Map of USA with Texas highlighted

Image via Wikipedia

I, Alfred Adask–a living man made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights–receive email within The United States of America by means of:

I receive conventional mail at the following address:

Alfred Adask a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”

c/o 2921 Robin Hill Lane

The City of Garland

The County of Dallas

The State of Texas

The United States of America

The Kingdom of God


198 responses to “Contact

  1. Chet Grodek

    August 4, 2008 at 7:46 AM

    RE: Title 28 Section 297


    I never heard of it before but did some searching and here is what I found:

    Seems the distinction is between the sovergn states and the district of Columbia (which is the united states)

  2. MaxxNY

    November 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM

    great shows the last 2 nights.

    • Patriot0ne

      July 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM

      Where can I find the ‘SHOW’ ?

      • Adask

        July 30, 2012 at 1:20 PM

        Take a look on the “Radio” page listed above.

  3. dawn marie clark

    November 21, 2008 at 11:57 AM

    i need to correct you on what you wrote: By itself, inflation (rising prices) may be annoying , but it’s fundamentally harmless.

    this is not true. inflation is NOT rising prices. inflation is the result of too many $’s in circulation – it is what causes high prices!

    this IS important.

    your average joe, who does NOT have an understanding of economics would define it as you have done.

    please do some research and get it right before you write it for others to read.



      July 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM


    • Garrett

      January 13, 2015 at 5:04 PM

      Please don’t be rude next time you comment.

  4. adask

    November 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM

    Like most words and concepts, “inflation” can be defined in more than one way. Clearly, inflation does result in and is characterized by “rising prices”. This rise in prices is usually caused by increasing the supply of currency in circulation. I don’t see either “definition” or description as more or less accurate than the the other.

    • Southern Grey

      May 17, 2011 at 7:40 AM

      Inflation, in all cases, is a monetary event. In other words, the universe of money is constantly being expanded and thus the value of all money declines.

      Since money represents the value of one’s labor, having the Federal Reserve creating (think counterfeiting your labor – that’s the end result because the value of your labor declines) money from nothing and accruing a constant flow of interest on it when they have absolutely nothing a risk, is nothing more than a fraud. And the fraud has the secondary purpose of enslavement of the people.

    • Southern Grey

      May 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM

      My point was to illustrate that inflation is not harmless.

      When I discuss these matters with others, I am always awaiting some bright soul to ask, “Why must the government ‘borrow’ all the money into existence and encumber the people with the accruing finance charge?” Why can’t they just print the money, spend it, and leave the international gangbanksters out of the equation?”

      Unfortunately, I’ve not ever been asked this question. It seems as though the very essence of the fraud has become systemic; things seem to be as they always have been. Only a few see things differently, but that number steadily grows.

      That is not to say that I would support such a mechanism. Even though on the surface it sounds somewhat more attractive, it would not address the issue of runaway government growth.

      The founders understood the limitation factor of hard money on government. They only empowered Congress to coin money and in that specific usage ‘coin’ is a verb. Then further they limited the states to accepting only gold and silver ‘coin’ in payment of a debt. These requirements still stand and no mere act of Congress can serve to amend the Constitution; thus the legal tender act is in controversy with it. They knew that the people would not stand for usurpation financed directly from their own pockets without the steadily rising likelihood of revolt.

      “…God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…” ~ Thomas Jefferson

      Inflation, in reality nothing more than a secret tax that the people fail to equate with government extraction, can hardly be viewed as harmless.

      True freedom is predicated on sound money.

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM

        I LIKE YOU!! I somehow(??) came across a “group” called “Quatloss.” Do you know anything about them/it ? If not, contact me first before you contact them/it. I was thinking maybe you could wake “Quatloos” up or shed some light on them that I am unable to do because of my many limitations. I am new at computers & do not understand most computer terms. I don’t like the sound of some of them (terms) either. e.g. Blog to me is close to BLAH. May The Eternal Creator of Heaven & Earth Richly Bless & Protect You.

      • PatriotOne

        January 16, 2012 at 4:04 AM

        Beware / be aware of “Quatloos”. It / they are (seem to be) attackers of freedom, Corpus Delecti, truth and justice.It / they want to preserve the illusion that the courts are under the Constitution when, in fact, the courts are private corporations enforcing private LAW in the same manner that MONSANTO would force its LAW on its employees.
        More of their ?shinnanigans? can be found at . Simply search the name / word in the forums.

      • rahyah

        June 2, 2014 at 12:22 PM

        I AM in total agreement with what is summarized by Southern Grey.

        And yes, true freedom (free dominion) is predicated on sound money. But like most mental constructs terminally rationalized, the true money of the sovereign has and will always be his natural Credit endowed upon his conscious emanation fulfilled in his Crowning Nativity.

        What is this Credit? Free Will………….!!!!!!!!!!! And what do you get with free will? The greatest capital of all walks of life….”Ideas”…!!!!

        Without free will, there would be no need for ideas, credit nor the socially accepted forms thereof, whether of speech, account or exchange thereof.

        Which by free will may be extended by one’s livelihood for whatever livelihood accomplishes any accounting or exchange equally germane thereto. Thereby, no profit greater than equally accounted or exchanged should ever arise when properly setoff and adjusted in accord thereto.

        This is true Capitalism!!!!! Inflation is just as much a fictional character in most peoples minds as much so as the true wealth of all people,….their Credit!

        But what has entered into the mindset of all walks of life, is the idea that one has the right to profit where costs are unsupported by actual equal credit to every venture shared, causing an ambivalence socially to the sufferings of others against the backdrop of so-called plenty but in reality only the banquet setting the stag for more cyclic chaos centered around totalitarian economic subjugation!

        If people create governments and everything else for their necessity, then they each thereby ipso facto, are capable and able to address issues of runaway government growth, with more Credit in life…

    • harrytapp

      October 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM

      Just wondering what you thought about this? I used a reply to ensure that you got this.
      Facebook… Charles Leonard




      People of The USA .We are being played as fools. Chief Justice Roberts did not say obamacare was his RULING ..

      He said that the mandate was NOT Constitutional and that the ONLY WAY THAT the federal government could enforce obamacare is to enforce it as a tax….

      WELL, here is where the obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.. when Justice Roberts made that ruling THE AHCA should have went BACK to congress and should have been VOTED ON BY EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS AS A TAX .. IT WAS NOT ..

      The House did not pass obamacare as a tax.. they said that it was NOT a tax..

      The Obama Lawyers argued their case saying it was not a TAX… Roberts contorted his logic like a cheap soggy pretzel and called it a TAX.


      BECAUSE OBAMACARE/THE AHCA Originated in the SENATE and a Tax cannot originate in the Senate..

      THEN…..OBAMA has unlawfully changed the law by giving exemptions and waivers to Corporations, Big Business and Labor.. HE HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO DO THIS!!

      He is an Alinskiite Radical revolutionary and his lap dogs in the Main Stream media Knows the Alinski rules and is REPEATING THE LIE over and over and over again so it becomes the new reality..

      JUST BECAUSE YOU HEAR SOMETHING ON THE NEWS DOES NOT MAKE IT ACCURATE.. They are trying so hard to make us all believe that Obamacare is legal BUT IT IS NOT LEGAL!!

      Lets work on taking the IRS to court if THEY try to garnish your bank account when you OPT-OUT. Go to (generation AND (

      There will be a chance for class action law suits against the Federal Government but we cannot take them to court until they try to tax us for not having health insurance.

      REMEMBER, If you Voluntarily sign-up for this program, you are signing that you will accept it as an OBLIGATION and as LAW that you will be held CONTRACTALLY. If you REFUSE to enlist, IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ENFORCABLE MANDATE!!!!


  5. Pastor Brian

    December 5, 2008 at 4:30 PM

    Dear Brother Alfred –

    Following, are two very helpful resources, for your journey of Truth-realization, within.

    1) .

    2) Do a YouTube search for “Joel S. Goldsmith”; listen to the spiritual talk with the heading of: Joel Goldsmith 1965 (in parts a, b, & c).

    You are welcomed to fellowship…

    Sincerely yours in Christ,

  6. Bonehead

    April 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM

    There were a couple of implications in the remarks you made last night. If the 1990s patriot – tax revolt – legal reform etc movement was deminished by the PTB opening the credit spigot:

    1 Will they do it again since the talk radio airwaves are bubbling with anti-gov raving?

    2 What if they try but can’t push the string?

    • adask

      April 28, 2009 at 8:44 AM

      They are already “opening the credit spigot”. That’s what all this $12 trillion “bailout” is all about. In the 1990s, they only had to open the credit spigot a relatively small amount to allow for 1) the stock market bubble, and later 3) the housing bubble. They only had to opent the credit spigot for the “great unwashed. However, the same problems that were beginning to manifest almost 20 years ago, could only be temporarily avoided by easing credit in the mid-1990s. Those problems that were beginning to manifest in the 1990s have not merely been delayed by easing “consumer” credit back about A.D. 1996, they were allowed to GROW behind the scenes until they reached the point where the stock market bubble burst, the residential housing bubble burst, and now the whole damn financial system is at risk. Now, instead of making more billions of dollars in credit available to de common folk, they’re making trillions of dollars in credit available to the rich and financial institutions.
      The implication is that no matter how much credit they make available, sooner or later they are going to run out of NSF checks, the illusion will be shown to the a lie, and the whole, fiat monetary system may suffer a catastrophic failure.

  7. Samuel Goldberg

    May 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM

    Greetings Alfred:

    Have a look at this document and tell us what you make of it regarding what accepted for value means:

    • :James-Edward:

      August 29, 2010 at 6:35 PM

      in fact it is the evil systems documents and paperwork, and in time, it will turn around and bite you !!!!!!!!

  8. 1bassman9

    March 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM

    I am glad to have found this website as I remember enjoying the information I gleaned from you in the past.

    I stumbled across some information on the internet that I would like your insight on. It has to do with the first two chapters of Genesis.

    The claim is that Genesis 1 is Elohim creating the sovereign man and women, with no name, in his image to have dominion of the earth(the real man).
    Genesis 2, according to this information, is a second creation by YHWH Elohim where we are given names(the strawman) and relinquishing our sovereignty to a subordinate of Elohim, named YHWH Elohim.

    I have noticed myself that Eve is intentionally confused in her dialogue with the serpent to think that Elohim told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, when it was YHWH Elohim who made that statement. There does seem to be some deception in that section of scripture.
    Have you heard of this take and I would appreciate your point of view.

    • adask

      March 12, 2010 at 6:16 PM

      I’ve heard a variety of the argument that our Father YHWH Elohiym created original men on two occasions, not just one one the 6th Day. I’m skeptical of such arguments, but they deserve some consideration. Prompted by your comment, I’m going to research the issue and publish an article on the subject in the next several days. Thanks for your comment

      • mason

        May 31, 2013 at 10:39 AM

        Why do you keep purposely highlighting the least accepted and non-original name “YHWH” of the Almighty Creator “JHVH”.

      • Adask

        May 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM

        That’s the one that works for me. That’s the one that most closely signifies the “sound” of the Name for me. Why do you insist on using the name “JHVH” when there is no letter in the original Hebrew or Greek that approximates the English “J”? So far as I know, the “J” is only 3 or 4 centuries old.

      • REO

        November 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM

        For Jewish people YHWH is the most holy name of God, as written in the ancient Hebrew language.

    • :James-Edward:

      August 29, 2010 at 6:45 PM

      In ordewr for having any understanding of any
      ofthe bibles, of which gthereare approx. 2,500 of them or more basedon the corrupted so-call pervet king james !
      in order for understanding so call scriptures, One has to go back unto those ancient-languages,
      word for word for having any understanding what the words really mean, like:
      ancient-H’-brew, Culdee, ariamick, and a few other
      ancient languages !!!!!!!
      the big letter companion bible, along with the
      strongs, as well as studying the so-called books that were thrown out by the corrupt
      nicean counciles and the romans, and the evil vatican, ruled by the jesuits/black pope !!!!!

  9. Anthony

    May 21, 2010 at 7:43 PM

    This past week you spoke about the iniquitous Ex Senator Arlen Spectre and how this low life degenerate should be made to give up all his ill-gotten assets he gained as a racketeer senator.
    You could also throw in another loathsome creature, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut a shark of a higher stature, who decided not to run for the Senate and will enjoy his spoils he stole from the taxpayers just like Spectre.
    Both of these werewolves should have all assets and properties taken away and put in a labor camp until they die.

