$150 Dashcam Saves Driver from Ticket

01 Apr

If I were in a similar position, I wouldn’t merely use the video to stop my traffic ticket. I’d use the video as evidence to sue the cop for fraud, “tampering with a government record,” official oppression or some such and to sue the police department for employing a liar. I’ll bet the city would easily settle out of court for $25,000 to $50,000.

Two things I dislike about the dashcam:

1) it’s obvious and easily seen; I’d like a model that’s more stealthy and less obvious; and

2) it apparently runs only while the car is running. If the cop orders to turn off your engine, your video stops. I’d want a dashcam that could be turned on to run even after the car was turned off.

video   00:01:64


Tags: , , , ,

41 responses to “$150 Dashcam Saves Driver from Ticket

  1. Kenemore Jr

    April 1, 2014 at 6:58 AM

    Sue cop for fraud? What Statute? In what Court? What is the fraud The precise legal definition of fraud varies by jurisdiction and by the specific fraud …
    Sue for tampering with Government record? Only a prosecutor for a city county state or Federal government can sue for such crime.
    Sue for official oppression? What are the damages that is how were you damaged if your read the Statute there must be a damage and read the definition of the term damage.
    Sue Police Dept for employee lying? What is your damage?
    Great ideas but do not send people down a road that is useless.

    • Adask

      April 1, 2014 at 7:36 AM

      Shootin’ from the hip. I also said “or some such”. How ’bout “denial of honest services of government”?

      There’s no way that a cop issuing fraudulent tickets isn’t causing a damage.

      It’s true, I might have to wait until I was actually fined by the court to prove a damage. but it’s also true that if I can sue and track whatever other tickets have been issued by the cop, I may find others who have been damaged, show a pattern, etc. My notion is not to sue on a legal basis so much as a political basis. The only thing government fears is public exposure. If government sees a lawsuit coming that threatens public exposure, they won’t pay out $50 million, but they might settle out of court for $25,000.

      • Kenemore Jr

        April 1, 2014 at 7:44 AM

        No such animal in law as suing on a political basis…what you want is a suit you can win with legal precedence to back you up that is what political entities fear.

      • moon

        April 1, 2014 at 9:19 AM

        In creating more public exposure, Charlie Sprinkle’s suit procedure, that included Ronald and Nancy Reagan, might be justified if the officer is a state employee. If the whole group is federal, one’s imagination might be the only limit to the list of “defendants”. More “defendants” equals more exposure. Is it worth a possible $25K PLUS the reputation that one won’t tolerate fraud, tyranny, etc.?

  2. Adask

    April 1, 2014 at 7:48 AM

    There may be no such animal “in law,” but there is in practice. Defendants often opt to settle cases out of court in order to avoid embarrassment, public exposure, etc., even when they might be expected to win the case on its merits.

    • Kenemore Jr

      April 1, 2014 at 7:53 AM

      Government defendants do not opt to settle cases out of court unless you have a case that they know you can win that is the key…preparing a case you can win…Cornell Law shows that 85% of cases against government agencies are won by that agency on summary judgement…these case never see the light of day or are settled, they are dismissed….you want to be in that 15%

      • Adask

        April 1, 2014 at 9:34 AM

        First, 15% is better than 0%.

        Second, the government also knows that while the odds are in their favor, they also stand to lose 15% of their cases. If the implications of one of those lost cases is sufficiently embarrassing or dangerous to the government, they will sometimes agree to settle rather take a 15% chance of losing.

        I know that’s true because I’ve done it in my original “Man or Other Animals” case. I was added in A.D. 2006 as the last of 7 defendants in a case that started in A.D. 2001 and was prosecuted by the Attorney General of Texas at the behest of the FDA. Each defendant was threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year). After investing 6 years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial investigations and hearings, the Texas Attorney General simply stopped prosecuting the case. Why? Because, with the grace of our Father YHWH ha Elohiym, I realized that the federal and Texas drug laws only applied to “animals”. I raised a freedom of religion defense, and the Texas AG folded. Why? Because the drug war, prison-industrial complex, pharmaceutical industry profits, even American medicine and all FDS powers are based on the presumption that the people are “animals”.

