Obamacare: No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

25 Nov

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

As you’ll see in the video below, there’s “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in Obamacare.  If so, who is likely to have access to whatever personal information you input into the Obamacare website?  Other governmental entities?  All other governmental entities?  Private corporations?  Possible employers?

Is the lack of privacy on the Obamacare website merely accidental?  Just another one of government’s endless series of screw-ups?

Or, is the lack of privacy evidence that a fundamental purpose for Obamacare is to collect personal information on everyone who signs up and then freely disperse that information to everything that currently counts as, or is closely associated with, “government”?

Even though the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has been described as President Obama’s “signature legislation” (the primary achievement of his administration), there are recent reports that President Obama doesn’t want his name associated with that Act.  In other words, Obama doesn’t want people to refer to the law as “Obamacare”.  

Even Obama is trying to distance himself from “Obamacare”.  

Maybe we could change the name to “Democare”–but I doubt the Democrats would agree to be tarred with that brush, either.   

Hmm . . . how ’bout “Anonymous-care” or “Faceless-Bureaucrat-Care?  Then we can’t know who’s responsible so nobody gets blamed, right?  Or, maybe “Terrorist-care” so we can blame Al Caida rather than Obama.  How ’bout “Commie-Care”?  Now, there’d be some truth in advertising!

The lady (Ms. Campbell) being grilled by Congressman Joe Barton in the following video is at least one of the contractors on the Obamacare website and is probably the primary contractor.  If so, she is probably the former girl friend of Michelle Obama who reportedly won the Obamacare website contract with a no-compete bid of $93 million.  In other words, the contract was simply given to her and her alone.  And then she reportedly ran up another $600 million in cost over-runs.  So be respectful.  You’re probably looking at a woman who, despite her personal incompetence, has grown rich by knowing Michelle Obama.  (It’s not whatcha know, it’s who y’know–you know?)

I’ll bet that, secretly, the Democrats would be more than willing to let Obamacare die or be seriously amended right now.  Why?  Because Obamacare is going to cost the Democrats a lot of seats in Congress and the Senate in next year’s election.

I’ll also bet  that Obamacare will survive at least until after the A.D. 2014 election.  Why?  Because the Republicans won’t let it die.  Why?  Because Obamacare has the potential to cause a lot of Republicans to be elected next year.

So, we’re treated to the spectacle of Democrats (who loved the idea of Obamacare) now wishing it would die–while Republicans (who hated the idea of Obamacare) now keeping Obamacare on life support.

Beware what you wish for, hmm?  The Democrats wished for Obamacare–and now they got it–good and hard.

The following video isn’t big news.  It’s just one more minor collision in the train wreck we call “Obamacare”; just one more example of government breaking its own laws and lying to conceal the break.

video   00:04:39


Posted by on November 25, 2013 in Government as Gangsters, Health Care, Obama, Tyranny, Video


Tags: ,

41 responses to “Obamacare: No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

  1. palani

    November 25, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    ‘Bamacare draws its definitions from the Public Health Service Act 42 USC 300-gg – 91 . One of the more interesting ones (under Group Health Insurance … isn’t that ‘Bamacare?) how is ‘medical care’ defined.

    The term “medical care” means amounts paid for
    (A) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or amounts paid for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body.
    (B) amounts paid for transportation primarily for and essential to medical care referred to in subparagraph (A), and
    (C) amounts paid for insurance covering medical care referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

    Based upon this definition I have never actually received any medical care I guess because I was too dumb to send the doctor a bill for treating me. In the meantime the doctor is delusional because he thinks he is providing medical care. It seems when I go in for treatment that HE is the one receiving medical care.

  2. KD

    November 25, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    And here is some hypocrisy of some of those people: One of the arguments in Roe v. Wade was the “right to privacy.” Thus, here enters the hypocrisy: if you have a vagina, there’s privacy. If have a bank acct, hospital acct., etc., the federal govt is like, “What is this privacy you speak of?”

  3. kennywally

    November 25, 2013 at 2:58 PM

    Well, I hate to tell ya….but anyone with a contract, that you signed your name to, gave away something. Don’t blame me….I didn’t do it, but look at your entire contract to see what rights you gave up! i.e., SSN, Drivers License, etc….

    • KD

      November 25, 2013 at 10:06 PM

      And I didn’t sign up for the SSN

  4. Anthony Clifton

    November 26, 2013 at 8:19 AM

    The trail of these manipulators led me straight to the same lairs of the international conspirators whom I had exposed in previous books. I knew that they had already looted America, reduced its military power to a dangerously low level, and imposed bureaucratic controls on every American.

    I now discovered that their conspiracies also directly affected the health of every American.

    This conspiracy has resulted in a documented decline in the health of lazy consumers who watch TV and shop at MAL WART for groceries that give them lotsa extra LBS…and make them stupider.