    • adask

      May 21, 2010 at 11:48 PM


  10. john denton

    May 28, 2010 at 7:49 PM

    hi mr. adask so far i agree with what ive read of yours whats your stand on abortion ? new fan jd

    • adask

      May 28, 2010 at 10:25 PM

      First, as an act of FAITH (protected by the 1st Amendment as well as Article 1 Section 6 of The Constitution of The State of Texas), I believe that as per Genesis 1:26-27, “On the sixth day, God created man in His image and gave man dominion over the animals.” Thus, man and man alone is made in God’s image.
      Second, as per Genesis 9:6, the reason “Thou shalt not kill” another man is because that man is MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE. I conclude that to kill another member of our species may be an act of BLASPHEMY. (To kill yourself is a crime precisely because it is probably the single greatest blasphemy you can commit. In suicide, you litteraly choose to kill an “image of God”–your own body.)
      Third, I subscribe to the revolutionary principle first espoused in our “Declaration of Independence” that “all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these or LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Note that under the terms of the Declaration, each man or woman’s God-given, personal endowment of the unalienable Right to LIFE attaches at the moment of CREATION–not birth.
      Compare the principle of the Declaration (that we are endowed by God with certain unalienable Right at the moment of our CREATION), to the time of endowment of CIVIL rights under the 14th Amendment: “All persons BORN or naturalized in the the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
      Do you see the difference? God-given, unalienable Rights attach at the moment of your CREATION. You civil rights do not attach under you are fully BORN. Under civil rights, the unborn have no protection from abortion. Under the Declaration, the life of the unborn is absolutely protected from (at least) the moment of conception (creation).
      In the book of Jeremiah, our Father YHWH Elohiym told Jeremiah that He “knew” Jeremiah long before he was even in his mother’s womb. That implies that each of us may have been created years or even centuries before we were conceived (sperm joining egg) in this life.
      Even if our creation did not precede our conception, the fact remains that we were each created no later than our conception (sperm joining egg). If that’s true, then our God-given, unalienable Right to Life (as declared in our “Declaration of Independence”) attaches no later than the moment of our conception.
      Thus, under the 14th Amendment’s civil rights, the unborn are mere masses of right-less, “undifferentiated protoplasm” suitable for destruction. But under the Declaration, the unborn have at all times the God-given, unalienable Right to LIFE and therefore cannot be legally aborted. From the moment of creation/conception the unborn are men and woman made in God’s image and endowed by our Creator with the unalienable Right to LIFE. That means NO ABORTIONS. It means that abortion is MURDER. It means abortion is BLASPHEMY (murdering an “image” of our Father YHWH Elohiym)
      More, the 3rd sentence of the Declaration declares “That to secure these rights [the God-given, unalienable Rights], governments are instituted among men . . . .” That 3rd sentence tells us that the primary duty of government as envisioned by the Founders was to SECURE our God-given, unalienable Rights–including the right to LIFE.
      Under the Declaration, abortion is anathema and should be prevented by government. Government’s failure to protect the unborn constitutes treason, and complicity in murder and blasphemy.
      Incidentally, the “Declaration of Independence” is not a mere “historical document”. It is one of the four documents that comprise “The Organic Law of The United States of America” as declared by Congress of The United States of America in Volume 18 of the Revised Statutes (43rd Congress; A.D. 1873-1875). Those four documents include 1) Declaration of Independence; 2) Articles of Confederation; 3) NW Territorial Ordinance; and 4) The Constitution of the United States. Thus, the Declaration is, to this day, every bit as much the “LAW” of The United States of America as is the Constitution.
      Again, under the terms of the Declaration, abortion is murder and the governments that allows abortion are engaged in treason, conspiracy to commit murder, and blasphemy.
      You can find a copy of Volume 18 of the Revised Statutes at:
      Within Volume 18, you can find the beginning of the section entitled “The Organic Law of The United States of America” at:
      Thereafter follows 56 pages that list the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, NW Territorial Ordinance, and The Constitution of the United States.
      Bear in mind that book of Revised Statutes was authorized by the Congress and is AUTHORITY to argue that the Declaration is, to this day, very bit as much the LAW as the Constitution. Thus, under the primary document on which this nation was founded, abortion is ILLEGAL.
      So, do I favor abortion? Hell, No! Abortion is a crime against God, Himself, and is an abomination!
      Alfred Adask

      • john l. denton

        November 6, 2010 at 4:12 PM

        whew ! you have given our rachels vineyard ministry a lot to use. (r.v. is a Christ centered 2 day retreat for people wounded by abortion or miscarriage )my friend in amarillo larry p.gave me your website. it is truly enlightening ..john l. denton

      • Cat

        May 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM

        Hello, People don’t Kill themselves, Society does,, pushes them to kill themselves. People only kill themselves when they’ve reached their limit. Read Peter Levine’s Waking the Tiger> when they’re Overwhelmed and dead on the inside. A person who feels Loved and wanted in life is Not going to kill themselves because REAL love is keeping them healthy and alive. If a person isn’t loved and is treated like crap and abused,, how much can they take? You’re killed on the inside first,, put into such a Deep Spiritual and Psych debt,, with no one to help you out

      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM

        Per your statement re: the 14th Amendment & the unborn, yes they can be LEGALLY aborted (MURDERED) via the so called “appropriate legislation” aspect. But they cannot be LAWFULLY aborted (MURDERED). There are LEGAL ways to steal also, but there is no lawful way. I do not mean to sound like a “nitpicker.”After my beloved wife died,a “judge & attorney” stole an expensive wedding gift she gave because I could not produce any kind of receipt they demanded. So much for the sanctity of marriage.

      • Debbie

        August 4, 2011 at 12:54 PM

        Thank You, I am so glad to read this! I totally agree! I have recently gotten a bit more interested in our history, our conspiracies, etc. I am new to all of this, but the information has been great!

      • Southern_Grey

        February 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM


        I think Scripture runs contrary to your assertions. For Genesis 3:15

        New American Standard Bible (NASB)

        And I will put enmity
        Between you and the woman,
        And between your seed and her seed;
        He shall bruise you on the head,
        And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

        to have validity, there must be two different lines abroad on the earth. Christ himself directly identified some of them that he had immediate contact with, didn’t ask them to repent, but instead asked them how it was they were going to escape Hell. There has to be something to being called sons of satan and being told that they were about their father’s work and not His.

      • Adask

        May 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM

        There may be two different blood lines. If there are, one is made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals; the other bloodline would not be made in God’s image or given dominion over the animals. We might infer that the second bloodline was composed of “animals”.

        But I contend that I am of the bloodline of men made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals and therefore, I can’t be an “animal” nor can I be subjected to laws that only apply to animals. So, who will argue against me? Once I make a freedom of religion claim to be “a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” what gov-co prosecutor will dare to argue before a jury that my claim is false?

        I suspect that the “system” is in large measure based on the presumption that we have all voluntarily consented to be treated as “animals”. Once we challenge that presumption by expressing denying our status as animals, the gov-co will have to summon up one helluva prosecutor to disprove such claims to a jury.

  11. :James-Edward:

    August 29, 2010 at 6:28 PM

    Hello: like yourself “I” have been an [re]-searcher and archivts since 1980, even though I knew something was wrong by the time that I id not
    want to start their schooling !
    been working with “Al Combs” The Informer”
    for the last 20 years, zndhave all his books and writings!
    have been involved in many so cases and won them all, including several so-call “IRS/FTB CASES”

    have heard quite a bit about yoiu that seems all
    good, but with that “WORD” “GOD”
    thanks for liwtening and do have a great day with
    the “Lord”

  12. Jethro

    November 6, 2010 at 11:45 AM

    Hello Al,

    I’m curious if you have any thoughts about this article, which surmises that Oklahoma (or OK), having passed a constitutional amendment preventing courts from using Sharia or international law, may have inadvertently ‘outlawed’ the 10 Commandments…

  13. James

    January 20, 2011 at 12:02 AM

    Al just wanted to inform you that Washington owes the debt. We could even send the bill to Rockefeller. But you and ido not owe the debt they racked up building their world government.

    I know you’re gonna keep saying that over and over but as far as i’m concerned it’s 14 trillion reasons to get rid of Washington DC. They don’t follow the founding documents anyway.

    • Cat

      May 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM


      • Donald Blaine-Bailey

        June 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM

        I understand exactly what you are saying. I was oppressed so hard for so long, I finally prayed for death It would have been a sweet blessing. I may be wrong, but it seems that only those who are “pushed to the brink” (an understate-ment) can say what you did. If there is anything I can do, Hopefully. PLEASE contact me.

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM

      We’re not going to “get rid of Washington DC” through the Statutory Court System that the self-made REPROBATE TRAITOROUS BASTARDS in Washington D.C.has established and this is a fact. Actually, Washington,DC holds/has a lot of sacred memories for me. I can see the actual/original founding documents there. Let’s keep Washington DC, I only wish I knew of a wag to eliminate the traitors who are there.

  14. doesnotmatter

    February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

    excellent teaching,talking show today… 4EST on FirstAdmRaddotcom.
    just wanted to add kudos and a pat on the back.

    • Adask

      February 15, 2011 at 10:41 PM

      Thanks for listening. Thanks for your kudos.

  15. Thomas

    March 16, 2011 at 6:22 PM

    I have an AntiShyster News Magazine Vol 7 #2 which I have read cover to cover over the past 15 years. I used the old to find you a few years ago. Now, by providence, you popped up on a search. God Bless you. I will stay tuned in to you lead.

  16. William

    March 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM

    Hello, I live in Ohio and Child Support has resently made it imposibile for men to get their hunting and fishing lisences. I have fished with my mother since I was 3 and I have a 3 yr old son, whom lives with me, and now due to their antics I can no longer take my son fishing. But what has really got me down, is: I decided to take up hunting as a way of provisions for my family. I have never caught a fish I didn’t eat. I don’t do it for game, I am a naturist, I believe only in killing for subtance for another. It took me a very long time to decide to start hunting, but times are bad and I need to do something to make sure my son and soon-to-be wife are fed. I need help!!! I really don’t see how they can take the food out of one child’s mouth because THEY aren’t getting the money they want. I’m sorry I messed up and got a felony that allows businesses to refuse me work and I can’t give them a dime for children I have’nt seen in many years. My son, 13 years and my daughter, in 5 years. Can someone HELP me please! We’ve tried welfare and they try to screw us at every turn. I’m not one to beg, but please!


    April 4, 2011 at 3:39 PM

    “it would be an honor to meet you”

  18. Matt Smith

    April 12, 2011 at 4:08 PM

    Hi Al,

    Good show today on Financial Survival. All your shows are very informative and thought provoking.

    You are correct about the “Just In Time” freight.

    I drive a semi and personally witnessed how fragile that system is. Several years ago I had a load of doors for the GM plant in Akron OH. I arrived 2hrs early and they were already in a panic, standing on the dock waiting for me. They had only a few racks (pallets) of doors left. Had I arrived 2hrs later at my appointment time, they would have had to shut down the assembly line.

  19. Sherry Hightower

    April 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM

    What can I say? I am your #1 fan… ;-)

    “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge. ” ~ Daniel J Boorstin

    • Adask

      April 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

      Good fans are hard to find. Thanks.

    • Shaun Asher

      January 27, 2013 at 7:07 PM

      You must be a fastidious student in pursuit of knowledge. I read a lot, but this quote really enlightned me. Considering myself quite knowledgeable and well read, within seconds of reading it, my perception of myself has to be reviewed. Thank you!!!

  20. Paul Bjarnason

    May 15, 2011 at 8:39 PM

    Hi Al –

    I saw the 60 minutes interview and I believe that any thinking American would not attribute to you what a few individuals did in killing those officers. Hopefully, Americans are on to what 60 Minutes does to people with guilt by association which is not fair. Good luck.. Best. Bj

  21. Jack Bauer

    May 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

    I would like to have you on my show..
    Remember this statement: When injustice Becomes law, Rebellion Becomes duty!
    My show: The American Reconstruction Project, Simply trying to return America to what our Forefathers tried to give U.S.
    Hosted by: Jack Bauer
    Saturdays, from 6 to 8pm Pacific time, 9 to 11pm Eastern. For live and archived shows:
    The Phone Number: (724) 444-7444
    Call ID: 74235#
    On your phone keypad:
    *6 to mute on *6 again to mute off
    *8 to ask a question
    Or just listen at:, Click on the FLASHING “ON AIR” Button.
    Check out my NEW FaceBook page and be sure to Check the like button to become a “FAN”. I’m trying to push this as BIG as I can make it!!!
    Check out this NEW webpage at: and it’s TOTALLY FREE!!!
    Here’s a GUARANTEE you’ll NEVER get another traffic ticket again!!!! Or just give me a call for more info: (559) 291-6188 . And check out their special offer.

    “When the government fears the people, you have liberty.
    When the people fear the government you have Tyranny.”
    ~Thomas Jefferson,
    Disclaimer: I’m not a Lawyer, this is not legal advice. Nor am I a Brain Surgeon, Pastry Chef or Indian Chief.
    This communication is private and privileged intended only to those individuals marked “To”, “CC” or “BCC”.
    To the snoopy government agencies, or anyone else this mail isn’t being specifically directed to; with all due
    Respect; cordially invited and instructed to take a hike :)
    Sincerely, Jack Bauer aka RadioRebel

    • Adask

      May 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM

      It appears that I’m getting my 15 minutes of fame. After the 60 Minutes interview and the Alex Jones interview (and tomorrow Fox New; and on Thursday Thom Thortmann) I’m overwhelmed with email, blog comments, and interview requests.
      I appreciate you invitation, Jack, but you should contact me by email ( next week when things probably cool down a little.

  22. pop de adam

    May 17, 2011 at 9:09 PM

    If the foundation of this country is freedom and liberty there is no space or reason for any encroachment upon it. By myself i am, it requires another to weild the whip. If I am free another must man the whip to make me unfree. Kill that man. Did I precipitate this?

  23. Charles Giuliani

    May 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM

    My name is Charles Giuliani. I host a radio show on the Oracle Broadcasting Network called Truth Hertz. It airs Monday through Friday, 8 to 10 a.m. Eastern. I would be very interested in having you on as a guest. Please let me know if this is something you can work into your schedule. Thank you.

  24. Mike

    May 21, 2011 at 12:34 AM

    Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:44 pm
    Posts: 146
    Location: Winnipeg
    Chapter: Canada tekhed wrote:
    RankoKohime wrote:
    From the 9th edition, which reached my door last week and I’ve since been reading avidly:

    person. (13c) 1. A human being. — Also termed natural person.