        No matter how unlikely it may have been for us to actually beat the Texas AG in court, there was a chance that we might win in court or on appeal. Maybe that chance was 15%. Maybe it was only 1%. But there was a chance. So long as that chance existed, prosecuting the case was (for the gov-co) like playing Russian Roulette. The odds were in the government’s favor, but if they lost, the consequences of the loss would be too enormous to risk since all of those institutions (drug war, prison industry, big pharma, etc.) could’ve suffered huge losses.

        We didn’t “out-litigate” the AG, but we beat them “politically” by raising a line of defense that they didn’t dare allow to get into the public eye.

        Can just anyone raise a successful “political” defense? Probably not. But it has been done, and can be done again.

        Back in A.D. 2007, I only used that political defense to stop prosecution. Since then, I’ve grown to recognize the value of making a counter-claim. If I were in the same situation today as I was 7-8 years ago, I would use the same “political” argument as a basis for suing the Texas AG, et al, and betting that they’s pay off to settle such such lawsuit rather than let that argument be tested by a jury or appellate court.

        I may not be a competent “pro se litigant”–but I am a fairly competent “pro se politician”.

      • moon

        April 1, 2014 at 10:23 AM

        Al, there’s a speculative question I’ve had in mind about your MOOA defense. If you had been one of the original “defendants”, rather than added later, and presented the MOOA defense early on, would the case have gone for six years and $500,000? I doubt it.

        The “judge” I’ve already described on this blog, who plays piano at the 501c3/4 “church” on Sunday morning, then conspires in fraud on Monday morning, probably struggling under the stress of cognitive dissonance, when confronted with your MOOA defense, would probably not want to jump right into litigation on that matter. She would most likely not want the phrase “case dismissed” to be far from her reach.

        Part of the reason would be that the “prosecutor” and “jurors” may have been at the same or similar “church” on the Sunday morning just before Monday morning. The “prosecutor” may have been trained to withstand the strain of cognitive dissonance, but it’s doubtful that the jurors would be that skilled.

        Bill Thornton says that a trial is a show and whoever puts on the best show wins. Apparently, your MOOA defense was the best show in your 2006 encounter. It would, in my opinion, give govco a run for their money around here.

  3. cynthia

    April 1, 2014 at 8:13 AM

    As strange as it may sound, the only reason said fiction exists is because you have ‘convicted’ yourself by believing it is ‘real’. All ‘government’ and ‘police’ et al are comprised of living men and womb-men. Why “acknowledge” the fiction? Why not only acknowledge (act of knowledge) the living man “without mask of title” (police officer, sheriff, etc.) which is with ‘military uniform’ i.e. “act of war” so in point of fact “war crimes” for one is a peaceful non-combatant retaining right to self defense. Check out regarding “Federal Tort” and much more, for those still in “legal land” vs lawful per natural law solely.

    • moon

      April 1, 2014 at 10:05 PM

      cynthia, oops, didn’t notice that you’ve mentioned the bond remedy until now. Thanks for posting…I want to research it.

  4. mike

    April 1, 2014 at 8:30 AM

    Criminal Charge of Computer Fraud, Judge you are sitting there looking at the evidence or are you sitting there participating in colluding in or allowing it. 18 USC 201

  5. Toland

    April 1, 2014 at 8:48 AM

    “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

  6. Bobby G

    April 1, 2014 at 9:13 AM

    The only way I know to go after the bad cop is to find out the name of his bonding company and file against his bone! Once a complaint is filed, the bonding comapany (not the police) does the investigation. If the cop is found in fault of violating his oath, or doing anything illegal (violating rights, lying, etc.) the bond amount ($$$) is not only yours, but the cop will never work as a public sevant again… EVER! No bonding company would ever bond him again. This works with any public official, including judges, Prosecuting attorneys, any public officials who must be bonded. This takes it out of the realm of the “Judicial” control regarding immunity from proecution. The bonding companies are independant. Judge and other officials are now hiding their bonding company’s name/address, because they fear being investigated by a private company, who can cancel their bond. This tactic used to be employed on Sheriffs (Filing claims on their bond). For some reason (?) that stopped for a while. Now, it is being employed again and the public officials are fearful.