    We now rank far down the list of civilized nations in infant mortality and other significant medical statistics. I was able to document the shocking record of these cold-blooded tycoons who not only plan and carry out famines, economic depressions, revolutions and wars, but who also find their greatest profits in their manipulations of so-called “medical care”…. !

    The cynicism and malice of these conspirators is something beyond the imagination of most Americans. . . .


    They deliberately mulct our people of Billions of “dollars” each year through “charitable” organizations and then use these same organizations as key groups to bolster their
    global crime syndicate…. Medical Monopoly.

    how about an apple a day…….?

    Fear and intimidation are the basic techniques by which the conspirators maintain their control over all aspects of so-called health care, as they ruthlessly crush any competitor who challenges their unseemly AMORAL…profits.

    As in other aspects of their “behavioural control” over the American people, their most constantly used weapon against us is their employment of feral agents and federal agencies to implement
    and carry out their intrigues.

  5. Jim on Oregon

    November 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    Palani makes a point that needs to be further investigated. As Al always teaches, the deceptions are in the words themselves and the man armed with dictionaries is more dangerous than an army.

    Palani apparently actually LOOKED at the words in the critical definition, and may have seen a deception that affects the entire Act.

    When “medical care” = “amounts paid”….and NOT diagnosis, treatment, etc., everything takes on a new and different perspective, an illusion.

    Very interesting observation by Palani, and potentially as significant as “man or other animals”.

  6. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 27, 2013 at 12:47 PM

    The FACT that you are touching PUBLIC property is why there is NO PRIVACY, and there never was and there never could be.

    As long as you guys continue to volunteer and consent to use the PUBLIC property, which is NOT yours, you will never be free.

    Please allow me the favour of telling you what it is that is PUBLIC so that you do not flounder. The surname and the combined (merged & confused) “Legal Name” is PUBLIC and it is NOT yours.

    There is another part to the name, which is your God-given INALIENABLE Christian name.

    Until you separate what is yours [the Christian name] and separate it from what is NOT yours [the surname] you will never be free. You cannot even surrender what was never yours (i.e. the surname); therefore, all you can do is abandon it [i.e. abandon the surname]. The o ne-and-only true Lord of the land, God, is about to return and He is about to kick all the BAD TENANTS off God’s earth. The civilian citizen-ship is about to sink and I would not want to be on it. It is written:

    Luke 14:33 [ King James Version (KJV) ]
    So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

    James 4:4 [ King James Version (KJV) ]
    Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

    Revelation 18:4 [ King James Version (KJV) ]
    And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

    Come on guys. This is not rocket science! You are either for God or against God.

    Believers must simply be completely SEPARATE from unbelievers. You cannot be unevenly yoked (attached, joined) to the pagan gentile collective (aggregate) of unbelievers joined together by the secular (not spiritual) DEMON-ocracy. If you apply, volunteer or consent to be a civilian or a citizen of any imaginary secular nation you are an enemy of God.

    God only temporarily allows man to have pagan governments to rule over their own pagan unbelievers —- it is not authorized by God —– it is only allowed until God no longer allows it. The misunderstanding of God’s will is why most people falsely claim and falsely believe that Romans 13 (KJV) tells people to submit themselves as voluntary slaves to Caesar’s secular governments. What a joke!

    All of you ignorant, belligerent, insurgent people volunteer and consent to be under the unbeliever secular imaginary nations of man’s world, which is an enemy of God, and then you have the gall to claim that you are on God’s side? Please! If you want to be a secular civilian or secular citizen then you must give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s PUBLIC property. If you do not want to be part of Caesar’s ship when it gets taken down by God then you should abandon Caesar’s property, which is Caesars’ surname (heraldry, coat-of-arms, arms for war) and go to peace in your Christian name only. For it is written:

    Matthew 5:9 [ King James Version (KJV) ]
    Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

    Psalm 37:9-11 [ King James Version (KJV) ]
    9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.
    10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
    11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

    In the Old Testament the people rejected God because they wanted to have pagan Kings just like the other pagan nations. In other words, mankind rejected being governed directly by God. because men used their free will choice to choose to be governed by other men despite the warnings from God of all of the negative things that would happen when men ruled over other men (tyrants or dictators in different forms of man-government).

    Rulership under the lie of the supposed false premise of the “Divine right of kings”, who conquered each other by military force, eventually evolved into queens and monarchs. All of it was the first level of sedition, treason and betrayal of God by all of the people who wanted to be their own little gods because they accepted the false offer and lie from the father of the lie, Satan the devil. This was the first level of sedition, treason and betrayal of God by the masses.

