocate and actually pay us for assuming it.

    • Anon4fun

      November 7, 2012 at 6:01 PM

      pop de adam:

      That’s no rebuttal. You are incorrectly presuming that employees are necessarily compensated with a paycheck. Why would you expect a paycheck from your employer when they never agreed to give you one?

      • pop de adam

        November 7, 2012 at 7:44 PM

        But neither did they not agree to it. My point is is what do most people expect the employer/employee relationship to conform to? Most expect the relationship to consist in some form to be an exchange of labor for some value. If I am in the same employ as the agent making the accusation, then our paychecks should be similar in he/she also gets paid by my employer. They are going to look silly when you ask for or subpoena their paycheck, and they do not in fact get paid by Joe’s Autobody as you or I might, and theirs reads as some agent/subsidary/sub-contractor of the Treasury. Oh well, carry on, twas a passing thought.

      • James Barnes

        November 9, 2012 at 1:14 PM

        However, You cannot be “forced” to work for free, Right? That is involuntary servitude or even blatant slavery. Which has been a felony here for over a hundred years, Right? Make them prove their presumptions and it all falls apart in a facade of lies and stupidity. Every bureaucrat and attorney is so inured in their fictional world, they are completely incompetent when you challenge them in reality. Don’t bend your back and it’s hard for anyone to ride you like an animal. :)

    • Adask

      November 7, 2012 at 6:27 PM

      For the most part, they only need to know which particular “man made in God’s image” I if I’ve caused some harm, damage, injury to someone else. So long as I’m a “man made in God’s image” who is merely traveling without causing harm to anyone else, they have no right to even approach me unless I ask them to do so, or at least consent to that approach.

      Whatever the word “human” may have meant in A.D. 1776 and what it may mean today can be two different meanings. The use of “human” in the Declaration of Independence may be entirely innocent. The use of “human” in today’s legal documents may be malicious. That’s why many modern contracts and even lawsuits include a section on definitions to inform readers of what the writer specifically meant when he used a particular word.

      • James Barnes

        November 10, 2012 at 4:21 PM

        Al, I’ve even when they try to say but the definition in this act. I say wait a minute that is your act, not mine, and therefore, not my definition. Which is always English, or the little bit of law I do know, this always throws them for a loop too. You use their generalities against them by bringing it to specifics and poof they don’t know what to do. I’m always nice unless, they are being turds, but using their own crap against them always turns the tiger into a tiny kitten and always make me smile when it happens to. I always use man made male or female and created in his image, or mankind has worked very well so far. All my affidavits expressly say what definitions are being used to make everything perfectly clear and allow no, so called interpretation into the matter from anyone.

    • Don

      November 8, 2012 at 12:21 AM

      Re:”Even so, the police, etc. would still have a need to know which man or woman “made in God’s image” you are. Simply knowing that you are a man or woman “made in God’s image” does not identify you specifically or tell them if, for example, there is an arrest warrant out for your arrest.”

      Do you believe the men who pledged their “sacred honor “carried” ID ? When was ID first required in the united States of America? Once again,I do not CARRY ID because I KNOW who I am !!! IF I commit a REAL crime, what difference does it make what my name is?

  9. David Ewing

    November 7, 2012 at 7:44 PM

    FYI, the 14th Amendment citizen is different from the Dejure Citizen or Sovereign. Compare the definition of ‘person’ in the front of the Civil Code, with the definition in the Criminal Code. Notice the difference? Sheperdize the Dred Scott case again and read it. I realize it’s 178 pages with a lot of legaleze, but you’ll confirm the importance that it’s never been overturned as it applies to Dejure Citizenship. It was overturned in part as it applied to specific 14th Amendment arguements, but that wasn’t the core issue. Proving your Dejure Citizenship in court is possible and there was a famous case from Fort Bend County Texas (Houston area) that went to the USSC in 1997 called the Barbara Martin case. She won, but the case had a National secrecy order placed on it and you can’t find it now. Her website has been blocked by the Beast for some time, but I think it will show up now – chosenracedotcom.

    • Don

      November 7, 2012 at 10:55 PM

      David Ewing
      November 7, 2012 at 7:44 PM

      THANK GOD FOR YOU!!!!!!