    • Kenemore Jr

      April 1, 2014 at 4:30 PM

      Not all States require bonds and the Federal Government does not so this is not a blanket use…even if you did go after their bind the County Attorney would defend them as it is required for anything that is done in the course of their employment…. this keeps it in the judicial realm

  7. Adask

    April 1, 2014 at 11:14 AM

    “moon,” I don’t absolutely know why they stopped prosecuting the MOOA case. They never said. They just stopped. I am left to infer that they were unwilling to confront the MOOA defense in a public forum. It’s not the only possible answer, but it’s the only one that makes sense to me.

    If I’d used the same defense with the original three defendants in A.D. 2001, I have to believe that the gov-co would’ve again stopped prosecuting almost immediately.

    But I also believe that if an intelligent manufacturer of drugs, vitamins or medical devices or even farmers selling raw milk or garden vegetables included a disclaimer in his advertising that declared his product was only intended to be sold to men and woman made in God’s image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and who were located within the borders of The State of Texas and/or The United States of America, I strongly suspect that the FDA would not have selected them for prosecution in the first place.

    I’ve tried to explain that strategy to a couple of vitamin manufacturers and at least one farmer charged with selling raw milk and they’ve all ignored me. They won’t listen to man who’s not wealthy or licensed and didn’t charge for his advice. They dismiss me as a crackpot. They prefer to take their advice from a trained, professional liar (an attorney) who is rich, licensed and immoral. I don’t blame ’em.

    But I sometimes think that I should look for a business that produces a product that would normally fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA, buy that business, and sell the product with the advertising I’ve suggested, and essentially dare the FDA to try to regulate and/or sue me. It would be a risky adventure. If the FDA sued and won a big award, I’d be wiped out. On the other hand, if the FDA refused to sue, I might have such a competitive advantage that my business profits might huge.

    I know of a couple of people who claim to be able to cure cancer (and other diseases) by manufacturing “stem cells”. One of them has been recently arrested by the FDA and is now in for the fight of his life. If he had included my notions on advertising on his services, I doubt that FDA would’ve gone after him. If I were a partner in his business, I could stand up in court and make this argument.

    But I live in poverty and don’t seem very credible to businessmen, and so the MOOA theory remains without more testing.

    I’ve tried to communicate the MOOA concept for eight years. I’ve tried to explain it “ad nauseum” in, perhaps 40 articles or more, from every perspective I could find to help others grasp the idea. And yet, here we are, eight years later and I doubt that more than a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, other people have a good understanding of MOOA. On the one hand, that’s disappointing. On the other hand, if that’s what the Good LORD wants, it’s fine with me.

    My job is to plant seeds. Somebody else is responsible for harvesting the apples.

    • moon

      April 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM

      Al, right now, I’m in a similar situation as far as not knowing for sure why govco is not proceeding against me, the living man, or who they want me to think I am. Though my risk is not nearly as great as yours was and I didn’t use the MOOA defense, my feeling is that the questions I did put in front of the right ones are not areas they want to explore. My ego strongly desires to have my shot at a particular officer on the stand, under oath, but I would want it to be in a more advantageous venue for me. More importantly, though, is my search for a better way to hold the officer responsible for his actions. I’ve considered a suit and/or commercial lien, but not convinced those are the best ways to go.

      Applesense has mentioned wanting a remedy for offsetting tow in and storage charges for a truck. I want to explore the bonding idea that Bobby G and EarlatOregon have mentioned. I’ve read the Uniform Bonding Code and it presents some tricky responsibilities for govco if they’re concerned about being bonded or keeping a bond. I like the idea that someone else would be motivated to investigate, and it would seem to avoid the risk of me being in their “court”, possibly yielding an indirect remedy for me…possibly for Applesense and others as well.

      There’s another response to another part of your comment coming up. Stay tuned…oh, of course you will…it’s your blog…

      • Adask

        April 1, 2014 at 4:17 PM

        I wouldn’t recommend trying a commercial lien.

        The MOOA defense would only appear to be appropriate when the prosecution’s case relied on the the words “drug,” “food” or (medical) “devices” as found in 21 USC 321.

      • moon

        April 3, 2014 at 9:36 AM

        Al, thanks for your non – recommendation of the commercial lien process. I’ve read several explanations of how to do it, but haven’t found a report of a positive result.