    The ridiculous paganization of Christianity by the Roman (pagan) Catholic (universal) church and its pagan self-proclaimed “Vicar” of Christ is complete blasphemy against God and they will feel God’s wrath one day soon. There is no separation of false state and false religion because it is just one big cluster of evil lies and corruption and they are in bed with each other.

    When the 55 mason lawyers who said they were “We the people” made their private “Declaration of Independence” from the already-treasoness kings, queens or monarchs they were declaring that they too wanted to be their own gods by creating a second level of sedition, treason and betrayal of God in a new form that we call “Democracy” today, which is simply mob rule. To be clear, “Democracy” is simply two levels of treason against God by the critical mass (collective, aggregate). Democracy is simply mass treason against God. You cannot be your own little sovereign without subjects no matter how badly you want it. You cannot rationalize a wrong and make it right.

    The core fallacy of Democracy is that it falsely claims that the authority for the secular government comes from all the people who are their own little gods (false sovereigns without subjects) —– when the FACT is that the people are not gods and they have no authority in the first place. No, God did not make you into your own little god. That’s a pagan and New Age fallacy and you will continue to suffer the consequences of your own self-caused misery as long as you hold on to this false believe which misrepresents the facts in law. God is the one and only true sovereign and everything else is pure malarkey.

    • donmako

      December 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

      Psalm 81…. and let me in on yer blog as i was born knowing this world is a lie and i desperatly want to honor my Lord . Im through the narrow gate and on the path. As iron sharpens iron…. thanks in advance

      • Mladen

        December 2, 2013 at 4:31 PM

        Hi @donmako,

        Thank you for your kind words. I have not had time to work on my blog to post all of the details that I will be posting. You can try to view my blog at the following link: .

        If that link does not work please contact me by email at and I will be happy to share everything relating to God’s graced remedy in law with you.

        You can also see our YouTube videos on our ChristianRemedyInLaw channel and I suggest that you perhaps started at video #36 [ ].
        —– Mladen

    • Doug

      December 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM

      I would like to add a scripture that I didn’t even notice before I pulled the plug (completely).

      Luke 22:25-26

      25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called “benefactors”.

      26 But ye shall not be so: ….

      • Mladen

        December 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        Hi Doug,

        It is good to see that you are one of the few people who appears to understand the reality of things.

        If you would not mind, I would like to know what you meant when you said, “…before I pulled the plug (completely)”? If you want to keep your reply private you can send it to my email, which is . Thanks in advance.
        —- Mladen

    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 2:53 PM

      Mark, aka Mladen
      @ >The surname and the combined (merged & confused) “Legal Name” is PUBLIC and it is NOT yours.

      Can’t you EVER come up with something NEW or NEWER ?? What do you do for a living? WHY don’t you ANSWER that question? Well, YOU, Mark, aka Mladen KNOW that I, J.M. KNOW why you will not answer that question. YOU will NOT answer it because YOU don’t want others to KNOW what you do to “earn” a living, as it is called & UNDERSTOOD by most people.The SURNAME is the LIMIT of your ENTIRE knowledge Believe it or not, there ARE a few MORE factors involved. What do you do to earn a living?

  7. Jim on Oregon

    November 27, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    Mark, you often use “inalienable” when making reference to “God-given” rights, etc. It might be that a better concept to use in this argument is that of “unalienable” rights.

    As we understand it, “unalienable rights” cannot UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be transferred, waived, assigned, abrogated, delegated, etc., while “inalienable rights” CAN be surrendered or transferred WITH THE CONSENT of the possessor. This satanic-beast system PRESUMES consent at the surrender or transfer (through your conduct) unless belligerently or expressly opposed. They can capture the surname (and the private rights attached), and most people accept it as a mere, insignificant administrative procedure and fail to oppose it. You see it is up to each man to take heed and make his inherent rights UNALIENABLE.

    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 28, 2013 at 1:20 AM

      Hi again Jim from Oregon,

      With respect to your statement that, “This satanic-beast system PRESUMES consent at the surrender or transfer (through your conduct) unless belligerently or expressly opposed. They can capture the surname (and the private rights attached), and most people accept it as a mere, insignificant administrative procedure and fail to oppose it. You see it is up to each man to take heed and make his inherent rights” —– I respectfully completely disagree for the following reasons:

      First, there is no reason for anybody, especially a true Christian, to be belligerent with respect to this matter because if you understand and follow God’s Law, which is the same in the secular system of so-called “Positive Law” of man (i.e. statutes, legislation, “Rule of Law”), you will find that the secular government must follow both God’s law and man’s law, which are the same on this matter; therefore, there is no need for fighting or belligerence of any sort. The solution or remedy is completely peaceful.

      Unfortunately, the sad reality is that most secular people are not accustomed to settling matters peacefully. And, it is particularly disturbing for anybody to claim to be a true Christian while they threaten to defend their position by any kind of force, especially a deadly weapon such as a gun or rifle, when the Holy Bible tells true Christians to turn the other cheek because a true Christian must be a conscientious objector to war in any form — no ifs, ands or buts about it.