    • Don

      November 7, 2012 at 11:56 PM

      David Ewing
      November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

      The word, “Consanguinity” as written in the “Statute of 1776” apparently is of no interest to any one else except You,David,& me. I know it’s of interest to you. I can tell this by what you have said.

      I have not received ANY response from ANYONE at ANYTIME I have brought it up. In all honesty, it makes me both angry & sad that no one else “seems” to care or is interested.

  10. palani

    November 7, 2012 at 7:57 PM

    Governments work their magic on persons. A person is a word, an action or representation. Jurisdiction is “oath spoken”. We have been advised to speak no oaths nor press anyone’s hand lest we be surety for his debts. Likewise utter no words. An action is to do something. Best do nothing because the alternative creates a person. Choose no agents to represent you. Restrain yourself in these things and government will find you invisible.

    What do you need ID for anyway? To receive a benefit?

    • Don

      November 7, 2012 at 11:13 PM

      To receive a benefit?

      According to, “John,” it’s for “their” benefit. You apply for, carry, but don’t have ID for “their benefit,”

    • NDT

      November 9, 2012 at 12:23 AM

      ID identifies what you are. If you identify yourself as a person or a human being, you’re screwed. In my experience the state has to have a ranking officer testify in order to bring charges against a man.

    • James Barnes

      November 9, 2012 at 2:01 PM

      The person is a very good issue to bring up also, I’ve heard every argument too and fro and backward and forward about the person. All persons are fictions in that they only exist in the minds of wo/men. Legal Maxim: Man is a term of nature person of the civil law.
      Let’s talk about the persons or personas, the mask a wo/man wears.

      1st person is YOU, Sui Juris (once educated) in propria persona. The man or woman, natural persons have a man or woman directly attached to them in the context of whom is using them and are ones we all know and care for. Father, Mother, Child, Aunt, Uncle, Alfred Adask, James Barnes et. al.

      2nd person These are artificial person created by statutory decrees and have to have a 1st person to “represent” them” “Pro se” (a stautory right) to do anything, as they do not exist in reality at all but are artificial puppets that if you don’t know they exist can be used against you very effectively. These are Al’s evil twin if you have read his writings. The “ALFRED ADASK”, “JAMES BARNES”, or Officer so and so, Judge Blankety blank, or Clerk of the Court so and so.

      3rd Persons Are completely contrived artificial fictional entities that have absolutely no basis in reality and no “standing” ever, unless you believe you really can harm what never existed. The United States, The White House, The State, Department of Homeland Security, Child Support Enforcement, TSA

      Engage the officers in inherent jurisdiction in your proper person 1st while they are engaging you in fiction land 2nd and you will always win. A cop acting in inherent jurisdiction, has no more or less power than we ourselves have to act against someone whom has harmed us. If you are not representing or using a 2nd person and they are acting in statutory jurisdiction 2nd then they are outside their jurisdiction and acting completely without authority and are liable for EVERYTHING they do. Make them prove you have committed a crime against a 1st person or sue their asses in reality. I want to see you harm a government or a state. That would be a good one, make that officer prove his claim, or tell him to bite you, he has the burden of proof when aggressing against you for going about your private peaceful business in your person which you are the sole beneficiary of. Record of Live Birth is evidence of your 1st person (mother created and gave to you government has the legal title and is the trustee to protect that), Birth Certificate is 2nd person government created and owned which you have the legal title of and are the trustee and gov is the beneficiary of. Do you really want to represent something they have the right to fully control? It isn’t a man has no rights and isn’t even real. But if you agree to represent it without complaint, well you consented, right? I’m not perfect but am working everyday to figure all this out in real life and in the courts, so far I’ve gotten stronger each time and they simply want to stop playing with me. Now I’m learning by teaching others and so far am having great success. Keep moving forward… Any discussion on this would be greatly appreciated as it’s how we all learn, right? Peace, Love and Freedom to you all.