        It wasn’t my intention to suggest that the MOOA defense would be appropriate in my particular “case” or would be a cure all in every situation. My thought was that most any “judge” or “prosecutor” would be reluctant to proceed without seriously considering the can of worms they’d be opening by trying to rationalize MOOA into their existing struggle with cognitive dissonance.

      • Kenemore Jr

        April 3, 2014 at 12:57 PM

        This is from someone that knows there are literally 500 plus people in Federal Prison for doing commercial liens…it is only a theory…the Feds take a very dim view to doing this and prosecute it vigorously

    • moon

      April 1, 2014 at 5:08 PM

      Al, since palani and J.M. have determined that because I have no account number, I don’t exist, it seems I’m free to speculate with impunity.

      Here’s one of my speculative ideas, though, not necessarily an April one joke:

      The business you mentioned in the second part of your comment is worth considering. Stem cells, though, are too complicated and not versatile enough as a product, in my opinion. I prefer less complication and more bang per effort. How about cannabis sativa as the product? It’s simple to produce and it would be a challenge for most all the relevant govco alphabet agencies.

      Here’s the business plan:

      You plant the seeds, which you’re good at. I’ll grow, harvest, promote, and market, which I have some experience with. We’ll create the packaging large enough to print your advertising disclaimer in large print, not small print.

      Expected results:

      By the time any govco agency gets the nerve to interfere, if ever, you’ll be so wealthy that a risk of $9 million per year in “penalties” won’t be quite so daunting.

      Side effects and spin off ventures:

      Of course, you’ll need to locate your physical body within a securely gated estate because throngs of people/persons/unknowns/undecideds will be throwing themselves, and their money, at you for every twig of your unlicensed advice. We can also make and distribute a movie about it.

      Regrouping opportunities:

      If, at any time, the business plan needs to be tweeked, we can kick back, smoke a joint and/or munch on apples, and rethink the whole deal.

      After eight years of promoting MOOA, don’t you think it’s time to recreate the dynamic?

      • Adask

        April 2, 2014 at 7:44 AM

        Yes, I think it’s time to recreate the dynamic”–but, actually, I was thinking more along the lines of writing a book and planting seeds of intellect rather than seeds of pot.

        Besides, I’d be a little bit anxious about planting pot seeds. Planting pot seeds might be a hard to explain to a jury (that’s been conditioned by two generations of the “war on drugs” to regard pot as inherently “criminal”. But planting seeds of stem cell research–which is largely unknown to a jury or known only as a possible medical benefit, prohibited only by the “evil” FDA–would be a lot easier to justify with MOOA.

        Whenever I take any unusual steps (including entering into business plans) I try to think how my actions might be viewed by an ordinary jury. It’s not enough to believe that I could persuade people who read this blog that my actions are legally justified (preachin’ to the choir). I have to believe that I can convince a jury that my actions are legally justified–that’s a higher standard that must be met.

        That means that I must not only learn to “think like a lawyer,” but I must also learn how to communicate the resulting thoughts in language that ordinary people might be able to understand.

        In any case, I’ll take a pass on planting pot at this time.

        But, if you have another other business plans, let me know.

      • moon

        April 2, 2014 at 12:07 PM

        Al, I thought you wanted to challenge the powers that shouldn’t be. Maybe not to the extent of ending the “war on drugs”?

        If one considers pot research in the same light you’re considering stem cell research, they’re actually not so different. Please don’t say “pot” to the jury, though. “What we’re considering here today is cannabis sativa research.” Now, doesn’t that sound better?

        Cannabis sativa is largely unknown to a jury or might be known as a possible medical benefit. As I recall, there’s been some very negative reaction (possibly as “inherently criminal”) to stem cell research, correct? Isn’t cannabis sativa, known as possibly having medical benefits and prohibited by the “evil” FDA?

        OK…I’m kicked back, smoking a joint and munching on an apple, and rethinking this whole deal. See how versatile this plan is? I’m loving it already.

        Here’s the tweeked plan: you plant the seeds, I’ll grow, harvest, promote, and market while you write a book. By the time you’re finished writing your book, you’ll be fabulously rich. Then, you can go on speaking tours, appearing in front of sold out stadiums, and entertain questions from the throngs of people seeking the knowledge you can impart. I’m imagining it now: you’ll get insightful questions such as, “Aye man, wer jew git yer seeeeeeeeeds?”