      Secondly, the statement in your second sentence is not correct because they cannot capture the surname since they never lost it because it was their property all along. Also, there are no private rights attached to their surname because it is their PUBLIC property — not private, property. The Roman Civil Law doctrine of “Eminent Domain” applies to this matter. The permanently bankrupt secular governments had no choice in this matter because the only thing that they had to pledge as collateral (chattel) to the private bankers against their permanent public debt was their title, which is their public surname. The essence of this matter is that the private bankers do not care about the permanently bankrupt government or the permanently bankrupt people, which is everybody, because whoever controls the debt money also controls everything else, and the private bankers are the ones who control the debt money system. I imagine that you would know that from your past secular work background and you can communicate with me about that by email or telephone privately if you wish to pursue this further in much greater detail. I leave that choice up to you.

      Jim, I am in the process of creating my own WORDPRESS blog as I do not believe that some of the people reading this blog care to open their minds to the possibility that they may be hanging on to mere false beliefs that misrepresent the facts in law and therefore their stubbornness or ego seems to be an obstacle to their understanding of the truth and facts in law. I have no interest in arguing or debating with theorists or those that insist on hanging on to false beliefs and I certainly do not want to engage in any kind of pissing contest or debate with potentially 7 billion different interpretations of the big picture message of God in the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible.

      My new WORDPRESS blog will be based solely on what can be proved as fact in law. I have no interest in debating with anybody that wants to remain to be a participant in secular society because that is the problem, not the solution. And, I have no interest in debating any of the infinite conspiracy theories that share the same common problem — they have no remedy.

      There is no secular money solution because money is the problem, not the solution. The Christian remedy in law is graced by God and God created man in His image without a wallet when we were physically born. God does not need money. However, until the return of Christ Jesus I believe and have faith in God to direct the tolerated secular governments as trustees to provide for His children as joint heirs and beneficiaries of the necessities of life for the very few true Christian believers that elect to accept God’s graced pardon and remedy in law.

      Again, Jim, I hope to hear from you privately by email or telephone to continue the conversation and understanding of God’s graced pardon and remedy in law. May God bless you. Take care.
      —- Mladen

  8. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 28, 2013 at 12:49 AM

    Hi Jim from Oregon,

    I will address each of your comments separately. With respect to the definitions, I have encountered the debate over the difference between INALIENABLE versus UNALIENABLE debate many times and these two words are synonymous (i.e. mean the same thing). Here are several dictionary definitions which you can view directly from the internet based dictionary website called WORDNIK at :

    INALIENABLE Definitions

    from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
    adj. That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.

    from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
    adj. Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable.
    adj. Of or pertaining to a noun belonging to a special class in which the possessive construction differs from the norm, especially for particular familial relationships and body parts.

    from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
    adj. Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable.

    from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
    Incapable of being alienated or transferred to another; that cannot or should not be transferred or given up.

    from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
    adj. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
    adj. not subject to forfeiture

    Borrowed around 1645 from French inaliénable, from in- +‎ aliénable (“alienable”). (Wiktionary).

    Synonyms (6) [Words with the same meaning] :


    UNALIENABLE Definitions

    from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
    adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: “All of them . . . claim unalienable dignity as individuals” ( Garrison Keillor).

    from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
    adj. Not alienable

    from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
    adj. Inalienable.

    from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia

    from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
    adj. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another

    un- +‎ alienable (Wiktionary)

    Synonyms (1) [Words with the same meaning] :


    I hope that this helps to end this question and I trust that the above dictionary definitions help.

  9. Jim on Oregon

    November 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM

    Hi Mark,

    Alfred’s blog is a great forum to discuss theories and ideas, and I hope your new blog will be a tool for education as well.

    It is important to know that the present system makes numerous PRESUMPTIONS that must be rebutted or denied by the man/woman “presumee”. The high courts have allowed the present “system” (an “experiment”, don’tcha know!) to “presume” that all people have joined its fictional venue, and that those who deny the underlying presumptions must be a “belligerent claimant”. I believe they mean that you have to stand firm and present evidentiary “facts” to rebut. You must take positive, purposeful steps to present your position. I just did a quick search of the term in question, and see a lot of hits, but don;t have time to pursue this right now.

    I only want to make the point that one can be a firm and peaceful man who is making what the legal maggots call a “belligerent claim”. It does not mean that one is throwing off the gauntlets and striking out at the system. It is only a process. And it can be accomplished with honor.

    Alfred has a category on this blog about “Presumptions” that is very informative, although it has been over a year since I have read his flagship article on the subject.