    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 8:46 PM

      @Choose no agents to represent you.
      No one needs to be concerned about choosing or not choosing. It’s taken care of for you because they are here to help you especially IF you are a “boat rocker.” Palani, would you be so kind as to share your knowledge of,”parens patriae?” There IS a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge who recently said that people who claimed they were not 14th amendment citizens had no citizenship whatsoever. I had the case,somewhere,just the other day but I have lost it. I bet if Alfred Adask was the Governor of the State of Texas, & the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered that decision, he,Governor Adask, would say to the 4th Circuit, You have made your decision, now you enforce it. That is one way to stop the tyranny. Tell me about parens patriae. pretty please????

  11. brady

    November 7, 2012 at 8:28 PM

    excellent article al. the last time i was stopped by a *fake mesquite cop on a bogus claim of “I didn’t see your blinker” which was really a profile stop, i told him my name and the best date of birth i have available, (i was too young to remember it, and my parents actually did have it wrong for 19 years – at least according to the U.S.Navy/FBI/Dallas County Sheriff Department’s checking) and although he did not LIKE that I did not have a TXDL, he did not issue any citation for NO D.L., nor did he issue any citation for failure to use blinker, as I was using my arm out the window on a bright sunny day. I could have pressed the issue and complained that it was really a profile stop, but instead chose to send in a commendation letter for his professionalism and courtesy, HOPING and believing that maybe, someday in the future, this officer (who works for a deparment that does not exist according to their own charter*) will either be nice to me or at least leave me alone if he sees me out enjoying my day in my personal and private property (my automobile) while traveling on our FREE roads, that WE ALL OWN, and daily support with ad valorem taxes on tires, oil and gas. I did courteously notify him that I have formerly sued officers for the false charge of NO D.L. and would again if it ever happens.

    • Don

      November 7, 2012 at 11:05 PM

      “….chose to send in a commendation letter for his professionalism and courtesy, ”

      Way to go !!!

  12. Anon4fun

    November 7, 2012 at 8:48 PM

    pop de adam:

    What the employee (with an all-caps job title, e.g. JOHN SMITH) receives as compensation in this case is a laundry list of benefits from the US government. Item #1 is 14th Amendment citizenship in exchange for being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” i.e. an employee.

    Employee. A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed. (Black’s 6th)

    Hire, n. Compensation for the use of a thing, or for labor or services. (Black’s 6th)

    Service. Duty or labor to be rendered by one person to another, the former being bound to submit his will to the direction and control of the latter. The act of serving the labor performed or the duties required. Occupation, condition, or status of a servant, etc. Performance of labor for benefit of another, or at another’s command; attendance of an inferior, hired helper, etc. (Black’s 6th)

    This explains why nearly every activity of man has been construed as commerce. The point being to include as much of society as possible within the scope of the duties of an employee of the private US government corporation.

    • pop de adam

      November 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM


      I hate beating dead horses but will continue.

      As to 14th amendment citizenry I would expressly reject that “benefit” as I have no wish to be “subject”. The benefit in the 14th amendment reads as an obligation to be obediant, that does not seem like a benefit to me. LIke some presumptions, the concept of implied contracts seems a rather squishy area of law simply meant to act as a legal tar pit, to bind people up into things not even considered in the original exchange. If the offeror can’t take an exchange serious enough to spell out express terms for the exchange, then perhaps it is frivolous for them to then imply other terms after the fact.

      Persons are legal fictions, legal is what the legislature creates as official, fictions at base are lies or untruthes. Are persons legal fictions? Does it follow then, that they are also official lies? I forget where I first read this line of reasoning, it might have even been here. If we attempt to strip away some of that which has despoiled the course of law into a litany of conflicted logic and inverted reason, we arrive at justice as the aim of law, which should have more pull: the truth or lies? Which is the the light and which is the dark? While light and dark will be perpetual, light will always sweep away darkness, and unless there is some fantastic new mechanism of which I am not aware, darkness never makes inroads upon light.

      The Black’s law definitions you provided above seem to mean that compensation and hire are nearly the same item? I may give hire to you in exchange for your hire to me? I suppose it might do, but is my hire equivilant to your hire at base if it is my hire and implied terms to simply your hire?

      (hire and implied terms =/= hire) or (hire and implied terms > hire) these exchanges do not seem to be simple equivalents? (hire = hire) (A is A) (1 4)

      Pardon if I ramble, I won’t persist, enjoy what you do, Pop

      • pop de adam

        November 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM

        (hire = hire) (A is A) (1 4), not sure why this was garbled.