    I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around this. Can this cause problems with separation from the legal fiction?

    ETA: The formatting comes from the book, I’m not italicizing natural person to highlight it, my concern is with the description “human being”.

    1) PERSON is defined as HUMAN BEING.

    2) HUMAN BEING is undefined, but points to MONSTER. (Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 1930)

    3) MONSTER is defined as being human by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land. (Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 1930)

    My logic tells me that a PERSON, being a HUMAN BEING, has some relationship with MONSTER. Could the intent be to define anything referenced as PERSON to be that which has some resemblance with a lower animal (man as person), yet without the ability to inherit or be heir?

    Another NWO attempt to lower man’s status?

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM

      We have Man and Woman (Man with a womb). Human??
      Hu is pronounced hue, like in a “color.” I take it to be another “Color of Law” word. It’s only just another “stealthy encroachment.”

    • Debra Bryant

      August 8, 2012 at 2:56 AM

      Noah’s 1828 American Dictionary
      PERSON: 1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

      A person is a thinking intelligent being.

      2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.

      In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.

      1913 Dictionary
      A living, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child.

      Consider what person stands for; which, I think, is a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection. Locke.

      Natural person (Law), a man, woman, or child, in distinction from a corporation. — In person, by one’s self; with bodily presence; not by representative. “

  25. Amish

    May 24, 2011 at 7:34 PM

    The British-American Colonies founded by Queen Elizabeth I were the hight of the Protestant Reformation in the New World, while in the Old World it was Prussia. Well, ww1&2 dissolved Prussia, and the American Revolution took over the Colonies. This becomes evident when looking at how Catholicism was banned in the Colonies, except Maryland.

    After the revolution the 1st amend effectively legalized Roman Catholicism, as the Quebec Act had done in Canada (1774). Then, in 1790, the new Capital was built in Maryland, on land donated by the Carroll family, which included the first Jesuit in America.

    According to the Jew Mag Catholicism remained banned in many states up until the Civil War.[1] And that’s what the Civil War was really about – war of federal aggression. (more at my blog link)

    Alfred, This is why I will have to disagree with your partner (on AVR) who claims Zionist or some kind of Jewish Empire runs things. No, what we have is the Roman Church and her masonic knights founded by the Knights Templar who founded and still run modern banking for the empire, although ran by secular republics today. (they do not seek to make us all Catholic, only depopulation.)

    Claiming Jews run things is Protocol propaganda, and the Protocols was drafted for this very reason, by the Templars and Jesuits.

    Many misunderstand the biblical text from Jesus about the Synagogue of Satan being someone claiming to be “Jews”.(Rv.2:9) At this point the Christian Church were spiritual Jews. Like the rest of Revelation this has to do with apostate Christianity. Rv.2 was written to a Christian Church v1.

    I personally otherwise enjoy your economic reporting. Are we to resist our Roman government, according to biblical law? No. As long as we can worship any way we choose we are not to take up arms.

    • Adask

      May 24, 2011 at 8:56 PM

      I am also disinclined to believe that the Jews run everything. It can be argued that Jewish people might have disproportionate influence, but so do bankers who may or may not be Jewish. If “Jews” really ran everything, how do we explain the recent disagreement between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over returning Israel to the former boundaries of A.D. 1967 or some such? The Jews are absolutely and adamantly opposed to surrendering so much territory. If the Jews really “ran things,” it seems virtually impossible that Obama would’ve suggested a return to the A.D. 1967 boundaries.

      I don’t know that any one group or race really “runs” the whole world. There are competing interests even among the Jews, Bankers, Catholics, Muslims, “Crusaders,” etc. etc.. But all of the legitimate contenders for the title of “master of the world” seem to agree that nothing is more important than mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money. Insofar as they’ve chosen to serve Mammon, they are all a wicked bunch.

      • joblessinusa

        August 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM

        Jesus (god) of the bible called them “…a generation of vipers.” It also says in that bible that towards the end 10 gentiles (wealth) will serve one Jew. Sorry but NO I won’t! Carl Marx got most of his ideas from the bible.

        Though the idea of a Commune ( Heaven) is pleasant and nice on the surface, there is the problem of Human Nature. And that means crooks. Just about ANY organised system WILL be taken over by crooks. ANY concentration of wealth in ANY form WILL attract crooks. Thus has it always been and thus will it always be.

        I think that when we all die and go to “heaven” or perfection we will all be naked and penniless there. What use does a god have for clothes and money? Indeed…

        I see that there is no TOPIC “Religion” and none for “Social Structure”. Two very important subjects I think…

  26. Jerry Lee

    May 26, 2011 at 11:35 PM

    Al, listening to your program with Lloyd Smith Thursday, May 26, 2011 he made mention of to the UN, that the US Military is under Russian control when acting under the UN Police actions. Mr Smith could not name the Russian Generals; the following is from Barefoot’s World:

    Each and every one of us that served in Korea or Vietnam served under the total command of a Soviet General! Here are the names of the soviets and the dates they served as “Under-Secretary of the Security Council of the United Nations,” thus the highest military commander of all United Nations fighting forces anywhere in the world, INCLUDING ALL MILITARY FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES. These names and information was obtained from the United Nations yearbooks up through 1983. Later yearbooks were not available. (All listed below are Soviet Generals holding the office of “Under-Secretary for Security and Political Affairs”):
    · 1946-1949 Arkady Alexandrovitch Sobolev;
    · 1949-1953 Constantine E. Zinchenko;
    · 1953-1954 Dragoslov Protich;
    · 1958-1959 Antoly Dobrinin;
    · 1960-1962 George Petrovich Arkadev;
    · 1962-1963 Eugeny D. Kiselv;
    · 963-1964 Vladimir Paulovich Suslov;
    · 965-1967 Alexel Efemovitch Nesternko;
    · 1968-1973 Leonid N. Kutakov;
    · 1973-1978 Arkadv N. Shevchenko;
    · 1978-1980 Mikhail D. Sytenko;
    · 1981-1983 Vlacheslav A. Ustinov;
    · 1988- Vasiliy Safronchuk.
    Lloyd also discuss what is a US citizen by the 14th amendment please read the following:
    United States Code,
    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1981
    § 1981. Equal rights under the law

    (a) Statement of equal rights
    All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
    (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
    For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
    (c) Protection against impairment
    The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1982
    § 1982. Property rights of citizens

    All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

    This is the case Mr. Smith was referring to about white European [born in American] were not US citizens.
    In Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal Sup Ct. 43, the Court made the following statement:
    “No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…owes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.”
    Then this;
    The Civil Rights Act of 1866:
    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizen of every race and color shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.”
    Please note that when the drafters of this bill meant to indicate a Citizen, they clearly used the word “citizen”, however when defining “who” the Act applies to, the drafters used the word “person”. As they used both words within the same paragraph, it is obvious that the drafters were keenly aware of the distinction.
    Clearly Congressional intent was to provide non-citizens with the same fundamental rights as de jure state Citizens (who in that day, were exclusively white). This intent was further clarified in President Johnson’s speech when he vetoed that bill. President Johnson made this statement as part of his speech:
    “It [the Civil Rights Bill of 1866] comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, Negroes, mulattoes and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races born in the United States is made a citizen thereof.”
    One last note… A Maxim of Law: “The Law of God [Holly Bible] and the Law of the Land [federal Constitution] are all one; both preserve and flavor the common good of the land.”

    Thank you, Jerry Lee

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 3, 2011 at 2:56 PM

      “Jurisdiction” (singular-not plural) “Jurisdiction of the United States.” This cannot mean the several states. If it did, it would say: Jurisdictions of the United States. There are other places in so called “appropriate Legislation” where it says, re: the United States and subject to its(not their) jurisdiction. I have a U.S. Supreme Court Case somewhere around my dwelling that says in pertinent part the the term United States has three different meanings. If you want to know more let me know

  27. truthspress

    May 29, 2011 at 1:50 PM

    We still have some time to get this type of knowledge like that e-mail that he read about the case in England, like information on these two cases, People v. Pierce and Chicago Railroad v. Yuma County School District , how to make people realize that this government in its present operation has corrupted its own purpose and intent {due to a takeover by globalists in most countries.

    Refer to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia for a preview of this}. Those people that corrupted it must go {into a sealed tunnel?}. And I don’t mean that they have to get an airplane and get out of here—they must go and they will. Even if they get an airplane and fly out of here they’ll land somewhere else where the same problem is going to exist and they’ll be done away with there. The best laid plans of mice and men go astray and these plans of these types of men will definitely go astray—it’ll backfire on them.
    {The creative people will be outside the tunnels and the insiders will munch their way into oblivion.} It will never be allowed by our Creator to be completely successful. But during the time that they’re trying to execute it, it will look like they’re being successful. It will be terrible times for all of us even for the Canaanites that are half way decent people because of the ones that are so evil and what they’re doing.

    This case of People v. Pierce goes all the way back to 1896 and it shows you that the corruption that exists today existed even back then. {See: CRIMES OF THE CIVIL WAR AND the CURSE OF THE FUNDING SYSTEM BY HENRY CLAY DEAN. (Confederate Reprint Company)} The attempt by those who wanted power to control everything was being implemented all the way back in those days. There is nothing new under the sun. The state you live in and what they do is not any worse than the state right next to you or across the country from you—they’re all doing it {your globalists at work} and it’s not just this country. It’s being done in all the other countries.
    All the countries have adopted the same uniform system of laws to regulate commerce all around the country way back in the eighties. {the Khazarians are in all those governments so one should not be surprised.} In the law library in Maryland I started looking up the basic concept and structure of laws in foreign countries like France and Germany and Italy and the South African developed countries and Japan. Couldn’t find much on China but I found some stuff on Japan. Found stuff on New Zealand and [Australia]. They have all formulated the same basic concept of laws regulating commerce and attempted to apply them to everybody and get everybody under the law of commerce and not protect the people and their right of privacy and their right to accomplish things on their own, to maintain whatever you could create and to make progress by developing things without government interference. They’ve all done it. There is no country that is not involved in this scam and basic kind of control to control and regulate the people living somewhere near where these governments were created.

  28. Jack Fyke

    June 1, 2011 at 8:11 AM

    The f our Organic Laws of the United States of America are in plain sight as they are situated before the Code of Laws of the United States of America in volume one of the fifty volumes of the US code series. A code is not a law merely prima facia evidence that a law may exist somewhere. Each one of the fifty titles must derive their authority from the four organic laws. The land is the lands either owned or ceded to the United States of America managed by a private for profit business organization styled as the United States. The constitution may be little more than bylaws for said lands. Senior Tribal Judge Jack Fyke.

  29. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM

    Alfred Adask is one of my heroes!!!

  30. Jerry Lee

    June 8, 2011 at 8:25 PM

    Great show on Bills of Attainder, with notice to Pains and Penalty.
    Just a few more items to place in the mix.

    Administrative Law is not Common Law, Equity, or Admiralty
    Arising under the holding in the adjudged case of Bowen v. Department of Social Security et al., 127 P.2d 682, 685 (1942), administrative law is a distinct branch of law, and it is not common law, equity, or admiralty and therefore can not arise under the Constitution of the United States, to wit:
    Colonel O. R. McGuire, a member of the American Bar Association’s special committee on administrative *153 law, in an article published in 26 Georgetown Law Journal, 574, 589, says: ‘* * * administrative law is a separate and distinct branch of the law. It is not common law, equity, or admiralty law * * *.’ The court has recognized the principle with respect to the industrial insurance act that controversies arising under it are controlled by “special statutory proceedings exercised in derogation of, or not according to, the course of the common law.” (Italics ours.) Nafus v. Department of Labor and Industries, 142 Wash. 48, 52, 251 P. 877, 878. [Emphasis added]

    This is also held in the adjudged decision of State ex rel Nielson et al. v. Lindstrom, 191 P.2d 1009, 1015 (1948).

    Quote from the American Bar Association/State Justice Institute publication “CITIZENS JUSTICE 2000″…. page 44, Chapter V. “Common Law Courts” “The ‘common law’ courts are not a part of the judicial system established by local, state and federal law. The term ‘common law courts’ refer to individuals who appoint themselves as judges and juries of claims against government officials or of disputes that others have filed in a legitimate court system. They do not recognize local, state or federal courts and tribunals.”

    Question…… if common law courts are legitimate, what are local, state and federal courts?

    One more thing…

    ****Read carefully – “REGULAR ON ITS FACE” – “Process is “regular on its face” when it proceeds from a court, officer, or body [de facto] having authority of law to issue process of that nature, and is legal in form and contains nothing to notify or fairly apprise any one that it is issued without authority.” I repeat — “… issued without authority.”
    “Your” entire de facto operation is “regular on its face” since all documents and process are “issued without authority.” Government de facto does nothing lawful, has no authority, except what is derived from unconstitutional force and fear by arms. However, those coercive acts nullify and destroy any agreement or contract initiated during the government de facto’s reign by duress.
    The courts have maintained that a police officer is required to serve a “regular on its face” process, in good faith — however, the court continues — “… nevertheless, once the officer, judge, prosecutor is notified in any manner that the process (summons, ticket, warrants, whatever) is irregular, the process is automatically void, and the process is served, by the officer, is done so at his own risk.”

    Biils of Attainder, [ Pains and Penalty ] would include a Traffic Citation which is issud by the Excutive branch [cop] not the Judicial branch of ‘government’ thus by passing due process/ law of the land…trial by jury ie common law.