    Also, I call myself “Jim on Oregon” (not “from”) in order to emphasize that I am a man “on” the plane and soil of original-jurisdiction “The State of Oregon”, and not “IN” the fictional plane/venue of the corporate “STATE OF OREGON”. Another important concept learned from Alfred.

    One final comment to put the “inalienable/unalienable” question to bed. Although many definitions show the words to be of identical meaning, they are in fact different words constructed for different applications. Some definitions show the only difference to be that “unalienable” rights CANNOT BE WAIVED, there are NO definitions that declare “inalienable” rights cannot be waived. And because the “system” has taken pains to avoid legal memory of “unalienable”, it tells me that it is a more important word than they want us to know. I will continue to use the latter.

    Thank you for your interesting insights and research. It is all educational, and we are all students!

    • Anonymous

      July 23, 2014 at 1:17 PM

      A mere observation. UNALIENABLE . The English language is much different than during the timeperiod when a paper called the constitution of the state of Massachusetts—which INDEED uses “unalienable” rights….. I would think–a dictionary–historically correct for the time period would simplify and confirm–(Old English) UNALIENBLE=cannot be waived.

      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        July 23, 2014 at 5:39 PM

        First of all, a dictionary is the law of language. And, if we cannot even agree on the meaning of any given individual word then communication is impossible. The original dictionary definition is still the actual, real, original definition and it stands. Unfortunately, lawyers are liars and people like to twist and mis-interpret words to twist them into something other than what they truly mean for the sake of rationalizing wrong behaviour or wrong and unfounded theories (not reality) for their own selfish ulterior motives.

        With respect to word meanings, if you put the prefix “UN” in front of any word the word’s meaning become opposite to the word that follows the prefix “UN.” This is not rocket science. For example, comfortable and uncomfortable have two opposite meanings. So it is also with alienable and unalienable — two opposite meanings. And, in law, the Christian name is NOT legal and it is illegal and UNALIENABLE. But, the surname is legal and alienable.

        Alfred Adask and many others cannot seem to get their head around the truth and fact of such a simple reality and so they argue about a myriad of pointless and meaningless things that they have absolutely no control over since they do not even realize that they do not own or control the surname and the combined (merged & confused) legal name either.

        And, so, people do not want to accept the fact that UNALIENABLE means what it means, and what the law of language or dictionaries say UNALIENABLE means is this:

        UNALIENABLE dictionary (law of language) definitions:

        from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
        adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:
        “All of them . . . claim unalienable dignity as individuals” ( Garrison Keillor).

        from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
        adj. Not alienable

        from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
        adj. Inalienable.

        from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia

        from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
        adj. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another

        un- +‎ alienable (Wiktionary)

        Get it? There is no provision in any law to transfer the given name to any person, a corporation or a trust since all of these are artificial dead entities and the dead have no dominion, jurisdiction, power or right over the living. Again, this is not rocket science.

        And, if Alfred Adask and his Adask-ites could understand this simple truth, fact and reality they could make some real progress. But, unfortunately it appears that they are prisoners of their own stubborn and un-researching minds.

        Several years ago Alfred Adask actually read the words with respect to the man-made law he was being charged under and discovered that the wording inferred that he was just like an animal — and that is exactly what the wording the law said. But, Alfred Adask never did his research to trace the origin of the fact that the real name is the given (Christian) name and that is what identifies a living individual, which the dead artificial legal world of dead artificial government knows because it is ULTRA VIRES or beyond their power to have any control, dominion, jurisdiction, power or right over anything living. But, you make a minor variance by legalizing the given (Christian) name by adding an unnecessary addition debtor surname (surcharge, surplus) and now welcome to Satan’s evil world of the dead with is alienable and aliened debtor surname so that the world of the dead now has control, dominion, jurisdiction, power and right over their own artificial dead creation, the “Body Corporate” of the “Body Politic” — which is the world of the dead. And the world of the dead just loves it when stubborn ignorant people like Alfred Adask and billions of others refuse to see the facts and truth because they insist on impersonating the dead through their application, consent and voluntary attachment to the debt attached to the assumed and claimed surname and legal name that is NOT them and that is NOT their property — but they love to bear the legal title (property) belonging to another — putting themselves into a voluntary system of lawful feudal slavery working for a feudal money master. These people are NOT “sovereigns without subjects” because they are NOT God and they are NOT their own little gods either. Instead, the God-less (secular) world is allowed to believe the lie that they are in charge so that Satan’s evil world can have them work all their lives for absolutely nothing because they do not own the legal name that they have everything registered in. All this is easily verifiable truth and fact in law for anybody that does a tiny bit of real scientific research and this is not unfounded theory, this is reality and fact in law.