      • pop de adam

        November 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM

        Never mind wordpress does’nt like equivilants and balances.

      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 8:51 PM

        pop de adam
        November 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM
        I hate beating dead horses……..”
        Tell me about it !!!!

        אני אוהבת אותך

  13. Randy

    November 7, 2012 at 10:45 PM

    “A friend of mine a few weeks ago was taking a late night walk. He walked by a cop who had 6 people on the side of the road. The cop walked up to my friend and said, I need some ID. My friend said to the cop, “I am a flesh and blood living sentient man created in the image of God, do YOU rebut that”? The cop said, OK, have a nice evening, and he walked away. —- Objection, heresay.

  14. Don

    November 7, 2012 at 11:08 PM

    Re:The cop said, OK, have a nice evening, and he walked away.
    BS !!!

    Re:Objection, heresay.
    EXACTLY !!!

  15. Lex Mercatoria

    November 8, 2012 at 2:40 AM

    1. No one can compel you to identify yourself with *their* documents.
    2. No card can identify you, as it is an inanimate object lacking the capacity to do anything. You identify yourself by your words and actions, e.g., presenting *their* ID cards as identification. The Matrix agents won’t presume to make that determination for you absent your consent. Otherwise it would be a case of outright fraud (running around and forcibly pinning names on people) and would constitute involuntary servitude which on both low and high levels is expressly forbidden.

    The only issue of any import is that of identity. As Rice McLeod likes to say, “who are you?” How one answers and acts in response to that question will govern the Matrix agents interaction, or lack thereof, with you. They are reflecting your perception of yourself and reality back to you. All their statutes/codes/regulations are meaningless in that they only apply to persons, which are fictions. I challenge anyone to find one of their so-called “laws” that mandates that a *man* or *woman* must do, or is forbidden to do whatever–good luck! The Matrix will only presume to have authority over that wich it creates which are the myriad of fictions that exist on paper. One may elect to identify oneself as such at one’s own peril and, apparently, most people do.

  16. Jethro

    November 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

    Since nearly all “government ID” has an expiration date, apparently the state with which it identifies an “individual” is for a fixed period of time. Perhaps when the term expires, it is no longer “valid” for the purpose of identifying one with a particular state of political affairs — it’s like your club membership expired. So when a bank, voting precinct, etc. says you must have “valid government ID”, it appears they’re not just asking about your identity, they’re asking about whether your political affiliation is current and therefore “valid” for the purposes of participation “in this state”.

    • Adask

      November 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM

      That’s a good point. The expiration date on most IDs is not proof, but it does support the notion that “identifying with” a particular venue is voluntary. Today, I can choose to “identify with” The State; tomorrow, I can choose to “identify with” “this state”; the next day, I can again choose to “identify with” The State.

      • James Barnes

        November 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM

        That is a great point. But a moron in Mississippi arrested me for the false charge of disorderly conduct (him being the only one creating any disorder) for not providing him an ID that didn’t exist and demanding my birthdate which I couldn’t state for a fact because I was an infant, how the hell do I know when I was born, give me a break. I was let go in 64 hours though, all the time demanding to see a justice or the sheriff as the moving party for their terrorist crimes against me. Oh, and was of course was released after 6pm, so i couldn’t walk right over to the court and file real charges against the criminals. Watch out for Burnsville Mississippi and Tishomingo county retards if you’re ever there. I do have an agreement for 100 dollars an hour in specie if this ever comes back in any form to haunt me. About 220 to 560 thousand fiat notes for any unlawful force used against me. Plus 1 million for what the jail idiots did…..

  17. Mike Scott

    November 8, 2012 at 6:02 PM

    >> “I haven’t verified it, but I’m told that anyone who has/uses a SSN, is presumed to be an employee of the federal government.”

    I agree, but… what I have come across indicates that the “person/employee” who has/uses a SSN, is likely not “the Man,” but rather is likely to be a trust created by the Social Security Administration, with the Man in the office of trustee.

    The card is not “your card,” and the number is not “your number;” they are property of the trust (therefore, property of the govco).