      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM

        @ > Al, since palani and J.M. have determined that because I have no account number, I don’t exist, it seems I’m free to speculate with impunity.

        My no account number, like in “got your number” & palani’s no account number mean two different things.

        What follows is what I mean by got your number & no account number.

        Adj. Informal, e.g., Worthless; good-for-nothing: my no-account brother-in-law., my no account adversary, goader, provoker, ridiculer, blasphemer

        no-account – without merit; “a sorry horse”; “a sorry excuse”; “a lazy no-count, good-for-nothing goldbrick”; “the car was a no-good piece of junk”
        good-for-naught, good-for-nothing, meritless, no-count, no-good, sorry
        worthless – lacking in usefulness or value; “a worthless idler”

        If this IS not enough & you need me to be more specific, or if you need more definitions, I’ll be more than happy to oblige. Just here to share & learn

      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 12:46 AM

        I “got your number” means, I understand your true nature. Now I “see” meaning I once WAS blind, but now I see. < SEE what I'm saying ?? Hope this helps.

      • Secretariat

        July 22, 2014 at 10:32 PM

        Greetings Breathren & Good Neighbors,

        Did someone say they may think or behoove us, to create the dynamic for self-determination that fosters MOOA and other ideology of unanimity associated thereto?


        Now on to other matters:

        I’ve been reading these missive exchanges betwixt Adask and Kenemore Jr with a very keen eye.

        I have observed, Adask, generally, is exactly historical and presently, as stated by Moon. A positive in my book of life. But, even so, the thoughts provided by Moon are indicative of the lack of unanimity concerning use and/or application of MOOA.

        The ideology of MOOA and many other situational legislation germane, each may choose to quell in self-determination as best suited, when entering any society of Men. But remember, such suiting must be tailored via variation by agreement. Otherwise gentlemen, you have compelled contract.

        Something, which is socially declared, publicly unconstitutional via U.S. Const. Art of Amend XIII in unanimity, for equality in standing to exist before law.

        Maybe a good approach would be to test MOOA via any Inspector General by requesting a determination in regards thereto, where, you may think such may provide any real value in return.

        Failure of any Inspector General opens an agency up to a Westfall Act Complaint. And, if the USAG fails to address the matter properly then it remains justiciable by libel of review. Any damages can be ascertained during any missive exchange…lol, seeking perpetuation of testimony in regards to either just adjudication thereto, or set-off and accord respectfully.

        I myself, have never had to resort to such maneuvers simply because of political standing to state a claim otherwise, before I am handed over to the judge who hands you over to the jailor for the purposes of extracting whatever farthing is due…lol. Protocols also supersede certain elections others have a tendencies to accept via public education, while we otherwise, providing equitable relief via variation by agreement beforehand.

        Of course, any definitive evidence or facts to be adjudicated, arise in similar agreement as aforementioned. These agreements create reasonable rights and duties via protocols between parties when any claim for saving to suitors respectfully, may give arise, when and wherever their exterior jurisdictions may buttress one another juxtaposed on their frontiers of life from time to time. Of course, we speak of unlimited state jurisdiction. Something few are prepared adequately for, even when properly prepared….lol.

        But to every poster herein, our most cherished regards for all walks of life can only be truly measured by every chance we take and opportunity we create, to leave a better world for our children than the one we found ourselves being handed over to us.

        On another note:

        There is no need to tender to commercial injuries for damages, when damages can be affirmed contractually without controversy, in the nature of agreement. Any interest that may exist in pursuance of any claim, must first be submitted to either an ombudsman, inspector general, or central authority designated for service of extrajudicial process on whatever agency may be of interest. Any particular act agreeing to act than by protocol, tolls accordingly. Any set-off and accord can be adjusted with considerable ease when just joinder of the parties is prejudicial, while setoff is ordered under seal (Art. 4), which can then be graded, bonded and sold with discounts attached thereto, for assignment thereof, in any exchange by prior protocol in accord thereto. But, these protocols are only germane via variation by agreement beforehand.

        As we all know ‘time is money’ just as the true money of the sovereign is his credit.

        What we face is modern day slavery!