  10. Anthony Clifton

    November 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM

    wait till you get to ledgerdemain & primogeniture….

    gives that “turn the other cheek dogma” a whole new twist

    Jesus correctly observed that “Their ” so-called “Law” {legal} made His

    Fathers “Law” of no effect….and “THEY” were in the Temple Treasury [John 8:33]

    just sayin’….self defense is truth on steroids with a flaming toupe’

    terrorism is a TARE function, a consequence of violating commandment #1….

    • Mladen

      November 29, 2013 at 2:27 PM

      Everything we do is due to our own faith, belief or knowledge, or lack of knowledge (ignorance).

      Due to ignorance, most people do not know that they applied, volunteered and consent to be part of a system that from the beginning was designed to worship the dead. Nothing has been hidden from you. The etymology or origin of the secular (non-spiritual) worldly system of things is simply NECROMANCY [ see ]. The word NECROMANCY originated from Greek [ nekros (corpse) + manteia (divination) = corpse divination ].

      In man’s artificial world of fiction, which is to say, in man’s world of LIES, if you consent to subscribe for the dead you impersonate (same as personate) and worship the dead and you become surety (guarantor, warrantor) for the dead [some “Thing”, and “It”]. What is this DEAD “It” or “Thing” that you worship, subscribe and surety? It is the artificial dead “Legal Name” for the artificial dead “Legal Person”, which is a legal fiction, and A FICTION IS A LIE.

      Why would you subscribe, that is to say adopt as a belief, to a lie? One good reason not to “Act” or impersonate a lie is that God hates liars. Is it not fair that God hates you for subscribing (believing) and worshipping a dead LIE? The operating manual for life is the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible, which is also the Charter for Christians. It tells us what we should do and what we must not do. In the first chapter of the Holy Bible there is God’s true offer and reward of eternal life, and then there is Satan the devil’s (deceiver) false offer which leads to death. To be clear, a SIN is a CHARGE and so if you charge you die!

      At birth you were given the offer of a false belief which misrepresented the fact in law. The fact in law is that your property is the God-given INALIENABLE (unalienable) Christian name. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines THING as, “n. Law That which can be possessed or owned. Often used in the plural: things personal; things real. To be clear, your Christian name is real property; unlike its opposite, the surname, which is not real and which is personal and which is not your real property. The Christian name is the real “Thing”.

      But, the surname is NOT real. And, the fact in law is that the surname is NOT your property. The surname belongs to a FEUDAL LORD and he is protected under permanent bankruptcy protection. And, if you use the Feudal Lord’s property, which is the surname, you must pay for its use. That is the real reason why you must pay a fee or rent or lease or tax or duty or custom —- because you are using property that does not belong to you.

  11. Mladen

    November 29, 2013 at 2:36 PM

    There is a remedy available to everyone who does not wish to participate in the secular world of legal fiction, which is legal lies. If you want the remedy all you have to do is ask me and I’ll send you the explanation and then it will be up to you to do your own independent research and it will be up to you whether to reject or accept the pardon waiting for you since before you were even born.

    If you want the explanation of the remedy please contact me at .
    May love and peace and charity be with all.
    — Mladen

  12. kanani

    November 29, 2013 at 7:27 PM

    Ha ha, the WWII & baby boom generation are going to start getting euthanized real quick. Privacy will be a minor concern. Us generation x folks still have some time.

    • Mladen

      November 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM

      Hi @kanani,

      Your comment is both vague and a little cryptic. Could you elaborate on what you mean? I never want to make any assumptions or presumptions about what you might mean, so, could you please elaborate on what you mean? Thanks in advance.
      —- Mladen

      • kanani

        November 30, 2013 at 11:37 PM

        “medical care” or amounts paid for will be greatly diminished.

        Euthanasia by denial of “medical care”. No dout the older demographic is first in line.

        Expecting privacy, that’s unreasonable.

  13. Cody

    November 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM

    I’m beginning to have serious doubts about a man who claims to be a man of God, who also demands that everyone submit to his personal interpretations of all things relating to law. My first objection is to his perpetual insistence that the KJV is the only authoritative translation of the Bible.

    In fact, I’d go as far as to say the KJV is one of the least reliable of all available translations. Moreover, the KJV had nothing to do with the great Reformation, which is undoubtedly the spiritual foundation of our Country. Also, it is probably the first GOVERNMENT authorized and funded versions on the planet.

    Edmund Burke spoke of the importance of the Reformation to the “intractable” spirit of independence in the American colonies before the Declaration of Independence was written.

    Secondly, I have serious reservations about people who pretend their contrived explanations of “fact” are true. For example, “the KJV is the highest authority in any American court of law.” The dubious history of the KJV brings such statements as that into immediate question.

    Rule 201(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states

    “Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

    (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

    (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”

    The KJV is “reasonably” a questionable document. Primarily due to the questionable nature of the man who commissioned its publication and the unreliable source documents used as its source material.

