Again, I’m pretty much obsessed with the “man or other animals” (“MOOA”) defense that I used in A.D. 2006 to stop a prosecution by the Attorney General of Texas. I’ve tried to explain the reasoning behind that line of defense in close to thirty articles posted on this blog.
Nevertheless, a few of my readers insist on arguing that the phrase “man or other animals” (as found in the definitions of “drug,” “food” and [medical] “device” found at 21 USC 321) does not indicate that the government has conspired to define us all as animals in order to strip us of our God-given, unalienable Rights.
I’m pretty much amazed that anyone could argue against the “MOOA” insight. But I know there are people who will argue with a fence post and it appears that a few of that clan have been drawn to this blog.
Fool that I am, I sometimes try to explain or even argue my “MOOA” defense with more detail. As much as it galls me to quibble with those who seek fence posts, their seemingly obstinate refusal to understand, and my obsessive determination to make them understand—sometimes causes at least one positive result: I may not convince anyone else, but my own understanding of my own argument, and how to communicate that argument, is increased.
• For example, in relation to my “man or other animals” argument, one my readers (“Martens”) recently wrote,
“The claim that the government had anything to do with defining man as an animal is refuted with a minimum of research. If you look up the words, you will find the definition of “animal” already encompasses the definition of “man” and has done so for longer than the United States has been in existence.
“A thorough investigation makes it clear that “man or other animals” is entirely compatible with man being made in God’s image. Nearly every dictionary includes one or more definitions of “animal” that fit the bill. This is because “animal” originally came from the Latin word “anima”, meaning breath or life, which obviously applies to man.
“Concerning “person” in US law, let’s have a look at article 2, section 1 of the Constitution:
“‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
“So apparently not every llama or other zoological specimen can be President of the United States, only those who are natural born citizens, at least 35 of age, etc.”
Ohh, so a “minimum of research” is all it takes to prove that the phrase “man or other animals” (found repeatedly in state and federal law) is “entirely compatible with man being made in God’s image”?
Izzat so? Gee, I wish I’d known that back in A.D. 2006 when I was being sued for $9 million per year by the Attorney General of Texas. Then, I wouldn’t have wasted my time arguing to the contrary. Of course, if I hadn’t raised the “easily refuted” MOOA defense, I would probably have been convicted and placed in debt for the balance of my life.
• If you’ve read this blog in any depth, you’ve already heard me tell my tale of woe and triumph concerning the Texas Attorney General’s case—perhaps several times. If so, bear with me as I tell it briefly once again to make a point to my detractors.
More, if you’ll stick with this article to the end, I think I can offer a “new and improved” explanation for why the “MOOA” argument is not only extremely powerful, but why I believe (contrary to “Martens’” assertion) that it’s not even possible to refute the argument under our current legal system.
In A.D. 2001, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration instructed the Attorney General of Texas and the Texas Department of State Health Services to initiate a civil suit against one of the nation’s biggest producers of colloidal silver for the unlawful manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance. The suit was “political” in nature in that it was intended to “gut” a big defendant and scare the hell out of all other colloidal silver manufacturers and distributors. Once there was a court case where the manufacturer or distributor of colloidal silver was subjected to a massive and ruinous fine, all the FDA would have to do is mention that case to other manufacturers and distributors and they would surrender, close their businesses, and leave the nation free an profitable for bit pharma.
In A.D. 2001, the original defendants (a husband, wife and their corporation producing colloidal silver) hired one of the best law firms in Texas to defend them; paid $160,000 in attorney fees and achieved no positive result other than to drive the husband, wife and corporation into bankruptcy and the husband and wife then into divorce. They eventually left Texas for parts unknown. But in A.D. 2005, before they left, the original defendants sold some of their equipment and inventory to another man, his corporation, and his trust.
The Texas AG added the new man, his corporation and trust as three more defendants in A.D. 2005. Each of the (now) six defendants was threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year each). The new man asked if I’d help in his defense. I volunteered to be fiduciary for his trust so as to have standing to speak in court. I was much surprised when the Texas AG therefore added me as the 7th and last defendant in A.D. 2006. Now I was threatened with fines of $25,000/day = $9 million/year.
I read the relevant drug laws, spotted the repeated use of the phrase “man or other animals,” realized that the drug laws only applied to animals, and knew enough about the Bible to know that a man made in God’s image can’t be an “animal”. I also had a passing understanding of the concept of Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment to the federal Constitution and Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution of The State of Texas. Putting those various puzzle pieces together, I drafted a “freedom of religion” defense that argued that because I was a Christian, the government couldn’t subject me to laws that presumed me to be an animal without violating Genesis 1:26-28 and my freedom of religion.
In A.D. 2007, the Attorney General of Texas–after investing six years and nearly one-half million dollars in pre-trial investigations and pre-trial hearings–simply dropped the case. No notice, no thanks, no “screw you very much”. They just stopped coming.
If what Martens claims (that my man or other animals defense is easily “refuted with a minimum of research”) is true, why do you suppose that the Attorney General of Texas simply dropped a case in which he’d invested six years and $500,000 without trying to collect even $50 from all seven of the defendants? The Attorney General’s non-suit of the case makes no sense unless it turns out that “man or other animals” defense was as powerful as I’ve alleged.
Further, Martens’ assertion that, “The claim that the government had anything to do with defining man as an animal is refuted with a minimum of research. If you look up the words, you will find the definition of “animal” already encompasses the definition of “man” and has done so for longer than the United States has been in existence,” is stupid.
Here’s why: my claim (that a man who is a Christian or a Jew and is therefore made in God’s image can’t be treated as an animal without violating his freedom of religion) can’t be refuted in our legal system.