    Alfred has said in several articles that he suspects that the “govco” may be attempting to control the people through trust relationships; I highly doubt that any of the info in this post will be new or a surprise to him; I am guessing that he is looking for more evidence before being ready to say that he has proof of such trust relationships. He is such a humble guy, he rarely seems to state that he is absolutely sure of something, even when he probably is 99.9% sure. I think he wants us to figure it out for ourselves, rather that have it given to us on a silver platter, all worked out.

    Try out these 2 quotes to see how they fit:

    *** Quote 1: From

    The Social Security Act of 1935: What is its effect?

    On application on an SS-5 form, the Social Security Administration creates a name and number and registers them in a database along with relevant information regarding the respective application. They then print said name and number on a pre-printed Social Security card and send a package including the card to its recipient. The recipient receives the package. The contents of the package (sometimes the card itself) plainly reserves that the card does not belong to the recipient; rather it is the property of Corp. U.S. The package also plainly instructs the recipient to activate the card with a signature if the recipient is willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with the card, which include the card is to be held in a safe place until such time as its actual owner wants it back. Corp. U.S. also reserves the right to request the return of the card at any time and that is about it.

    Looking over this relationship, one will discover all of the elements of a Revocable Trust (see Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole) are clearly part of this relationship. Therefore, the Social Security Administration created relationship inherent with the acceptance of the card is that of a Trust that remains an agency of Corp. U.S. under Corp. U.S.’ direct control through Congressional acts.

    Therefore, all of the property ever acquired by such trusts remains the property of the trust’s beneficiary. In other words as a matter of law:

    Corp. U.S. holds equitable title to all property acquired with a Social Security number.

    *** (Footnote – “Corp U.S.” is this writer’s nickname for that same private foreign owned corporation, formed in 1871, and taken over by foreign bankers in 1944, that Alfred refers to as “govco.”)

    *** Quote 2: From

    Mortmanes, incorrectly listed in corrupted history books as “mortmain”, is the legal fiction created in the 16th Century under the reign of King Henry VIII of England and his Venetian/Magyar advisers that the body corporate or “person” of a testamentary trust could be considered the same as a living person and therefore possess certain rights and privileges. The concept of “Mortmanes” is the foundation of the modern company/corporation.

    — end quotes —

    It seems that the govco will do almost anything to avoid facing the fact that men and women created in God’s image did not receive their rights from the govco.

    If you want to know what God thinks about His People getting “numbered,” read 2nd Samuel chapter 24. Hint: it really ticks Him off.

    They would either presume to treat us as animals, as Alfred has revealed, or presume to treat us as if we were “one and the same as” a legal fiction created by them.

    To such a legal fiction, the govco IS “God,” being the creator of it. The govco can impose any and all kinds of taxes, debts, duties, charges, and obligations upon such an entity, without regard to what the Constitution says that they are allowed to impose upon men and women.

    If a man or woman does not understand that such a trust is a separate entity from the man or woman who may be lending their brain power and physical capacity to the Trustee office of that trust, it is very likely that they will inadvertantly conduct themselves in such a way that either… 1) the man could be charged with fraud because he has converted the assets of the trust for his own use, or 2) the man can be deemed to have formed a “general partnership” between himself and that trust, thus making himself “jointly and severally liable” for anything and everything that trust is liable for. The Supreme Court has ruled that men and women cannot be charged income tax on their wages for labor – that income tax is charged on “corporate profit” – but that trust owes income tax, and if you act as though you ARE that trust, you can make yourself liable for it.

    If you have provided your Social Security Number to anyone who is making payments to you, all such payments are considered by the govco to be their property, and the way they think is that any part of that money that they allow the trustee to take and use for his expenses is an act of grace on their part. If you don’t give them the part they have decided they want to have by the whim of the legislators this year, then they claim that you are stealing from them.

    The Social Security Administration, like the rest of the administrative state, operates subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, which contains procedures regarding how the govco must maintain their records. This Act provides that any man or woman can require an agency of the govco to provide them with copies of the records being kept about them, and to correct such records upon request. If they fail to so correct such records, there is a procedure to follow in order to compel them to do so.