    Thank you.

  31. Jerry Lee

    June 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM

    Al, following up on your Man and other animals I thought you might add this to the collection. As you can see it is written in legalese so most people would not grasp the true meaning of this title, but since man is definite as an animal so the exceptions puts it right back on man.

    US Code, Title 7- [Agriculture]- Chapter 6 – Subchapter II- § Section 136: Definitions Subchapter II: Environmental pesticide control.
    A.D. 1906 Food and Drug Act “SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
    Although this A.D. 1906 act was repealed in A.D. 1938 by 21 U.S.C. Sec 329 (a), the “man or other animals” definition persisted in our food and drug laws.
    21 U.S.C.A. §321(g)(1), which provides in pertinent part:
    “The term ‘drug’ means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
    So you now have Agriculture and Pharmaceutical and you are an enemy of the State I would presume this covers the American People.

    Al don’t laugh but here is that Title.

    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32

    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1520a

    § 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents

    (a) Prohibited activities
    The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
    (1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
    (2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

    (b) Exceptions
    Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section DOES NOT APPLY TO A TEST OR EXPERIMENT CARRIED OUT FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:
    (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, PHARMACEUTICAL, AGRICULTURAL, industrial, or research activity.
    (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
    (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

    (c) Informed consent required
    The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

    (d) Prior notice to Congress
    Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.

    (e) “Biological agent” defined
    In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
    (1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, AN ANIMAL, a plant, or another living organism;
    (2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
    (3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

  32. Ida Jo Tocco

    July 25, 2011 at 8:36 PM

    would like the address of Donna Barron or email address

  33. Tuning Aftermarket Performance Parts

    July 26, 2011 at 4:36 AM

    I sometimes comment,however your beat caught me. that is acutely wonderful

  34. Booga

    July 28, 2011 at 11:50 AM

    I plan on staying to hear you on coasttocoastam tonight.
    As to Enslaving the American People, here is how the banker coup that caused the Civil War (for profit) wrote Legal Slavery into the U.S. Constitution.

  35. rosalie mondaccci

    July 29, 2011 at 4:36 AM


  36. James4truth

    July 29, 2011 at 5:28 AM

    I’ve listened to you Alfred. I never thought I would discover someone who thoughts and ideas would come so close to the ones I have concerning this corrupt government we have at hand. But there you are proclaiming in blueprint the very truth of how rotten to the core our governing body is. But the encouraging news coming from afar and proclaimed in the written word of God is that the kingdoms of this world shall soom before him fall. The timing of this fall is near at hand. I do belive that the USA could be the first strike. Like bowling pins the US of A is at the point of falling down and being pushed aside. Only those that have a will to resist and stand with unwavering faith in The Almighty will survive. My God have mercy on us as a nation and help us to look to you as a means of refuge.

  37. rae steinbrink

    July 29, 2011 at 7:41 AM

    I just wanted to let you know that I thought the Coast to Coast interview went well…you were very composed and quite clearly made your points.

  38. Paul Fisher

    July 29, 2011 at 12:46 PM

    I heard you on coast to coast am last night for the first time anywhere. Just happened to wake up and it was storming and I couldn’t go back sleep so I turned on the radio.

    It was a fascinating program! You did a great job of getting your point across. I’m so glad that there are radio prorams like that to get true information out to the people.

    Thank you for all you do and keep up the good work. You are a brave man. I salute you.

  39. Paul Rich

    July 29, 2011 at 5:45 PM

    You were great on C2C and I agree with you completely…You have another follower, and an ally when you need on in NC. PJR

  40. Donald B.

    July 29, 2011 at 6:34 PM

    To Alfred Adask
    In my mind, George Noory was as fair as anyone could possibly be & as expected You, Alfred did great!!! & if anyone thinks otherwise & I was Dennis Craig, I would tell him/her to kiss my ROYAL A… Of course Dennis would not say that because he is too kind, if that is possible.

  41. mike charette

    July 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM

    Really enjoyed your program on coast to coast, glad, I’m not the only one, keep up the good work.

  42. Michael Williams

    July 29, 2011 at 10:26 PM

    I was fascinated for what you said on Coast 2 Coast and very interested in learning more. Can you help me get educated – I really would like to learn more.

    • Adask

      July 29, 2011 at 10:43 PM

      I’ve been working at this for 28 years, and I, too, would “really like to get educated”. I’d really like to “learn more”. So I just keep reading.

      There is no one place to start. You start by reading something about a particular subject that interests you about the law. Maybe you’re interested in foreclosure. Maybe you’re interested in traffic law. Maybe divorce or child custody or income taxes are your personal interest. No matter what the subject, the reading will probably be tough–that’s one reason why you need to start with something you are personal interested in. Your personal interest will help you to push through when the reading seems un-endurably dull. Look for a “primer” on whatever subject you choose. Start with the simplest book you can find. It will teach you some general principles. The first book will lead to a second. The second to a third. If you stick with it, you’ll begin to “get it”. It may not happen quickly. (At least it didn’t for me. I read law for 17 years before it suddenly began to make sense to me.)

      One of the big surprises (for me, at least) was that the study of man’s law led me back to God and the Bible. It may be that half of what I know about “trusts,” I learned in the Bible. The Bible is probably the cornerstone for the secular law of the western world. If you could learn to read the Bible as a book of LAW as well as a book of history or spirituality, you might advance your education considerably.

      • Nancy Smith

        January 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM

        I heard You with Melody this morning , is the Just walk away divorce and common law marriage in print any where /?Important ! Have been listening a long time , and have bought from Mel .You do a Great job , Bob would be proud of you .

      • Adask

        January 30, 2013 at 10:00 PM

        I’m not sure what you mean by “Just walk away divorce”–but common law marriages have always been here. A common law marriage can be memorialized by a formal ceremony before a minister who is willing to marry you without a marriage license. Or, you can consummate a common law marriage by simply cohabiting with someone and taking his name. The common law marriage would probably not be “officially” recognized by this state, but this state would probably not have any jurisdiction over a possible “divorce” over a common law (unlicensed) marriage.

  43. joblessinusa

    August 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM

    The bible was written by Jews and edited by Catholics. Not much credibility there.

    Verily I say unto you: Think and do for yourself. Do what it right and good for your near relations.
    Then do good for others. Keep a gun handy….

  44. Hermes

    August 5, 2011 at 2:20 PM

    DOnt have time to write an email right now. You should check this link out, just posted Aug 1st…its LONG. Snippet…which is a little long. Might want to restate in you own words, repost or get a US version together. Of all the sovereign independents in the US, I think you tend to be viewed as a strong energy.

    The Great British Lawful Rebellion Has Begun!

    No more evidence is now needed. We know that British politics has been a lie now for some considerable time – whether Left or Right, Coalition or otherwise, the same criminal mindset has been dictating the direction and policies. We know that our ancient and historic rights and freedoms enshrined by Magna Carta 1215 are well and truly under attack by organised criminality. We know that when our birth is registered, a ‘legal fiction’ or ‘strawman’ is secretly created by the government in order to control us within this hidden and unlawful ‘corporate system’. We know that when we register our vehicle with the DVLA, the ‘ownership’ of that vehicle is taken off us and we become merely the ‘keeper’. We know that tax funded public institutions and offices, such as police constabularies and government departments, are listed as corporations by credit information agencies like Dun and Bradstreet. We know that Statute Rules passed by Parliament are practised unlawfully as ‘Laws’ by the corporate enforcement agencies. We know that police and magistrates are breaching their oaths of office in enforcing regulations that are repugnant to Common Law. We know that European-style Civil Law Administrative Courts are increasingly and unlawfully taking the place of Common Law Courts with juries. We know that judges and magistrates sitting in these Administrative Courts are unlawfully refusing to confirm whether or not they are there serving under their oath of office to uphold the Laws and Customs of our land (Common Law). And we also know that the Law Society itself is blatantly unlawful under Common Law – it is nothing more than a corporate entity designed to generate huge amounts of money at the expense of the weak and vulnerable…..or put another way, Common Law justice, that is affordable to all without fear or favour, is an alien concept to most of today’s corrupt and greedy corporate driven lawyers.

    There is some considerable doubt that Executive Order 11110 was ever rescinded and many believe it is still valid today.

  45. Taylor Bell

    August 9, 2011 at 4:03 PM

    hello ADASK Heard you on coast to coast am

    I know you can not give out legal advise- I will not ask you for legal advise- but I have a question that can not be found on all of thee search engines?

    I am filing a pro see civil rights law suit against the the state of California- have place the entire lawsuit on my web site- the judge has not ruled yet if he will hear the case, I getting emails that I can not do this? any comments?

    Taylor Bell

    • Adask

      August 9, 2011 at 4:21 PM


      First, my proper name is “Alfred Adask” (but I also sometimes use the alias “ADASK”).

      Second, your question is not clear to me. I think you’re asking if it OK to publish your entire lawsuit on the internet before you file it. I presume that’s OK–at least, legally. But I’m not sure why you’d want to publish first and file later. As a practical matter, I’m not sure that I’d want to “telegraph my punches” to my adversary before I filed the suit. More than likely, publishing your lawsuit before you file your lawsuit, would be harmless–but it’s remotely possible that such publication might be construed as making a public threat of some sort.

  46. joblessinusa

    August 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM

    I think it’s tragicomic how you people pull one foot out of a pile of s**t and THEN do a complete 360 degree spin and step right in the SAME pile of s**t. And get THIS: Gentiles have been doing this for over 6 thousand years!! Pharaoh. Torah. Bible. Scripture. The Word. Gospel. Priests. Royalty. Government. Law…
    What a hoot! Side splitting FUNNY!

    SAD that you are SO EASY to manipulate…It’s WHY you NEVER make much progress…

    • James4truth

      August 18, 2011 at 10:36 AM

      Please be more specific. What are you exactly referring to. I can only partially agree with you. Yes Christians and sinners alike make mistake. However as a Christian there is a period of time in his or her life when much caution should be taken into account and the time should stop in making simple and stupid mistakes. After all the” greater than Solomon ” that came to teach,(much of the same is in the Old Testament) and then finally died on the cross for you and me informed us that after a time of learning that we were to be children of the light. If you follow the blind leaders of this world both of them will fall in a ditch. In short the Bible is written by men who were annointed and guided by an all loving and judgemental God. I stop here and do explain a little more in detail what you are trying to relate.

    • backcountry

      August 19, 2011 at 10:27 PM

      So you are a jew. I will be glad to bruse my heel on your heed. You serpent, you sinagoge of satan.

  47. joblessinusa

    August 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM

    Get up right NOW and go to the nearest mirror. THAT’S who you are. THAT’S who you work for.

    THAT’S who you believe in. THAT’S who you help first….

    • Donald

      August 18, 2011 at 10:59 AM

      joblessinusa-Re: messageAugust 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM

      Are you an athiest or an agnostic? Gospel means good news. What’s wrong with that?

  48. Donald

    August 18, 2011 at 11:01 AM

    joblessinusa-Re:August 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM message

    Are you an athiest or an agnostic? Gospel means “good news”. What’s wrong with that?

  49. world record bench press

    August 29, 2011 at 11:15 PM

    I think other web site proprietors should take this website as an model, very clean and fantastic user friendly style and design, let alone the content. You are an expert in this topic!

  50. Celtics fan shop

    September 8, 2011 at 4:29 AM

    Nice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Very helpful info specially the last part :) I care for such information a lot. I was seeking this particular info for a long time. Thank you and good luck.

  51. Rajon Rondo shirts

    September 8, 2011 at 4:29 AM

    I think this is among the most vital info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The website style is perfect, the articles is really excellent : D. Good job, cheers

  52. Kurt Buehler

    September 14, 2011 at 12:12 AM

    Dear Alfred,

    I really love what you are uncovering. Your work is very important. You have discovered this thing about the elites using stealth to
    define man legally as just another “animal”.

    I don’t know if you have ever thought about this, but a short while ago I was reading the bible, and realized something that may also be important. In the court system
    we are made, by law, to swear an oath on the holy bible. Yet, God’s Word says right in the scriptures that we are not supposed to ever swear any oath! Especially one
    that uses God’s very name.

    Here is a random example of one of the Supreme Court oath rules:

    RULE 6.10 COURTROOM OATHS (North Dakota Supreme Court Rules N.D.R.Ct.)

    (3) To a Witness. “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.”

    As you can read, a witness must hold their hand on the bible, then swear an oath directly upon YHVH Himself. Yet, read here from YHVH’s own book of instruction He wrote for His children.
    Here are three scriptures that confirm YHVH does not want His children to swear any oaths:

    Exodus 20:7 (KJV):

    “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

    YHVH does not want us to ever use His Sacred name in vain, meaning in an empty way, or in a self serving manner. Yet we are told to do this in the courts.

    Matthew 5:34-37 (KJV):

    “But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

    Jesus Christ warned us about this again, telling us emphatically never to swear any oath by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or even by your own head. Most certainly we are not supposed to swear an oath by God!

    James 5:12 (KJV):

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

    James the apostle reminds us again never to swear “any” oath.

    Can it be any clearer that the courts are forcing people to commit a grievous sin against God? I think this goes hand-in-hand with the legal system reclassifying God’s Children as animals. It is my belief that the so-called “New World Order”
    is actually more precisely named, New Secular World Order. This is the true agenda behind it’s development. To take control of the world through financial and legal means, but with the real intention of stamping out true religion, true
    worship of YHVH. Making us break a commandment by swearing an oath on His bible may seem insignificant to some, but it’s a very powerful way to subvert us, and pervert God’s Law, and how diabolical that it’s happening inside
    every courtroom! The very court system itself was setup by YHVH and taught to Moses. It was meant to be a blessing to the people for resolving civil disputes.