    “King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.”

    Anyone relying upon “information” from a man who purports his statements as authoritative better heed “caveat emptor” very seriously.

    • KD

      December 4, 2013 at 9:16 PM

      I prefer the ESV, ASV, or NASV. Popular translations such as NIV, NLB, et al., are not translations like the above mentioned and even the KJV. The writers of the NIV, NLB are what I’ve heard termed as “thought translations.” I don’t need to know what translator thinks the Hebrew and Greek means (which is the case of the the NIV, NLB). Leave that to the various commentaries and the dogmas that accompany them. I only use the NIV & NLB as examples because I’ve read them. I’m sure there are others.

      • Adask

        December 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM

        I think all of the various versions of the Bible are useful. I can learn from any of them if the Good LORD is willing to teach me. I believe that our Father YHWH ha Elohiym can teach me His law from a phone book, if He cares to do so. Some Bible versions strike me as more inaccurate than others, but I don’t believe that any one version of the Bible is perfect.

        One of the greatest imperfections of most Bibles is the name of the Christ: “Jesus”. I’m no Bible scholar, but my reading and limited research makes clear that the Christ was almost certainly never called “Jesus” by his friends, acquaintances, or enemies even once during his mortal life. We can debate what the Christ’s true name may be. We can debate how his true name was pronounced. But it’s virtually certain that “Jesus” (derived from a GREEK interpretation of the Christ’s Hebrew name) was never used by the Christ in his mortal life.

        This doesn’t necessarily mean that “Jesus” is wrong. If you pray in the name of “Jesus,” the Christ may take no offense and respond to your intentions rather than any technical defects in your pronunciation of the Christ’s name. But if it’s unimportant that we pronounce the Christ’s name exactly as his family, friends and apostles said that name 2,000 years ago–then it follows that we could also pray in the name of “Bubba” (especially down here on Texas) so long as we intended in our hearts to mean the Christ whenever we said “Bubba”.

        I doubt that many people would accept that argument.

        I’m not going to argue that the name “Jesus” is wrong, but I will argue that the name “Jesus” is technically incorrect and not our best choice.

        If my argument is valid, then every Bible that refers to the Christ as “Jesus” is technically imperfect. Such Bibles are still useful, but they’re not perfect.

        I read the Bible. I use the Bible. I do not worship the Bible. I worship our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

        At one point in the the Bible the Christ is quoted as saying something like, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God.”

        Similarly, I might say, “Why do you call any Bible perfect? No one and no thing is perfect but God.”

        Rudy believes the KJV is “perfect”. I do not. One of us is mistaken. Maybe me. Maybe Rudy.

        But we’re all growing in knowledge. I believe my spiritual knowledge is more accurate today than it was a year ago, or a decade ago–but my knowledge is still imperfect and will remain so for the balance of my mortal life. I also believe that Rudy’s knowledge is growing and he may also outgrow some of whatever he believes today at some point in the future.

        But, whether Rudy changes his mind about the KJV or goes to his grave, 50 years from now, still believing in the KJV’s perfection strikes me as relatively unimportant when compared to Rudy’s undeniable and contagious love for the Christ–whatever the Christ’s proper name may be.

      • KD

        December 5, 2013 at 12:10 AM

        God has already specified how we are to attain faith and to know His will. Read Romans chapter 10. Faith comes from the word of the Scriptures, nothing else.

  14. Peter

    December 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    “AMA”LEK —- Remember how Amalek “treated” you when you were on your way out of Egypt. He met you on your way and, after you had gone by, he fell on you from the rear and cut off the stragglers ; when you were faint and weary, he had no fear off God. Dueteronomy 25: 17,18.

    Could “AMA”LEK be the AMA American Medical Association in disguise ” treating” the weak ,the old , the ones he has poisioned with His tainted food supply ,poision chem-trails , heavy workload in the forced labor camps (CORPORATIONS) . Good old Morris Fishbein one of the foundeRs of the AMA. Could he be of the liniage of AMALEK . The bible was written for our instruction, I suspect we are reliving the same experience our Israelite ancestors went through as we try to come out of Egyption bondage here in the New Jer”USA”lem , yes, The United States of America.

    I dont want any treatment from AMALEK , thank you

  15. Mladen

    December 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM

    I have noticed that there have been several comments posted with respect to different versions of the Christian Holy Bible. I respectfully disagree with the opinion that all bibles are good because God’s word says that nothing is to be added or deleted from His Word.