        Just read: Executive Order 13603 of March 16, 2012 at PART V—EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL, Section 502, to wit:

        “Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability WITHOUT compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.”

        So don’t waste your time on matters unimportant to finish, while remembering to finish every chance you get before its too late, to take every opportunity to be prepared for the most important matters that matter in your life. May you always know what creates what matters most…..honor!

        Choose prudently and live wisely!

        Our decision is just as sound as Lysander Spooner, to wit:

        “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

        In regards thereto, I shall always be available to those who approach rationally and reasonably, to further their own self-determination and preservation in good will as good neighbors similarly situated.

        Give our most endearing regards to your loved ones. May you live long and prosper!

        Until then, I AM…

        Your friend in law!

        Most graciously….’In Honor We Trust’
        Notice: U.P.C. Applicable.
        P.S.: Please forgive any syntax or grammatical errors.

  8. Glenn Ambort

    April 1, 2014 at 11:59 AM

    Great post, Al! Shows that individual police officers are sometimes in the wrong and twist the facts to suit their personal needs. That dash-cam was a lifesaver for the driver in this video.

  9. katmanwon

    April 1, 2014 at 12:29 PM

    Should be standard equipment on ALL private vehicles.

  10. JustaRegularPatriot

    April 1, 2014 at 12:47 PM

    What’s not being discussed is the “what’s in it for me” (public servant(s) all down the line from on the street to in the judges chamber) argument.
    We all know, or should know, that it’s about revenue, at least tacitly. With this real time proof via the dash cam, the traveler broke no “laws” and turned from the correct lane. So why was he stopped? Moreover, if one looks closely, it looks like the “officers” were checking the car that was parked. Were they actually parking patrol officers, given orders to also look for a quick buck from the sheeple?
    Inquiring men made in God’s image want to know.

    • J.M.

      April 6, 2014 at 5:27 AM

      @ >What’s not being discussed is the “what’s in it for me”

      Yes. It’s more important to know what’s in it for me.It is not important to even be think about or care about “what’s in it for you” It’s “what’s in it for me.” This is what all people need to think about more than they do, if this is possible. This applies to anything & everything, “what’s in it for me.” People are spending too much time thinking of others. Looks like we will never learn to start thinking about, “what’s in it for me.”

  11. EarlatOregon

    April 1, 2014 at 1:33 PM

    Police retirement fund,
    benefit from traffic ticket Fines

    By Wesley Brown
    Augusta Chronicle
    June 12, 2013

    For every citation issued ,
    more than 13,000 police officers, sheriffs and Superior Court clerks across Georgia
    will see a increase in their Retirement pay.

    California has similar Tickets pay for Retirement for Judges.

  12. EarlatOregon

    April 1, 2014 at 1:37 PM


    Law on Qualified Immunity




    The Public Servants had taken a position that they could not be held liable in the scope of their job.
    They claimed the proviso gave them immunity while doing searches, seizures of evidence, or arrests.

    MILLBROOK v UNITED STATES set precedent that confirms this is not the case.


    Public Servants are liable for damages & injury to the People.

    Jeff Ball

    Private Attorney General

    Justice of the Peace – non-defacto


    The Private Attorney Generals Group



    More at







  13. EarlatOregon

    April 1, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    More at

  14. Adask

    April 2, 2014 at 12:17 PM

    Hey, “moon,” I’m in favor of ending the war on drugs, but I think I can do more to help that cause from the outside than I can from the insider.

    Even though I’ve never been convicted, tried, given a probable cause hearing or even charged with a crime, I spent 344 days in a level-5 maximum security jail until I was simply released and allowed to make my way back to Texas from Missouri without a dime in my pocket. The Good LORD took care of me. Nevertheless, while you may be feelin’ good about eatin’ your apple and smokin’ a joint, I understand our adversaries to be dangerous as Hell. Therefore, I don’t plan make it easy for them to make me “disappear” for another year. I won’t be plantin’ any pot.

    • moon

      April 2, 2014 at 1:21 PM

      Yep, your 344 days in jail has gotten more than a passing thought with me. I’ve been there overnight and have watched Shawshank Redemption several times, and know that you have a much greater comprehension of the inside than I. However, some of us will experience isolation, blood, guts, barbed wire, and worse before the powers that shouldn’t be aren’t. You have your path and I have mine.