    Many people listen to you, you have their ear. Maybe you can bring this pervasive abomination of God’s law to light.

    Yours truly,

    Kurt Buehler

  53. NaturalLawRemedy

    October 22, 2011 at 6:46 PM

    For the proper design of a monetary system capable of producing unbridled prosperity, see: Don’t skip Part 2 which has charts that show the difference between a debt-money and fiat-money system, the latter capable of producing unbridled prosperity.

    Here is book against tyranny based upon God’s law (natural law) …

    The LAWFUL Remedy to Tyranny:
    How You Lost Your Rights, and How You Can Get Them Back
    Richard Walbaum

    Summary Main Points:

    1) Our government was based upon a long tradition of natural law and the “presumption of liberty” in which all laws are tailored for minimal infringement upon liberties.
    2) In the 1930s, the Supreme Court changed the rules for reviewing legislation for constitutionality. Henceforth most legislation would be presumed to be constitutional and beyond review by the courts, destroying the presumption of liberty, allowing laws to be passed that infringed upon our liberties, changing our form of government.
    3) Our inalienable rights are God-given, beyond the reach of government, and this book describes lawful means for asserting those rights using the natural law tradition, whereby numerous authors over several thousand years asserted that all unreasonable or arbitrary laws we had a right and duty to disobey.

    For a complete summary, table of contents, and other information see

  54. James4truth

    October 31, 2011 at 6:39 AM

    Would someone give me direction on who to write where to go and get info on how to avoid the vaccines that our belove government is attempting to impose. This is the deal. I have a little one that I am supportin. Just as well as my son. Was told by some social nanny that vaccine shots for 11 years old would be administered next year. Want to do all I can to avoid this. Was also told that it was the same vaccine that was administered to the female population. To fight against the HIV. Could be wrong there on the type but do know that they the social group informed me on the shot to be ministered next year. That is 2012. I do not know what is coming out the end of the needle. Someone respond.

  55. Rob Illman

    November 4, 2011 at 8:08 AM

    i am Robert Hillman I believe that jesus is god i raised four children alone in poverty
    the churches and the people dont give a dam
    no one cared we lived in the same place for 21 years and now soon will be homeless
    cause we cant pay our rent i already lost one daughter to a cult

    the leaders are EVIL obama and bush GIVE ME A BREAK skull and bones SECRET SATANIC SOCIETY liars and murderers when will the people wake up ??????
    this world is sick THIS WORLD DOESNT CARE
    so called christians make me sick they say the LOVE JESUS but dont love their neighbour
    GIVE ME A BREAK I LIKE everything ADASK says but does he put any of it into action

    I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE DAM CHRISTIANS ARE that care that give a shit
    that help THAT GIVE LOVE MONEY TIME that are obeying the scriptures that no one likes

    I am Robert and my three children live with me and NO ONE GIVES A SHIT
    Robert Hillman
    R R # 2 Monkton Ontario

  56. tv a led

    November 15, 2011 at 8:43 AM

    I like the valuable information you supply to your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and take a look at again here regularly. I am rather certain I’ll be informed lots of new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the next!

  57. Nicklas Arthur

    January 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM

    Tue your guest referenced the SS letter you posted, which I cannot find – link please?

  58. ben fribley

    February 18, 2012 at 2:26 PM

    Dec. 13/2011 , you had a David McDow on your program, where can I get in touch with him. you were going to put his documents on your blog. what happened. Or, will you? ………thanks, Ben

  59. dracula

    April 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM




  60. Stephen

    May 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

    Disabled combat vet jailed on memorial day for allegedly not making a complete stop at a stop sign.

    This happen in Farmers branch ,TX

    The officer started to follow me as I was riding my motorcycle.
    I went to a friends house who I have known for nearly 26yrs.

    As I was knocking on my friends door the police officer drove by his house 2 more times.

    I then knew I had a problem.

    As I left my friends how due to the fact that he was not home, I came to the stop sign near my friends house knowing that the officer was watching and waiting for me.

    I turned right and saw the officer parked on a side street and the officer pulled me over right away.

    He began interrogating me asking why I was in the area, he began telling me how strange I was acting to go to someones house unannounced, he then told me to put my hands on my head and that I was under arrest for not making a complete stop and for making a wide turn.

    I never once argued with the officer and the entire time I was very respectful towards him.

    He took me to jail and had my motorcycle impounded.

    I have written the same message to the mayor of Farmers Branch and he even said that was not normal and that he would have someone contact me for a explanation.

    I feel that my civil right were violated and that from the start I never had a chance.

    Please consider working with me to get this resolved.

    Stephen Michael Roberts
    469 222 5942

    • Adask

      May 30, 2012 at 2:45 PM

      I already work 60 hours a week, and I need to work 80 hours a week to keep up, but I don’t have the energy to do so. My dance card is filled. I will not be able to assist.

    • NaturalLawRemedy

      May 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

      Assuming you told the whole story, the arrest appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and unjust. I would consider 18 USC 242, which states that any person who under color of law violates another’s rights, the violator is subject to a 1 year jail term and an unspecified fine. I would like to see the police report.

  61. Southern_Grey

    May 30, 2012 at 11:41 PM

    Since God was speaking to both Satan and Eve, I think He was putting us in notice that there are amongst us sons of Satan, one that have that claim as a matter of birth. If that’s the case, and I really believe it to be the situation, what else might we extrapolate?

    I read a book sometime back. The title was “Political Ponerology”. In it the author discusses psychopathic behavior and alludes to the fact that some of history’s most evil characters may have not had a soul, which may or may not correspond to Christ’s treatment of the Pharisees when He asked them how they were going to escape Hell knowing all the while that they were irredeemable.

    If you can find just the preface for the book above, it is worthy of your time to read it.

    I look forward to your comments.

    • Adask

      May 31, 2012 at 2:10 AM

      It may well be that this earth is populated by both the sons of God and the sons of Satan. But how are we to tell for sure, who’s who? More, it’s not only extremely difficult for me to know if someone else is a son of God or a son of Satan, it’s also difficult for me to be absolutely certain which classification I fall into. I guarantee that I have been a sinner for the past fifty years. Does my inclination to commit sins constitute proof that I’m a son of Satan? Or does my determination to stop sinning constitute proof that I’m a son of God?

      In the midst of my questions, I will nevertheless claim that I am a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights in the absolute confidence that no earthly man can disprove my claim.

      • Southern_Grey

        May 31, 2012 at 6:15 AM

        Ahhh, but we are told to judge by their fruits. It is one thing to be a sinner and another entirely to be irredeemable, which, in my view, includes those among us that lack a soul. As in the case of the Pharisees, which Christ so recognized, He would have asked them to seek salvation not let them know that He knew they were already members of the damned.

  62. Adask

    May 31, 2012 at 8:41 AM

    I think another way to tell may be by people’s attitudes and personalities. For example, those are arrogant, haughty, overly self-confident, and without humility might fit into the classification of “sons of Satan”. If I recall the Bible correctly, I’m pretty sure that the Christ warned against those who were haughty and extolled the virtues of those who were humble.

    • Allen Elman

      January 23, 2018 at 7:12 AM

      Yes! I like The HUMBLE Yeshua aka “Jesus” who said what He did in Matthew 23 verses 13 through 29. AND I love Humble John especially because of what He said in Matthew 3:7;Luke 3:7-8, AND I like HUMBLE Apostle Paul when He said what He did in Acts 23: 3. I have the highest regard & utmost respect for alll tippy toe through the Tulips CHRISTIANS!!!

  63. jaiseli

    June 4, 2012 at 9:11 PM

    yo, Al
    truely yeomans effort you provide.
    may AYEC – almighty yahweh Elohim Creator – (“godog” to the unaware/unwashed) bless you and yours in your continuing efforts to extoll the TRUTH that is LOVE and vice-versa in this “quickening”

  64. TheEvidentSpirit

    July 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    I was researching the various states BAR ASSOCIATION web cites and they all contain the same info. concerning the “not practicing law” without license spiel. Then I also checked out the corresponding “statues” that went along with it.

    My question is thus; how is one even able to “plead” without obtaining a license to practice law. When in Fact to enter court and speaking any words in that state can only exist within that legal framework of “law”. That is probably why they have another, paid for lawyer, ready to “stand” in for ya.

    • Adask

      July 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM

      Good question. I might be able to answer it in just a few thousand words. My answer would involve venue and licensing and whether the names “Darrow Chope” and “DARROW CHOPE” signify the same man. However, I don’t have time to pen several thousand words, so here’s the cliffnotes version:

      AS I understand the term, “practicing law” means giving legal advice to or representing another person. If you are only “pleading” for yourself (“Darrow Chope”) and not for some other person like “DARROW CHOPE,” no license is required.

      More, so far as I can tell, the license to practice law is only issued “in this state” (TX, for example) and not within The State (The State of Texas, The State of Nebraska, etc.). If you can establish that your and the court’s venue is within “The State,” it’s possible that no license may be required under any circumstances–even if you are giving legal advice and/or representing another man or woman.


        July 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM

        You are very near marc stevens from I believe they are live in the geographical land area known as Arizona. Have you ever read his information? He also wrote a book “adventures in legal land”. Also concerning your theory of “man or other animal”, have you found where they “the party using the terms/ words” define both of those words to get the exact meaning they intended? or have they defined it else where or not at all.

      • Adask

        July 12, 2012 at 1:51 PM

        I know about Marc Stevens.

        As for “man or other animals,” the phrase “man or other animals” is the DEFINITION whereby they define “man” to be an “animal”.

        I rely on the definition found at Genesis 1:26-28 and I have the First Amendment’s “freedom of religion” to ensure that my definition (actually, God’s) trumps the government’s “man or other animals” definition.

        If you have more comments, don’t attach them to the “Contact” page. Attach them to whatever article you’re reading. Nobody reads the “Contact” comments. They get little or no benefit from you comments or my replies if they’re posted under “Contact”.

  65. HopsScotch

    July 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

    Very interesting

  66. sean thompkins

    August 31, 2012 at 11:22 PM

    Sean Thompkins will like a follow up

    • Don

      September 1, 2012 at 8:25 AM

      Sean, I ain’t C N what you mean,Sean. Follow up to what ??

  67. Darshana Natarajan

    September 11, 2012 at 4:39 PM

    Oh rapture yes. This is the one reason I was born.
    To find you, my long lost blogging soul-mate.

  68. Richard

    September 21, 2012 at 11:35 PM

    Inquiring minds want to know, and yes we do read the comments on the contact page.

    Thanks for the wonderful work you are doing Alfred Adask. Keep the thought provoking articles coming. My you be blessed with health, strength, and longevity.

    After a long break from law and legal studies, I am back in the saddle. This is a great forum for those of us attempting to put the psycopaths out of business once and for all. Here is to sheding the light of truth on the cockroaches that comprise the legal system.

  69. Scott

    September 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

    Hi Al – I heard you on the shortwave show relay that story about the woman in Texas who shot the mugger and was aquitted of manslaughter etc.. I repeated it to a couple people but I just tried to find documentation of it but turns out it’s a made up legend, too bad it didn’t really happen
    See Snopes on it-

    Speaking of those of us in the ‘Patriot’ etc. community believing internet stories and such that are not really true, I emailed David Dees who does those great computer-made illustrations about the ‘Drone Mosquito’ illustration being a mock-up like the kind he does and that he should label it as if it’s real. He apologized saying he’s taking it down Some like Rense and a Gold & Silver site I see fell for it–>
    (some still believe that an implantable biochip can be monitored by satelites in space!)

  70. Scott

    September 22, 2012 at 5:22 PM

    meant to say that he shouldn’t have labeled it as if real

  71. Strawman

    October 8, 2012 at 5:18 AM

    Mr. Adask, I am so glad to have found this website. I used to be a subscriber to the ‘Anti-Shyster’ magazine in the 1990’s and lost all of my archived magazines in a house fire in 2005. Do you have or sell any of the those magazines? Thank you so much for all you have done over the years and it is really good to ‘see’ you again.

    • Adask

      October 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM

      Hi Strawman. Long time, no see, hmm? I have no physical copies of the magazines for sale or gift, etc. Some of the magazines are available at the “Books” page on this blog (try,

      • Strawman

        October 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM

        Yes, I looked at those but thought there were some from earlier. May be faulty memory. Alas. Enjoying the reading and did anyone ever collect the ten thou? lol.

  72. Carol Board

    January 14, 2013 at 5:14 PM

    I’m not an animal or object…

  73. TheEvidentSpirit

    February 17, 2013 at 6:58 PM

    Good Sir …

    Very interesting …

    I am not within or without the “state, STATE” … etc but I am on the state

  74. clifford

    March 2, 2013 at 10:08 AM

    i was talking to my lawyer about a man not animal defense and he said he never heard of it is there a way you can send me something that can help me form my own defense i rely need help there trying to send me to prison for something another man was doing pleas help

    • Adask

      March 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      I have published the paperwork I used in my own case on this blog at Why do you waste my time asking me to provide something that’s already on my blog. If you are so lazy or ignorant that you’re waiting for someone to save you, you are unlikely to avoid incarceration. I’ve published over 20 articles on “man or other animals”. If you think that line of defense may be helpful, you’d be wise to make the personal effort to find them all on my blog and read them.