    Recently, I was doing some follow up research and I came across three website with articles about the history of how the one-and-only authorized Bible came about and I am posting those links here for the people that are open-minded enough to read and consider the facts about why it is not a good idea to read any of the other perverted bibles. These are random finds from my research and I am sure that there are many other articles with similar facts. To read all three articles would take about one hour and would be time well spent:

    A Brief History of the King James Bible by Dr. Laurence M. Vance:

    Story Behind King James Bible by Ken Curtis, Ph.D. :

    James Edwards on The King James Version:

    I hope that after people read these articles they will realize that the reason that we currently have so many different bibles today is that there are ulterior motives behind those that perverted the words from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek writings. The main change in the perverted bibles were made because they do not want people to understand and accept Christ Jesus because that would destroy the lies of man’s secular (non-spiritual) worldly system of things and because it gives people the one-and-only way out of Satan’s world of lies, controlled by the father of the lie.
    —- Mladen

  16. Cody

    December 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM


    My remarks were directed at “Mladen.” I doubt Rudy would try to discredit others that love the Lord, simply because they don’t see the KJV as the highest written spiritual authority.

    We shall “know them by their fruits…”


  17. Cody

    December 5, 2013 at 12:49 PM

    What do you make of this Al? I’m not saying you are incorrect.

    • Adask

      December 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM

      My digital Bible includes Strong’s Concordance numbers for each word in the text. Matthew 1:21 reads as follows, “Mat 1:21 AndG1161 she shall bring forthG5088 a son,G5207 andG2532 thou shalt callG2564 hisG846 nameG3686 JESUS:G2424 forG1063 heG846 shall saveG4982 hisG848 peopleG2992 fromG575 theirG846 sins.G266″

      Thus, Strong’s number for “JESUS” is G2424. The Strong’s definition for G2424 is:

      Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: – Jesus.

      If Strong’s is right, the word “Jesus” is derived from the Greek word “Iēsous” which is pronounced” ee-ay-sooce” rather than “gee-zus”. That Greek work is derived from the original Hebrew word “Jehoshua”.

      Thus, it appears that friends, family and apostles may have called the Christ “Jehoshua,” or (less likely) “Iēsous”. But they never called him “Jesus” (gee-zus).

      More, given that the letter “j” was not invented until the 16th century, it appears that Strong’s reference to “Jehoshua” may be mistaken since there was no clear “j” sound in the time of Christ. If so, the proper sound for the name Strong’s refers to as “Jehoshua” may have been something like “ee-ay-oo-shu-a”.

      But whatever the sound of the Christ’s proper name may have been during his mortal life, it was apparently not “Jesus” (gee-zus). To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary.

      If so, everyone praying “in the name of Jesus” may be making a mistake in terms of the pronunciation of the proper name that the Christ used during his mortal life. Likewise, every Bible that teaches that the Christ’s proper name was “Jesus” is mistaken as is every Bible and minister who teach us to pray in the name (sound) of “gee-zus”.

      These defects may not be any more critical than that of a child crying for “da-da” rather than his father “Alfred”. The father will take no offense at being called “da-da” and rush to help his child. Presumably, the Christ and God know who you mean when you pray to “Jesus” and in the name “Jesus”. Presumably, your technical error in pronunciation will not be charged against you or cancel the effectiveness of your prayers. But what if that presumption is false?

      Even if the presumption is true, wouldn’t it be better to try to discover whatever true name and sound was used by the Christ when he was on earth? Wouldn’t it be better to pray in his true name than in some name that (so far as I can tell) was never used or even heard by the Christ?

  18. Janis

    May 19, 2014 at 5:22 AM

    We can help you search for the best rate available. You could serve jail
    time, lose your license or be ordered by the court to
    do community service. The SR22 insurance derives its name from the form of the policy.

  19. dui lawyer cost brownsville

    July 15, 2014 at 10:56 AM

    He is well aware of all the official documents and formalities regarding a case.
    A good DUI attorney can easily be found with a little extra effort, and the reward will be peace of mind, and
    possibly a dropped conviction. The constitutionality of DUI implied consent law has been fiercely debated for years.

  20. frasi romantiche

    August 2, 2014 at 9:49 AM

    With havin so much written content do you ever run into any issues of plagorism
    or copyright infringement? My site has a lot of exclusive content I’ve either written myself or outsourced but it seems
    a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my agreement.
    Do you know any techniques to help stop content from being
    ripped off? I’d genuinely appreciate it.

    • Adask

      August 2, 2014 at 10:41 AM

      There’s no effective defense against plagiarism in the digital world. Everything digital can be instantly copied from photos, to text to movies. Your only “defense” (if there is one) is to produce more text (or images or movies) than the plagiarists can easily copy. If you’re sufficiently prolific, people may tend to visit your site to read it or link to it rather than plagiarize it.

  21. Elijah

    April 30, 2015 at 11:33 AM

    Thank you, I’ve recently been looking for information about this topic for a while and yours is the greatest I’ve discovered till now.
    However, what concerning the bottom line?

    Are you sure concerning the source?


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