    Alfred has written that the govco may be using what could be called “hidden trusts” to control the people; if you are the Trustee of such a hidden trust, i.e. there is no written contract (“trust indenture”) defining what the trustee can and cannot do with regard to the trust – then it’s kind of like writing a blank check and handing it to the govco to fill in with whatever amount they want to. Just as there are statutes regarding probate which specify how the estate is to be handled when someone dies without having made a written will – and those can be changed at the whim of legislators and interpreted by the whim of judges… when you are the trustee of a trust that has no written rules for how it is to be operated, you have a hard time knowing what you can do, what you can’t do, and how it will be interpreted if a fight breaks out between you and govco.

    It is possible to use that Administrative Procedures Act, to force that Social Security Administration to admit, ever so reluctantly, that they created such a trust, and that because they didn’t see fit to define the terms of such trust in a written indenture, that the man or woman who occupies the office of trustee has done their job for them, by creating such a document defining the terms of that trust relationship. This indenture can and should be written to state clearly that the trust will pay all of the trustee’s living expenses, and also in addition to that, to pay him “a reasonable wage.”

    If all of the income that goes into that trust is paid out as expenses, then that trust has no “net income” on which it would owe income tax… and the man or woman does not owe income tax on “wages.”

    It it possible to force them to admit:
    – that the trust is separate from you
    – you have an absolute sovereign right to “take off your trustee hat” and deal with others outside of the scope of that trust
    – if you have given the SSN of that trust to an “employer” then they have employed that trust, not the man. If you have not given them the SSN, they have not employed that trust, and what you do with them is no business of govco.

    Just some food for thought.

  18. Don

    November 8, 2012 at 10:24 PM

    @I claim my divine spirit having a human experience status…can you rebut that!? :)

    We have “man,woman = mankind,kind after kind. Why HUman? Why ADD that word? Why is it needed or necessary? > Look at the “Human events/experiences” as described in the Declaration of Independence.I believe the signers of/on that document understood more about the word HUMAN than they are given credit for. Read what those “HUMAN” events consisted of. Not a pretty picture is it? They, the signers,experienced first hand those “HUMAN” events. They wanted OUT of & away from those “HUMAN” events. Human is a bad word. IF you want to be known as a “HUMAN”, ok.And, No! I don’t think you regard my comment as a “rebuttal.” :)

  19. Anon4fun

    November 9, 2012 at 12:59 AM


    “Human” is not “man” with “hu” added to it. “Man” is from “mann” in Old English. “Human” is from “humanus” in Latin. The meanings of the two source words mostly overlap. The authors of the Declaration could have said, “When in the Course of the events of man,” except that’s not snappy enough an opener for a big-time document. So they said, “When in the Course of human events,” instead. Until someone can show a reason why standard English definitions do not apply in this case, that’s all there is to it,

    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

      To: Anon4fun.

      Just went to Brasscheck TV & the video, in essence, was about an insurgency in Mexico. It centered on all the bloodshed etc. happening.The commentator said it’s a “terrible “human” crisis.” My point, my Mentor, is, human is so often used with with ugly, heartwrenching, agonizing, etc. “events.” To me, these “events” are better described by saying/using the description of “human events” other than “mankind” events.

      There are a lot of “intelligent commentators” on this blog, but they need to work on their “human nature.” So do I, but my god, there are degrees of human nature. Some people do not like for me to use “prose” in some of my comments but I guess he/she sees nothing wrong in responding to me with practically all satire.

  20. Don

    November 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM

    @November 9, 2012 at 12:59 AM

    big-time document ?? I thought it was just a “piece of paper.” John told me so & we are here to learn,right? But, Mentor, my point is, we have man,woman,mankind. Why do we need the additional word of “human? ” “Hu is sort of close to “hue” isn’t it.

  21. James Barnes

    November 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    Thank you always Al, for your insight and wisdom, appreciate you more than you can ever know. Peace, Love and Freedom to you always.

  22. Greg James

    November 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

    I know this goes back to the days of Locke and Hobbes, and the Social Contract Theory. That is what alot of this corrupt system is based off of. I’m just trying to figure out the steps one would actually take to break it. I know they say it depends on consent of the governed, and if you don’t consent then I guess they have no power over you.