  75. george mason

    May 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

    You only have rights of freedom under Common Law which is actually the supreme law of the land. UCC is not law however this is what they utilize to suppress and enslave you. Read what George Mason (the father of the Bill of Rights) wrote to George Washington as to why he refused to sign the U.S. Constitution. This is the KEY to your freedom!!! “Believe it or Not” however its 100% verifiably true, vet it yourself.

  76. Margaret

    May 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    For lots of circumstantial reasons, it really looks to me like our military has been privately incorporated! Do you have any information on this?

    • Adask

      May 29, 2013 at 1:47 PM

      Nope. It may be that some branches are incorporated (the Air Force is new enough that incorporation is likely) while other branches (the Navy?) are so old as to still be something other than private corporations.

  77. Shane

    June 2, 2013 at 9:47 PM

    I’ve read some of your stuff, still trying to get my head around some of the other stuff, but I found this today and I thought you might find parts interesting.

  78. GrumpyT (@grumpytees)

    August 5, 2013 at 4:28 AM

    I have been searching for a case that was filed in the World Court some years ago by a group of Texans who wanted to withdraw from the United States and re-form The Republic of Texas. As I remember, there were arrest warrants issued and the were on some sort of ranch. I do not remember what offense they were charged with but there was a lot of interest in this case back when it hit the sewer stream media. Pictures that looked like a mini Waco or Ruby Ridge.
    Do you remember this and could you direct me as to how to find information on this case?

    • Adask

      August 5, 2013 at 4:46 AM

      Sorry, I have no recollection of the case you mentioned or any contact info.

  79. dana alfreds

    November 20, 2013 at 2:51 PM

    NOV. 20TH, 2013

  80. Adask

    November 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM

    There are no fees associated with this blog. Nor are there any guarantees that anyone will respond to you comments.

  81. Thomas Anderson

    January 6, 2014 at 9:35 PM

    Alfred, Your essay on the Federal v. National is pretty good, minus some spelling errors. But the thing that gets my goat (as the saying goes) If you had done your homework on other issues instead of conjecturing, you might have come out a little better. For instance… if you were to read Balboa and some of his ilk, you would have known that the African has been traveling, back and forth between Africa and the north american continent as far back as the 18th dynasty of the Egyptians. Balboa and Christibal Columbus’ son told who they meet on the south american continent and the North american continent. Furthermore if you just read, you’d find out that there were Africans on those ships of Columbus. Those Africans were the navigators for Columbus! If those Africans weren’t on those ships, Columbus would still be out in the middle of nowhere! Read these two guys, you might learn something! 2)A nigger is a destructive thing, and there is no more destructive people then whites! Ever since you europeans came out of the caves, you’ve been on a worldwide destructive bent! Read your peoples history. You know your history in the world, so I doubt that I even have to express that! 3) The Civil War was fought because the North was broke! And the banks were killing them, as far as interest rates are concerned. If you study You would know that, the north could no longer sell it’s products! They were over producing! Where as the South could sell it’s raw materials anywhere in the world! The South through slavery had no real overhead! It paid maybe 300.00 dollars a slave and the north couldn’t compete with that! It had to pay it’s workers WAGES, the south didn’t! The North told the South that, it had to stop enslaving Africans because it the North could no longer compete, under a capitalistic society. The South told the North to go get fkd! That’s what started the Civil War. It irks me to no end when someone does a scholarly essay, and goes off on a tangent not knowing what they are talking about. Please stick to the subjects your good at!!!!!

    • Adask

      January 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM

      First, I’m not a scholar. I attended college for a year and a half and failed to complete about half the courses I attended. Therefore, I do not write or claim to write scholarly articles.

      Second, before I started writing, my background was 25 years construction work as a ditch digger, truck driver, heavy equipment operator, miner, plumber and roofer. So, I don’ spell so gud.

      Third, you admit that whichever article you’re criticizing was conjectural. What do you expect from personal conjecture from a ditch-digger–God’s absolute truth?

      So, sorry I couldn’t live up to your high standards.

      (Perhaps you’d be better off reading the New York Times?)

      Finally, where is your book, blog, website, whatever, where you have written scholarly, properly-spelled articles about whatever “subjects your [sic] good at!!!!!”

    • Klink

      March 18, 2014 at 9:25 PM

      Thomas Anderson,
      The U.S. Civil War was instead fought as war of federal aggression. The slaves were owned by select few, including the federalist in DC! Washington, Jefferson, Franklin-all owned slaves; the MaryLand Carroll family too.
      Also this notion white europeans have any history of violence overlooks the holy roman empire of which Columbus and Spain were representing. There were TWO colonists in the Americas: Spain’s Catholics, and British Protestants. So we will need to be much more specific when writing about genocide & wars. The Africans on Columbus’ ships were slaves brought to all the north, central and south Americas.

  82. Klink

    March 18, 2014 at 9:12 PM

    MH370 was shot down by China over western China being hijacked by the Islamist pilot recruited by the Chinese al Qaeda linked separatist East Turkestan Movement. They have been demanding the region break from China and active in attacks on China. China then manufactured the sea debris to cover for the shoot down. Possibly the plane landed but looks like a shoot down until proven otherwise.
    China’s leader Xi is set to meet in Europe Monday. I suspect after that meeting they may announce who shot the plane down – China.

  83. radiopatriot20commentator

    April 19, 2014 at 4:33 PM

    A new book on 9/11 is out. The author knew the Mossad agent who organised the events of that day.

    Dimitri Khalezov has spent 10 years researching and writing this book. Download links:

    Or read at:

    In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can’t build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center’s demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

    Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

    Note: underground nuclear explosions do not produce mushroom clouds. This is only ever seen when the explosion takes place above ground. On 9/11, the explosions were deep underground.

    More info:

    You can watch the 2010 interview at:
    Video # 4 – WTC’s demolition plan
    Video # 14 – WTC 7 (which fell ½ hour AFTER the BBC announced its collapse).
    Videos # 24/25 – chronic radiation sickness of WTC responders (their cancers are not due to asbestos poisoning)

    Khalezov was interviewed on 4 Sept 2013:

    Here is a recent article mentioning Khalezov:

    An improved English version of Khalezov’s 2010 article for Nexus Magazine (German edition):

    I know it is preposterous to claim that the WTC was brought down by nukes. But note that the place where the WTC once stood is called ‘Ground Zero’. If you look up the meaning of ‘ground zero’ in the old dictionaries you have at home, you’ll find that there would only be one definition. It is what you call a place that has been nuked.

    After 9/11, the US government sent people out to switch all the dictionaries in the public domain. The replacements differed only in the meaning of ‘ground zero’. They show extra definitions for that term, to obfuscate the original single meaning.

    For example, if you have a genuine old Merriam-Webster dictionary, you would see this:
    ground zero n (1946) : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

    The replacement books (even of old editions) show two extra definitions and this is what you’ll see:
    ground zero n (1946) 1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs. 2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change 3: the very beginning : SQUARE ONE

    Have a look at this video:

    At 6:05 mins, he shows the old and new definitions of ‘ground zero’.

  84. Antisheisser

    May 6, 2014 at 7:20 PM

    Three decades of being amazed at the lack of understanding of people for the origins of the war between the united States in the 1860’s, watching folk show their disagreeable nature via what appears to be a democratic mob mentality, trying to make sense of such creatures, but alas… I’ve ceased my amazement, realizing at last that decreasing numbers of people take an interest in reading and actually learning, thinking, while being among the first to spout fictitious factoids as if they were there firsthand. The entire affair is detailed in John Logan’s book published 1886 AH Hart in NYC, entitled “The Great Conspiracy”. Sorry I can’t sum up 3 inches of print in a posting, but suffice it to say the issues went back at least 30 years prior. If you want a shortcut, lookup “the Crittendon amendment”, what it was, why it was shot down, who shot it down, etc., then you have a real piece of the puzzle. There’s a college in Illinois named after John A. Logan, whatever that’s worth to ya

  85. EarlatOregon

    May 6, 2014 at 7:35 PM

    The Great Conspiracy,(1886)
    by John Alexander Logan

    Free here:

    The Great Conspiracy, Complete [Kindle Edition]
    John Alexander Logan

  86. OMCC

    September 28, 2014 at 12:43 AM

    What ever happened to the Public Lands being held in Trust by the Gov’t FOR the People?

  87. pop de adam

    December 13, 2014 at 11:27 PM

  88. Dan Glash

    February 27, 2015 at 8:20 PM

    Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King
    George III’s government forced upon them, in common declared
    their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected
    to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had
    backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers
    wanted a rigid, written Constitution “set in concrete.” They
    were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which
    consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and
    understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the
    principle of English common law, that an act done by any official
    person or law-making body beyond his or its legal competence was
    simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to
    base their union on substance (gold and silver) — real money.
    They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were
    mortgaged to the hilt — lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the
    people, everything — to certain wealthy men who controlled the
    banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not
    loan gold and silver!

    The United States of America was made up of a union of what is
    now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative,
    executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of
    America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United
    States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and its
    laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law.

    Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole
    was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league
    with the international bankers. They realized that a separate
    nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This “United States” is a
    Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is
    known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited
    rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of
    Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands,
    Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by
    way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized citizens).

    Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both
    nations. One “United States,” the Republic of fifty States, has
    the “stars and stripes” as its flag, but without any fringe on
    it. The Federal United States’ flag is the stars and stripes
    with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations
    of the States of the Continental United States are, with or
    without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The
    abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal
    United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA,
    etc. (without any periods).

    Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the
    Continental United States provides for legal cases (1) at Law,
    (2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty:

    (1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right
    to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the
    organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is
    the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to
    do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful
    right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties;
    to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign
    over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force
    against the person, liberty, or property of another
    individual, then the common force — for the same reason
    — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty,
    or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do
    anything you want to, as long as you don’t infringe upon the
    life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not
    compel performance. Today’s so-called laws (ordinances,
    statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are
    often erroneously perceived as law, but just because
    something is called a “law” does not necessarily make it a
    law. [There is a difference between “legal” and “lawful.”
    Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be

    (2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any
    contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in
    a particular situation. The term “equity” denotes the
    spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing
    which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You
    have no rights other than what is specified in your
    contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.

    (3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty,
    a civil contract with a criminal penalty.

    By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity
    actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal,
    equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was
    bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international
    bankers) who now owned everything — the Congress, the
    Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and
    executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was
    mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being
    sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through
    the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with
    limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with
    gold or silver coin.

    The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where
    we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from
    this system.

    Our Present Commercial System of “Law”
    and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection

    The present commercial system of “law” has replaced the old and
    familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The
    following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns
    over government to subjects under government, through the use of
    negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our
    debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at
    common law with gold or silver coin.

    The change in our system of law from public law to private
    commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United
    States in the Erie Railroad v. Thompkins case of 1938, after
    which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were
    officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938,
    all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law —
    or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional
    limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are
    based upon what is termed public policy.

    Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the
    Negotiable Instrument’s Law, which is a branch of the
    international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is
    now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was
    made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of
    the Congress of the United States (which “United States” has its
    origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as
    distinguished from the “United States,” which is the Union of the
    fifty States).

    In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes)
    which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for
    education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound
    all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the
    Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental
    United States). The fifty States accepted the “benefits” offered
    by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial
    agreement between the Federal United States and each of the
    corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to
    obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume
    their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States
    to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The
    credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants,
    was predicated upon equitable paper.

    This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of
    government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and
    is what has altered our court system from one under the Common
    Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of
    commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held
    to the letter of every statute of government on the federal,
    state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the
    REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law
    whereby, when forced to use a so-called “benefit” offered, or
    available, to them, from government, they may reserve their
    former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be
    bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not
    enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

    This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and
    municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative
    Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
    Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to
    distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin
    was in the Union of the Sovereign States.

    The same national Congress rules the Continental United States
    pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it
    enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it
    legislates for the Federal United States.

    With the above information, we may ask: “How did we, the free
    Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed
    unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable
    debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become
    subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our
    Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the
    Continental United States?” We do not reside, work, or have
    income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of
    the Federal United States. These are questions that have
    troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack
    of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is
    the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth
    concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will
    restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the
    Republic. The answer follows:

    Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each
    other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States.
    One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution,
    termed in this article the Continental United States. The other
    is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I,
    Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal
    United States. Very few people, when they see some “law” passed
    by Congress, ask themselves, “Which nation was Congress working
    for when it passed this or that so-called law?” Or, few ask,
    “Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of
    the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents
    of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or
    territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?”

    Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed
    citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for
    “cunning” political leadership to seek more power and authority
    over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of
    “legalese.” Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide
    a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in
    harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an
    abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative
    Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations.
    Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a
    tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its
    emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and
    silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic,
    and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative
    Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental
    United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.

    At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the
    two nations the “benefit” of limited liability in the discharge
    of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver
    coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. The
    citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no loner
    needed to pay their debts, that they were now “privileged” to
    discharge debt with this more “convenient” currency, issued by
    the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to
    “go modern,” and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture.
    The entire news media complex went along with the scam and
    declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer
    referring to America as a Republic.

    From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of
    1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal
    Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a
    created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance
    of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing
    negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and
    other forms of paperwork credit instruments.