No amount of “minimum” or “maximum” research will refute my claim because my claim in based on what is probably the 2nd most important principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths as found at Genesis 1:26-28:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Those three verses make clear that man is defined by Genesis 1:26-28 as distinctly different from all other living creatures (animals) because:
1) Of all of God’s living creations, man, and man alone is made in God’s image; and,
2) Man is given “dominion” over all the other living creatures (animals) that are not made in God’s image.
God did not give man dominion over other men. He only gave man dominion over those living creatures (animals) that were not made in God’s image. Therefore man made in God’s image cannot be an “animal” under Genesis 1:26-28. Under those verses, man and animals are two, mutually-exclusive creatures. If you’re a man, you can’t be an animal. If you’re an animal, you can’t be a man.
However, in the midst of Martens’ “minimum research,” perhaps he could find to a definition of man that’s even older than the one found at Genesis 1:26-28. Maybe that older definition would allow the meaning of “animals” to include “man”. But it wouldn’t make any difference if he could find such older definition.
Why? Because the definition at Genesis 1:26-28 is part of the Christian and Jewish religions. We have a First Amendment that guarantees the government can’t interfere with our “freedom of religion”. That means that there’s no legal way to “refute” my claim that a man made in God’s image can’t be deemed to be an “animal”.
Get it? So long as there’s a First Amendment, neither Martens, Congress, the federal Courts nor even the almighty Obama can legally refute any fundamental principle of my religion.
The description of man in Genesis as “made in God’s image” is not a simple definition—it’s a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
The description of man in Genesis as “given dominion” over all other living creatures which are not made in God’s image (animals) is not a simple definition—it’s a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
• Martens wants to rely on dictionary definitions to refute my MOOA claim of faith.
Good luck with that.
Martens may not have noticed, but Black’s Law Dictionary published their first edition about A.D. 1890 and published their ninth edition about A.D. 2009. That means they’ve published nine editions in 119 years. That’s about one new dictionary every 13 years.
They publish new dictionaries because: 1) new words are being added; and 2) the definitions existing words are changing at a rapid rate.
My point is that the meanings of most words you can find in dictionaries are in a constant state of flux. What may have seemed true in one dictionary at one time, may no longer be deemed true today. What was “gay” 50 years ago, is “queer,” today.
Dictionaries and their definitions are not reliable. The meanings of words change. The meaning of “person” in the Constitution ratified in A.D. 1788 is not the same meaning attributed to “person” in the Wisconsin statutes referred to by Martens in his comment. It’s foolish and naïve to suppose the words mean the same thing in each of two documents separated by over two centuries.
If you read almost any title in the United States Code, you’ll see a section on definitions that apply only to that particular Title, or chapter or even section. Look up the same word in another section of the USC and you may find that government has defined that word in a manner that’s significantly different from the first definition. (I wouldn’t be surprised that the word “state” has at least four and possibly eight different definitions depending on which whichever Title your look under. All these defintions are true today, but only in some titles and not in others.)
However, Genesis 1:26-28 has established unchanging and reliable principles that’ve been deemed true for over 3,400 years. Marten’s secular dictionaries are like leaves blowing in the autumn breeze as compared to the timeless “rock” we can find in Genesis 1:26-28.
More, although a few terms like “treason” are defined in the federal Constitution, there’s not a single dictionary, secular definition or even wad of “minimum research” whose meaning is expressly and directly protected by the federal Constitution.
However, the principles found at Genesis 1:26-28 are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. That means that critics can stomp their feet, hold their breath and read every dictionary on the face of the earth, and they still be unable to legally refute the fundamental principles of religion found at Genesis 1:26-28.
So long as that’s true, no amount of “minimum” (or maximum) research can refute my fundamental argument concerning MOOA (that “man or other animal” laws apply only to animals but never to men made in God’s image).
Martens’ claim to the contrary is not only mistaken but evidence that he’s leaped to his conclusion without having done his “minimum research”.
So, I’m hoping that Martens and others begin to understand that the “man or other animals” clam can’t be refuted because it’s not a dictionary definition but is, instead, a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths protected by the First Amendment.
That’s why that claim is so powerful. I believe that’s why the Attorney General of Texas (and the FDA) non-suited the case where I was a defendant and wrote off six years of work and nearly $500,000. They didn’t say so, but I believe they knew that they couldn’t refute my defense–not with “minimum research”; not with “maximum” research.
• Again, that defense can’t be refuted because it’s based on a fundamental principle of Christianity: the major religion in the USA.
Imagine some poor prosecutor called to argue against MOOA to a jury (that will probably include at least half a dozen Christians) that government laws that presume the people to be “animals” don’t violate a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths found at Genesis 1:26-28. That’s going to be a very tough sell.
I won’t say that everyone can use the MOOA defense effectively. It takes knowledge, intelligence, courage and spirituality to wield that sword successfully. But I believe that if I were the defendant in such a case, I could make the jurors fear for their eternal salvation if they consented to “turn their backs on God” and agree that the people could be treated as “animals” rather than as men and women made in God’s image. There’s no telling what any jury will do, but I would be much surprised if a jury with even one strong Christian could find me guilty of violating a law that expressly applied to “man or other animals”
Under Genesis 1:26-28, you are either a man made in God’s image, or you’re an animal. There’s no wiggle room, no law dictionaries, no middle ground. The two terms are mutually exclusive.
So long as the principles in Genesis 1:26-28 remain unchanged and we still have a First Amendment to protect our freedom of religion, the MOOA defense cannot be legally refuted.