    • James Barnes

      November 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM

      Greg that even like an appearance. legally is (paraphrased) Where one submits himself to the courts jurisdiction. In other words, you need to give permission for the court to settle the supposed dispute! This was actually one of my false arrests. Failure to appear warrant (no such thing is a contrived nullity, no probable cause, no oath or affidavit showing and “cause of action” was a completely civil matter) So the monkey arrested me I denied consent and that I did not consent to the court interfering in my private affairs and would not submit to the courts jurisdiction. Stated everything done from the point he said he was going ahead and using force was under protest, threat, duress and coercion. Informed them that I did not consent to the theft of my photo, fingerprints, and personal property but didn’t fight them when they stole it all. 42 Hours later was released no court, nothing. Forced me to sign a return on recognizance (remember everything! I’m doing is under threat) signed it under threat, duress and coercion and was released. They were the criminals and the sheriff and the judge knew it, why I never went to court. (whom I demanded to see the entire time I was there) I can’t be deceived by them because knowledge has taken the log out of my eye. Read and watch the stuff I posted earlier if your fairly knowledgeable already watch Dean Cliffords stuff cause it brought every bit I was confused about still into sharp focus…. really good info there. Now go and make your own path, that’s what life is about, brother.

      • Greg James

        November 10, 2012 at 4:42 PM

        Another thing I saw that was really interesting was a court case in Dekalb County, Georgia. There were a group of Sovereigns arrested and charged with racketeering for moving into foreclosed or abandon houses and squatting. The Sovereigns went to trial, and beat them at their own system, and won. They maintained that they did nothing wrong because they never hurt anyone or infringed on anyone else’s rights.

  23. Don

    November 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM

    @I’m not worth the trouble to them.

    How I wish I could say this. I have been so much trouble to them by “standing firm” that they have me singled out to “get my mind right.” My “ID” affidavit made a matter of public record means nothing, to “them,” & Just saying who you are is hearsay. I think they harass me because they know I stand alone. They outnumber me. If anyone stands alone, & has no one to even call on the phone, & they know this, it’s a hard row to hoe hose-a, & it’s not a pretty picture.This is being sent mainly for Greg to consider.

  24. Don

    November 10, 2012 at 5:41 PM

    Greg James
    November 10, 2012 at 4:42 PM

    @Another thing I saw that was really interesting was a court case in Dekalb County, Georgia.

    Will you post how to bring this case up on the internet so I can read & study it?

      • Don

        November 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

        Thanks Greg for the link.
        If I rob a store of some merchandise but I’m charged with kidnapping that charge will be “dismissed” too. Then again, maybe not, here in New Mexico.

      • Don

        November 10, 2012 at 10:39 PM

        The only way the 2 people whose photos are showing can be “Sovereign” as to how that word is understood today,by most people,IS,if they are Government Agents. Granted there are degrees of Sovereignty.e.g., King & Prince. They are both sovereign, but the Prince is subject to the King.The original “order” of things in this U.S.of A is reversed. Those who were originally “Servants” are NOW the Sovereigns & the offspring of those who were Sovereigns are now Subjects. It’s a long story but unless it can be explained in a “short,” at most,in no more than a paragraph it’s a waste of time.

  25. Jeff D.

    November 10, 2012 at 11:07 PM

    Withdrawal your consent at will, contest -sources- of authority (color of law) and assert inalienable rights as a man.

    Only a person (trust, corporation…) can be a citizen, not a man.

    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM

      Jeff D.
      @November 10, 2012 at 11:07 PM

      @ inalienable rights.

      YES !!! Make sure you assert those INalienable rights. NEVER assert ANY UNalienable rights. No wonder I have had a lot of “gov-co” agents tell me they read this “Alfred Adask law site.” They say they like entertainment too, as well as anybody else,especially comedy.

    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM

      Jeff, you say:
      @”Only a person (trust, corporation…) can be a citizen, not a man.”

      Is that right? maybe so, it depends on the understanding of the word “person v Person,but consider the following

      Article. I. Constitution for the United States of America.(Before it was unlawfully amended)
      Section. 2. (Before this too, was unlawfully amended, via appropriate legislation, not legislation necessary & proper, see Article 1,section 8,especially the last paragraph)

      No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

      So,Jeff, I guess the above words mean that the trust, corporation, & any other non living entity must be at least 25 years of age,and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, & when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

      Also, the trust, corporation,etc, must be masculine in gender because: “he” shall be chosen.