    Since all contracts since Roosevelt’s time have the colorable
    consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine
    consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are
    colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to
    Black’s Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means “That which is in
    appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be,
    hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth.”]

    Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory
    jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon
    the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial
    agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction,
    which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This
    jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent,
    rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of
    contracts under the Common Law.

    All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-
    called “statutes” of legislative bodies being enforced in these
    Legislative Tribunals are not “statutes” passed by the
    legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as
    “commercial obligations” to the Federal United States for anyone
    in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States
    who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States
    and who has accepted the “benefit,” or “privilege,” of
    discharging his debts with the limited liability “benefit”
    offered to him by the Federal United States … EXCEPT those who
    availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of
    law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform
    Commercial Code at Section 207.

    When used in conjunction with one’s signature, a stamp stating
    “Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207” is sufficient to indicate to the
    magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called
    “courts”) that the signer of the document has reserved his Common
    Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial
    obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter
    knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case
    in any Common Law contract.

    Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being
    enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement,
    must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of
    America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does
    not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed
    enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law.
    He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his
    unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the
    Republic, while those about him “curse the darkness” of
    Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free
    themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States,
    even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.

  89. timmy

    March 7, 2015 at 9:59 AM

    Some interesting ideas there Dan. I do like the way your clearly summarize and present. Any chance of your strategy working in the real world of courts/jails/guns/bureaucrats?

    If not, than of what use or good is it?

  90. Mop

    May 29, 2015 at 12:37 AM

    Dear Mr. Adask,
    I hope you are well and smiling. I’m leaving this message in hopes of learning more about what ever I can learn of our “rights” as “free”, I mean truly free persons. I am new to this research and it only took me about 2 weeks to find you and your site. I am very glad I did. There is so much information here that is helpful and I have learned so much. My interests are with becoming sovereign and living free of our current tyrannical government. I have never been one to take advantage of the programs they offer, and have been a hard working and honest man all of my adult life. This journey that i recently started is for my son and I, but I am teaching my young son the importance of helping others as well, which I will continue to do until I am only a memory. I have read many of the articles on your site, as well as comments from others, and it is so overwhelming sometimes, making sense of everything while also realizing who I am. I guess a good question would be, how does one get this ball rolling down the path of sovereignty the right way? I just answered my own question. Through lots of research and soul searching. Right? I understand if you are not able to give advice on this and I am more than willing to find my own way, but, the next and most profound thought that immediately comes to mind is, who can an honest person like me trust on this subject? In closing, I would like to thank you for what you have done already for me by just being a voice of hope. For the right reasons. Thanks for your time. Mop.

  91. Jody

    June 23, 2015 at 6:36 PM

    There is a group taking back America through the courts ,Picking up on what people like Alfred started decades ago . I highly recommend viewing this video , then joining NLA . Jody

    • Paul H Bjarnason Jr

      February 24, 2018 at 7:45 AM

      Jody – I attempted to view the referenced video but YouTube says the account has been terminated. Is there another source for this video? Thanks. Bj

  92. hughareyou

    June 30, 2015 at 5:26 AM

    Come on by and say hi !

    You can’t say L I a R S without I R S !
    I hope this research will be useful
    Former attendee of Al’s meetings in Dallas
    Questioning the I.R.S. and Congress

  93. harrytapp

    August 30, 2015 at 5:45 PM

    Let me know what you think about this. Is it true?…

  94. Adask

    August 30, 2015 at 7:14 PM

    The document is well-done. It’s a substantial document and evidence of much effort. So far, I’ve read about 20% (50 pages) and I agree with much of it (especially fundamentals) but also disagree with many of the details.

    “Is it true?”

    To some degree, Yes. But, to some degree it is also mistaken–at least, in my opinion. I’m sure the authors would say much the same about me. None of us are perfect.

    The document paints a superficial picture of the problems we face today. That picture is roughly correct. But it also “leaps” to a number of subordinate conclusions that might be right, might be wrong, but aren’t supported with evidence so much as merely asserted.

    In the end, I doubt that anyone can describe all that’s wrong with our current political system in just 272 pages written in a large font and decorated with a multitude of cartoons. The document is an interesting “introduction” to the problem, but not a solution that’s likely to stand up in court.

    It’s a little like asking someone How can I get from Texas to Illinois? He answers, “Go north.”

    OK, that’s true, but it’s such a general statement that it doesn’t supply enough details to get me from Texas to Illinois.

    The text you supplied strikes me as a general statement that’s mostly true but still won’t, by itself, get me where I’m going.

  95. badintense

    September 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM

    i made a shortcut to a youtube radio video of Alfred explaining man or other animlal:

    i just realized something. since drugs and medical devices are only approved for animals, shouldn’t planned parenthood be charged with violating the law for using their drugs and medical devices on humans instead of animals during an abortion (tissue procurement)?

    • Adask

      September 2, 2015 at 10:39 PM

      There are a multitude of legal arguments and defenses that can be raised under the MOOA insight.

  96. badintense

    September 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM

    There is a reason why GMO cotton in tampons cause cervical cancer. GMO cotton is an estrogen mimicker. A tampon is classified as a “medical device”. so from their viewpoint, if a woman is dumb enough to stick up inside them a device only approved for an animal, well then of course it is going to cause cervical cancer.

    PA DHS took custody of my daughter on 8-5-15. They now know about my pa religious exemption to vaccines, and the caseworker is now aware of CDC synthetic-gene (IGT) technology to permanently change human DNA by stealth. i told her we have to constitutional right to stay human and not be apart of the trans-humanist movement.

    here is a link i made to the jon rappaport article:

  97. badintense

    September 3, 2015 at 3:29 PM

    facebook #corpram #corproamendment

    Corporation Protection Amendment –

    All laws concerning corporations are hereby repealed.

    Congress shall pass no law, the President shall issue no order, the Courts shall make no ruling, and the Sovereign States and their branches shall pass no law, issue an order, or make a ruling establishing corporations or recognize a free association of individuals as a legal person or recognize foreign corporations as legal persons or allowing a foreign corporation to purchase or operate any business or organization, save for the individual.

    A person shall only be an individual consisting of 100% Human deoxyribonucleic acid.

    It shall be unlawful for the United States of America, and wherein any state, county, city, township, parish, district, community, territory, or any other seat of government power or free association of individuals to incorporate.

  98. badintense

    September 5, 2015 at 5:10 PM

    I don’t have an SS number so am I subject to the UCC and Admiralty Law since the bankruptcy of 1933? I use the number of a legal person that is a different name from my birth certificate.

    • Adask

      September 5, 2015 at 6:54 PM

      I don’t know.

  99. badintense

    September 5, 2015 at 5:15 PM

    PA OCY is trying to take my daughter away. my estranged wife was hospitalized because of her bi-polar. they are trying to say that she refused treatment. but MOOA says she can refuse those. now since then she is on the lithium and is calm. so if she does not waive her rights under G-d and the constitution she is in violation of the law by taking them and the doctor in violation of the law for prescribing them to a non-animal. i am trying to think of ways to get the case dismissed and get my daughter back immediately before she disappears into the pedophile network.

  100. badintense

    September 5, 2015 at 5:19 PM

    don’t you find it interesting that MOOA is the sound a cow makes and the gov treats the people like animals. the last time alex jones had a moneybomb you were on talking about birthrights and esau and MOOA. i have not let this go since then.

    • Adask

      September 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM

      I’m always pleased to hear that someone else is exploring and attempting to apply the MOOA argument.

  101. badintense

    September 5, 2015 at 5:25 PM

    how about this: PA Juvenile Court is an illegal secret religious tribunal. my relatives could not come in. their lawyer would “pray the court” to their “Master”. that is religious. Master and Grandmaster is Freemasonry and is a religion. I will “ask the court” i will “demand the court” but never “pray the court”. my bible says i pray to the Father in the name of the Son, and since I believe them to be the same entity i can pray to the Son but never the court.

    • Adask

      September 5, 2015 at 7:01 PM

      That”s an interesting argument, but not likely to work once you’ve already appeared in that court. Once you appear in that court, you will almost certainly be subject to that court’s rules. Those rules will probably prohibit your argument or allow it to be ignored.

      The object, in my opionion, is to find a way to avoid going to that court (which is probably “administrative”) and instead demand your right to appear in a judicial court.

  102. Den Burhans

    September 9, 2015 at 10:45 PM

    Hi Mr. Adask,

    Love your blog and your story. First heard of you on Alex Jones years ago. Anyway, here’s some information you should be aware of as a christian brother. With your intellectual curiosity, I think you’ll find this quite interesting! Enjoy!



  103. ron vrooman

    October 23, 2015 at 4:04 PM

    I’m reaching out to Thomas Thornhill just found out about him today. First time I heard about adask also. Arnie is pissed at me, so I can’t ask him. I thought there may be a connection with Bill Thornton.

    We have some major issues in Oregon. Who would have thought that? I woke up 14 months ago. Went to jail Dec1 2014, took 165 days to find me not guilty of trespass with a firearm. When I was arrested on order of the Beaverton School District, I had not personal affronts to my constitutional rights. I now have 19 and I am fighting each one and every challenge to my constitutional rights I respond to with vigor. I accept all challenges.

    Damn this rabbit hole is deep.

    • Adask

      October 23, 2015 at 4:17 PM

      You’ll have to find Bill Thornton on your own. I have no contact info.

      You’re right when you describe the legal “hole” you’re facing as “deep”. But what makes you think this hole was dug by anything as benign as a “rabbit”? This is a “snake hole” or maybe a “comodo dragon hole” or a hole dug by something even more malicious.

      Welcome to the real world.

  104. Shera

    July 8, 2016 at 8:46 AM

    I love it, and thank you! And thank you! Now do you have any suggestions on an approach to the Post Office Manager who has refused to honor my change of address card stating she’s never heard of:
    1. Zip code exempt
    2. Domestic Mail Service Regulations
    3. Postal Reorganization Act
    and she only goes by the post offices manual.

  105. Sherah

    July 8, 2016 at 1:10 PM

    Why do you use a/k/a instead of dba?

    • Adask

      July 9, 2016 at 2:38 AM

      If I do “dba,” I admit that the business in the “dba” is an entity that is not me and is something other than me.

      I suspect that that entity is a fiction that, in itself, has no God-given, unalienable Rights. Insofar as I act in a capacity (as the “business”) that has no unalienable Rights, I have almost no significant defenses against government regulation, harassment or even prosecution.

      Because it has no meaninful rights, I suspect that that fiction/business is easily charged and convicted for various crimes. If I can be tricked or presumed into not only “dba” as a fiduciary for that fictional business-entity, but also tricked or presumed to act as surety for that fictional business-entity, once the government charges and convicts the “entity,” it may be able to hold me personally liable for the entity’s alleged offenses.

      Thus, by means of agreeing to and/or being presumed to act as fiduciary, and then as surety, for a fiction, I effectively waive my God-given, unalienable Rights and am easily convicted, taxed, fined, or even imprisoned.

      However, I suspect that that if I expressly use “a/k/a” (“also known as”) rather than “dba,” I am declaring that there is no separation between myself (“Alfred Adask”) and “ALFRED N ADASK” (or, say, AL’s PLUMBING SERVICE”). By claiming that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias for “Alfred Adask,” I challenge and perhaps defeat the government’s hypothetical presumption that the “entity” named “ALFRED N ADASK” has an existence that’s separate from my own and is inferior to me in that “it” has no God-given, unalienable Rights that the government is obligated to recognize.

      By claiming “a/k/a” (alias) I’m implicitly declaring that, like the proper name “Alfred Adask,” the “improper” name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies me, the living me that’s been endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the Declaration of Independence). When I use the “a/k/a” alias, I’m essentially saying that I do not represent any other entity as its fiduciary, agent or surety. I’m saying that no matter what name or description the government might associate with me, the government is at all times confronting a “man made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:26-28) who is “endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the Declaration of Independence).

      That’s all I hope to achieve: recognition that I’m a living man endowed with God-given, unalienable Rights. If I succeed in that objective, I do not imagine that I have created a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. I do not imagine that I am guaranteed to win every battle with the government. I don’t even imagine that I can reliably defeat a traffic ticket for driving without a fastened seat belt.

      What I do imagine and believe is that, in the status of man who is made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, I have a chance to win. In that capacity, I am good to go. In that capacity, I believe I can give the government a run for its money.

      If push comes to shove, once I raise the “alias” defense, the government has two choices:

      1) They must admit on the record that “ALFRED N ADASK” is some sort of entity or capacity other than that of a man made in God’s image who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights–and–despite my protestations to the contrary, I (“Adask”) have actually acted as fiduciary and surety for that inferior entity (“ADASK”) and can therefore be “legally” held liable for the offenses allegedly committed by the inferior entity “ADASK”. But they have to make that admission on the record. If they make that admission on the record, ordinary people who might otherwise dismiss my Adask-vs-ADASK hypothesis as nonsensical and dismiss me as an idiot or crackpot, will have reason to believe that maybe I’m not an idiot and maybe, just maybe, the “Adask-vs-ADASK” hypothesis is valid. If that result actually occurred, the whole, damned system would collapse. If I’m right, the gov-co can’t admit it expressly or implicitly on the public record.