      Just wondering: concerning “disappearing”, why “for another year”? I’m wondering, but it’s not necessary that you answer.

      • J.M.

        April 5, 2014 at 7:08 AM

        TO: moon, and all your associates, beginning with, Aamon, through, Zupay

        When I quote a scripture, e.g., 2 Chronicles 7:14, & you respond by saying
        The “church” cult won’t save anything. It’s part of the problem, &,The illusion
        of “god” won’t give you a miracle, YOU are sayng that it’s a Church cult
        that believes what 2 Chronicles 7:14 IS believing & spoken by what a “god of illusion”
        IS saying, & This llusion of “god” won’t give you a miracle.
        ANY “answer” from you other than,Yes or NO,
        will be deemed that you mean, YES. IF your answer is, NO,
        please clarify what you mean by NO. Otherwise, your answer will be deemed that you mean, Yes.

        ALSO, no response from you will be deemed that you mean YES.

      • J.M.

        April 12, 2014 at 3:03 AM

        @ > You have your path and I have mine.

        There is only ONE true path. The problem IS, If we are not on everybody else’s path we are on the wrong path. I am on a lonely path but it is on a high road in my opinion.

  15. Adask

    April 2, 2014 at 2:16 PM

    They made me “disappear” for almost a year, once–I see no reason why they couldn’t do it again. Spending a year in the slammer changes the way you think. It was back in A.D. 2002-2003. I lost my business in most of my personal property. I was rendered virtually homeless. And, so far as I know, I wasn’t even charged with a crime. I can tell you my tale of woe, but it won’t really mean anything to you until you go through the same thing. Then, you’ll understand. This is no game. This is winner-take-all, spiritual warfare. Our adversary is spread thin, but he’s big and dangerous. Anytime you think they can’t ruin your life or even kill you, you’re dreamin’.

    • Glenn Ambort

      April 2, 2014 at 2:37 PM

      I spent 9 yrs in the slammer, also for a non-crime! Not complaining, just saying, we are in a Nazi-type state in Amerika!

    • moon

      April 3, 2014 at 6:32 AM

      Al, that’s an interesting few sentences of revelation.

      Once I was in a conversation that came around to the topic of hitch-hiking in South America. My buddy suggested that the risk of being kidnapped was too great. I considered this possibility for a minute or so, as the conversation continued without me. Then, I stated my thought on an actual event of me being kidnapped: as a kidnappee, I’d think of it as a learning experience, and when the kidnappers realize how much I eat and that no one will pay, they’d be ready to be rid of me.

      Seems to be a matter of perception.

      Over the past six decades, or so, I’ve heard about this “spiritual warfare”. For the first twenty years, I was drilled in most every facet of it. It took the second twenty years for me to overcome the first twenty.

      For about eight years, I chose to be in almost total reclusion (a word I created)…alone and with almost no direct contact with the outside world. I spent days/weeks at a time hearing no voice, not even my own. Days and nights were filled with research, study, thought, meditation, exploration, and discovery. When I chose to emerge from reclusion, I had to do it in stages because my interaction with the outside world was very clumsy. For example: I had to relearn the skill of speaking for two reasons 1) the muscles used for speech had deteriorated 2) my brain had forgotten how to send thoughts to be verbalized. I recommend reclusion for anyone.

      During reclusion, the world changed dramatically…so did my perception of the Universe.

      In this physical plane, I’ve experienced extreme pain, joy, love, laughter, poverty, and wealth. I’ve communicated with a few spiritual presences, traveled out of body, been close to passing from the physical plane to the spiritual plane, written a book concerning interaction of physical and spiritual, written a screenplay that explores cultic destruction, portrayed in film one man’s passing over, healed myself and helped a few others heal themselves, chased away some demons, and enjoy peace of mind.

      I’m prepared to pass from this physical plane to the spiritual plane at anytime. I feel no burden of a boogey man…physical nor spiritual.

      • J.M.

        April 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

        @ > I’ve communicated with a few spiritual presences, ”

        You sure have.

        @ >’m prepared to pass from this physical plane to the spiritual plane at anytime. I feel no burden of a boogey man…physical nor spiritual.



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