      Why,Jeff, is the word “person,” in, No Person shall be a Representative…. written as a proper noun, & the “person” you, Jeff, use, a common noun? e.g.

      You,Jeff, say:Only a person (trust, corporation…) can be a citizen, not a man.

      The Constitution as described above says:”No Person(not, person)…..”

      So, Person v. person, means 2 entirely different things,i.e. different meanings.

  26. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

    James Barnes
    @November 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM
    Shalom Brother James,
    Palani & Anon4fun never have any of these problems.Do you have any knowledge of the reason(s) why?

    • James Barnes

      November 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

      What problems would that be? I never have problems, as I don’t aggress against people without cause, nor force anything on anyone. I do however defend against any aggression used against me without real and articulable cause, right then! It hasn’t stopped any moronic monkeys in a costume with a badge and a gun from being a retard and forcing his ignorance on me like the terrorist he is, but it has always delivered me from their hands, so far. You can’t stop a violent criminal if you don’t use violence yourself. Unless you resign to use reason which their ignorance can’t overcome. That is not saying that the day one of them pulls a weapon on me without real articulable reason that I won’t use violence to defend myself either, because I have a duty to defend my life that was granted to me by my creator, to do otherwise would be self murder or suicide and that will never happen by my own hands or action. So far none of their arbitrary bull crap, so called charges held any water whatsoever. Because while I’m not exactly sure I know what and who I am in fact. I absolutely know what I am not and that is very simply anything they have any arbitrary control over in their jurisdiction. No stated proven “cause of action” nor “standing” no obligation whatsoever on my part. Not really hard and has worked every time I’ve used that belief. Facebook censored me a 2nd time for the truth so I told them to take ther so called service and pound it as far as they could where the sun don’t shine and to delete and wipe everything. Never join it just another arm of the misledia, they’ll let you post as long as it conforms to their so called standards, and will hide the truth from peopl whom are looking for the truth. Freedom, Peace and Love to you all.

      • Don

        November 15, 2012 at 3:34 PM

        What problems would that be? I never have problems,…”

        oh ok: Problems like this,James

        “But a moron in Mississippi arrested me for the false charge of disorderly conduct (him being the only one creating any disorder) for not providing him an ID that didn’t exist and demanding my birthdate which I couldn’t state for a fact because I was an infant, how the hell do I know when I was born, give me a break”

        I was let go in 64 hours though

        But apparently this was no problem? This is good news for me because it tells me you have others to help you. This is good news. If for no other reason your farm animals would have gone without food & water for at least 64 hours. I apologize for misunderstanding

  27. James Barnes

    November 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM

    Like I said Don I was simply riding (not driving) in a car and a moron criminal with a badge and a gun forced me to his will criminally. Will you really stop a terrorist who is intent on damaging you in his ignorant retardation. No, it really wasn’t a problem, that was however the 3rd time and any more aggression will be met with filed and verified criminal complaints and a real action in the courts from a man. Not that in the corrupt system today, I honestly think it really matters however I will document and certify everything and will attempt to hold the next one personally responsible. If the courts don’t act honorably. I will start carrying my Desert Eagle because of their criminal acts and well just have to see won’t we? Well they didn’t steal the car when they falsely arrested myself and my son, because I told them if any of my animals died I would own the entire county. Their actions in the entire matter simply prove they were ignorant criminal, terrorists and I was right. The Sheriff knew it, and the so called judge knew it otherwise we would have been in the court while we were there. BTW if I really wanted violence, I would have shot him out of his boots as my gun was right under my seat. I chose to act peacefully unlike the retard. I don’t want a war but it is coming to the point where it seems that will be the only option, unfortunately. Time will tell.

  28. Mark

    November 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    If the fourth amendment protects you against illegal searches and seizures, then isn’t it reasonable that if you are pulled over by police and they ask to see your ID and/or proof of insurance, you have a right to not hand over any property, and they do not have a right to legally obtain it from you; UNLESS you hand it over to them?


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