      2) Rather than admitting that my hypothesis is correct (as per #1, supra), the gov-co could expressly declare that “Al, you really are an idiot and your hypothesis is absurd.” I’d take no offense. I would not mind (in fact, I’d be delighted) if someone could show me proof that my hypothesis is wrong. I wouldn’t even mind if the gov-co didn’t offer any proof, but simply declared that all this a/k/a and dba stuff was stupid and “ADASK” was just some stylistic device habitually used by government that, otherwise, has no legal significance. Great! That would mean that regardless of whether the gov-co called me “Adask,” “ADASK” or “Butch,” the government would have to recognize me as acting in the capacity of a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. That’s all I’m looking for. That’s all I want.

      From my perspective, the previous two choices amount to “heads-I-win; tails-you (government)-lose.”

      So long as gov-co is obligated to recognize me in the capacity of a man made in God’s image who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, I will gladly fight the gov-co in any judicial court that suits them. I will gladly meet and even fight them because, in my estimation, if they’ll recognize me in the capacity I’m claiming, it’ll be a fair fight. I have a legitimate chance to win.

      But I might still lose. I might be fined. I might be imprisoned. But that’s the way the world is.

      I’m not arguing that my preference for declaring “ADASK” to be an alias (rather than a dba) for the man whose proper name is “Adask” will guarantee that I (or anyone else who tries to emulate the strategy) will live happily ever after. I’m just saying that maybe this strategy can be useful, and if you study it a little and agree with my analysis, you might also want to try it. Or maybe not. It’s up to you.

      A key to this strategy is Texas law that specifies what teachers are obligated to teach to students each year. At some point (1st grade? 2nd?) teacher must teach children the difference between common nouns and proper nouns. If I write the word “spot,” that’s a common noun that can signify a “spot” or stain on your clothing. If I write the word “Spot” (which is capitalized), that’s a proper noun–a proper name of a dog, maybe a man, or perhaps even a saloon. (“Let’s go to the Spot and have a couple of beers.”)

      The problem is that, while Texas law mandates that teachers teach children how to distinguish between common nouns (“spot”) and proper nouns (“Spot”), there’s nothing in the Texas curriculum law to tell kids (or adults) what is meant or signified by the all-upper-case term “SPOT”. So what is it? Common noun, proper noun–or something else entirely?

      Given that Texas curriculum law does not teach the significance (if any) of all-upper-case words like “SPOT” or even “ALFRED N ADASK,” we are each left to guess or presume the significance of the all-upper-case format. I might presume that the all-upper-case name “ALFRED N ADASK” is nothing more than an odd format that serves as alias for the capitalized, proper name “Alfred Adask” (which format is mandated by law to be taught to Texas children). But a judge might silently presume that the all-upper-case format for names like “SPOT” and “ALFRED N ADASK” is not being used as an alias for proper names “Spot” and “Alfred Adask”. Instead, the judge might silently presume that the all-upper-case format actually signifies a legal fiction, an estate, maybe a deceased entity, a bankrupt individual or even a U.S. person subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

      However, once I expressly declare or otherwise introduce into evidence on the record that I understand the use of “ADASK” as nothing more than an alias for the proper name “Adask,” if the judge or prosecution wants to use “ADASK” to signify some entity or capacity other than that of the man who uses the proper name “Alfred Adask,” they’re going to have to expressly declare (perhaps under oath) on the record what that alternative capacity might be. If my theory about all-upper-case names is correct, they can’t admit the details of that theory on the record without destroying the whole, de facto, legal system. Therefore, they should be very reluctant to bring anyone into court who is likely to raise this issue and argument.

      I don’t believe that “ADASK” is actually intended to be the alias for proper name “Adask”. Nevertheless, I can testify under oath that “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask”. Does that make me a hypocrite or blasphemer?

      I don’t think so.

      Why? Because, if I produce any form of government-issued, photo ID, the name on that ID will be spelled in the all-upper-case format (“ALFRED N ADASK”). If I show that ID to a jury and ask them if that’s my name on the ID, I guarantee that virtually every member of the jury will look at that ID, the photo and my name and say, “Yes, that’s your name.” Thus, I am “also known as” (a/k/a) “ALFRED N ADASK”. I am also known by others as “ALFRED N ADASK”. Thus, if needed, I can swear under oaths that “ALFRED N ADASK” is an alias for the proper name “Alfred Adask”

      Once I introduce my sworn declaration into the record that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias for “Alfred Adask,” so far as I know, the rules of evidence require that the judge and/or prosecutor will be forced produce at least one (and probably two or more) witness(es) ready to swear under oath that, no, “ALFRED N ADASK” is not an alias for the proper name “Alfred Adask” but is, instead the name of something other than the man made in God’s image who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights and whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”.

      In my fantasy world, I really look forward to such a court-room moment. I can only dream of seeing the looks on the jurors’ faces if they find out that the name on my ID does not signify me–and, by implication, the all-upper-case names on their drivers licenses and creditor cards do not signify them. The result should be a “saaay, whuuut?” moment when 12 jurors begin to understand that the whole system is some sort of racket.

      One other point: if you use the “dba” (doing business as) strategy, you admit that the “business” and you are two separate entities. You may suppose that “forcing” the court to admit that you are not the “business” (or some legal fiction) and therefore see the case against you dismissed. The judge will smile (or perhaps even giggle) because he’s not stupid. He knows that you are not the “business” or legal fiction. He relies on that separation. The business/fiction has virtually no rights. You, the living man or woman could have many rights. The question is not whether you are the “business” and/or “fiction”. The question is whether you represent that “business” or fiction.

      Under the hypothesis I’m advancing, I see the whole system as based on the presumption that I (“Adask”) have voluntarily consented to represent a virtually rightless fiction (“ADASK”) and be held liable for whatever fines or penalties are imposed on the fictional “ADASK”. When I declare that “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask,” I have challenged that presumption that I represent “ADASK”. I’m not denying that I’m the fiction. I’m denying that there is a fiction. I’m denying that I represent a fiction. If my hypothesis is correct, by declaring the name “ADASK” to merely be an alias for “Adask,” I’ve put the government in a position where they must swear on the record and in front of a jury that “ADASK” is a fiction or something other than the living man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”

      I’m not saying that “ADASK” is not “Adask”. I’m saying (swearing, if need be) that I (“Adask”) am also known by others as “ADASK”. I’m saying that “ADASK” is “Adask” and is therefore the man made in God’s image who’s endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”.

      Assuming that my hypothesis about the difference between capitalized, proper names (like “Alfred Adask”) and all-upper-case names (like “ALFRED N ADASK”) is correct, once I declare “ADASK” to be a mere alias for “Adask,” the gov-co may not be able to refute my declaration on the record and therefore, may not be able to proceed against–at least not easily and not without some serious risk or exposing the whole racket.

      In broad strokes, that explains why I prefer to argue that “ADASK” is an alias for “Adask” rather than a dba.

  106. Oklin Cinnamon

    November 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM

    You sir are the voice of my insides ! I thank you for speaking what I at 72 yrs of age now see to be the truth. I thank God for you and pray for you. I feel sorry that my grandchildren can’t run as as free as I got to as the devil is running rampant in so many people. No matter what some may think, you can’t love the devil into being good….

    • Adask

      November 15, 2016 at 1:14 PM

      Thanks very much for your kind words.

      Thanks for your compliments.

      Thanks for reading my articles.

      Thanks, most of all, for your prayers. They are much needed and much appreciated.

  107. Stan o

    January 9, 2017 at 11:24 PM

    Hi Alfred, for some reason I have received nothing from your blog since about the election. Is there an issue? Are you still blogging on WordPress? I miss your writings, they are a wealth of information and knowledge …I pray for your well being. Stan from indiana

    • Adask

      January 10, 2017 at 12:52 AM

      I haven’t published anything for two months. After the last election, I was simply wore out. Exhausted. I thought I’d take off for a week or two and it’s turned into two months. I should start up again in the next few days. Thanks for your concern. Thanks for reading my articles.

  108. Terence

    January 23, 2017 at 8:07 AM

    I would like to travel out side the country. how would you Alfred do this? would you do this in your position?

    • Adask

      January 23, 2017 at 11:26 AM

      If the world is heading for a significant economic collapse, I expect that most of us will be safer within The USA than in some foreign country where the costs of living are low.

      If you move to a foreign country, you’ll probably have no friends, no allies, and be perceived as a “wealthy gringo” or “rich America”. And, compared to the poor people in the country you emigrate to, you will be “rich”. That’ll make you a target. You’ll be as welcome and respected in a foreign country as an illegal alien is welcomed here. In the midst of a foreign country submerged in a financial collapse, you’ll be robbed by anyone you deal with from muggers on the street to government officials.

      I’m not saying that life will be great in The USA if we slide into some sort of economic collapse. But I still suspect that you’ll be less of an obvious target and therefore safer within the The USA than in a foreign country.

  109. Lady :brenda:-theresa:, heir as grantee, a wombman;

    February 7, 2017 at 11:25 AM

    I am writing this letter today in regards to an Amish herbalist, namely Samuel Girod, from Bath County, Owingsville, Kentucky who was falsely charged and arrested by FDA on charges of “mislabeling of a drug” because he was making a gentle olive oil, coconut oil, chickweed salve that many people were using for skin problems. He was making no claims but he did have a pamphlet where he had typed actual testimonies from people who had used the salve. I personally lived next to him for 2 years and used his salve many times for my family. His label clearly stated NOT FDA APPROVED and apparently the FDA hired “expert witnesses” to try to frame this good man and his family of 12 children. I spoke with someone who has direct access to this case as was told That he is being help in Lexington Kentucky in SECLUSION and has been denied any visitors, any legal counsel of any kind. He also told me that Samuel Girod hired a Lab to test his products and the lab results came back “NO DRUGS FOUND” the FDA then also sent them to THEIR forensic labs for testing which again came back with the results ” NO DRUGS FOUND”…with this in mind, READ the attached indictment the FDA compiled against him!!…They are charging him for selling DRUGS when the results CLEARLY came back “NO DRUGS FOUND”! They have a FEDERAL Jury trial scheduled for February 27, 2017 and we are asking as many people as possible to show your support by any of the following:
    1. Showing up at the trial in Lexington Kentucky on Feb 27 (there is power in numbers!) Address: US District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, 101 Barr Street, Lexington, KY 40507 For more Information, See attached Indictment.
    Court Phone: (859) 233 – 2503

    2. Offering Prayers, sending cards or monetary support for Sam’s wife Elizabeth and her 12 children. Note: This family is Amish so has no access to email or computer so any cards or support can be mailed directly to:
    Elizabeth Girod c/o 409 Satterfield Lane, Owingsville, Kentucky [40360]

    We were told that if FDA wins THIS case they will move quickly to shut down ALL small herb suppliers across America as they are trying to make an example out of this innocent family.

  110. Lady :brenda:-theresa:, heir as grantee, a wombman;

    February 7, 2017 at 12:56 PM

    my brother went to law school but never got his license for private reason, but passed, so i think he is in a much better position to help people on the private side if only my siblings would not ostracize me, most are so embedded in the LEGAL SYSTEM, can’t help them right now.

    i pray that all will see the Way, the Truth and the LIght some day, what a great way for him to start study what one there, alfred: a man, knows, he is now about 69 years of age; i could also help him with 90 for life Essential nutrients when funding comes available, i know he has had many health issues, okay, have agood day to all; and i am not an expert of law, just trying to help others the best way i can;

  111. Elliot

    February 27, 2017 at 10:05 AM

    You have not had any activity since November. What’s up ?

  112. Gary Terry

    October 9, 2017 at 8:57 AM

    I need information on driving without a license. Please.??

    • Adask

      October 9, 2017 at 9:20 AM

      There are a number of websites, blogs and gurus which focus on that issue. I’m not one of them.

  113. Ebediah

    November 9, 2017 at 12:43 PM

    Kind Sir. Found your AntiShyster newsletters dating back to the late 90’s, early 2000’s. Brilliant stuff. Have a question for you about the actual title certificate of every car, truck, motorhome, boat, and plane. Have you heard of the ‘Manufactures Statement of Origin’ and the ability to receive it from the dealer if you pay cash? They normally offer to send it to the DMV for you, but if you can get yours, then the item would be personal property, wouldn’t it? And therefore not the property of the State. No need for licensing or REGIStration, eh?

    • Adask

      December 29, 2017 at 9:56 AM

      I’ve heard much the same theory for over 20 years. As I’ve heard the story, the MSO is the title. I have little doubt that that much is true. However, as I’ve heard it, you can’t pay “cash” (Federal Reserve Notes) to buy the Title/MSO–you must pay in gold or silver. Technically, that might be true. The problem is that most (all?) auto dealers take a license from this state that, reportedly, mandates that they must send the MSO to the state government whenever they sell a car. If they don’t, they could lose their license to be a dealer and be put out of business. They won’t run that risk for the profit to be made on a single car. However, reportedly, there is an exception: If I were to buy a car in one state (say, Oklahoma) and my ID indicated that I lived in another state (say, Texas), the Oklahoma dealer could give me the MSO to take with me back to Texas where I could send my MSO to the Texas government register my car in my home state. Of course, if I brought the MSO back to Texas and neglected to actually send the MSO to the Texas state government, I would have my actual title to my car.

      I knew a man (Robert Fox) who actually used this strategy to acquire the MSO to a new Lexis back in the early 1990s. He bought a car with gold or silver coins from a dealer outside of Texas and the dealer gave him the vehhicle and MSO to be registered when Fox returned home to Texas. The strategy reportedly worked pretty well until Fox was stopped with the unregistered Lexis and the Texas police seized his Lexis and Fox never recovered the vehicle.

      I don’t know what the moral to this story. Could it be that “you can’t fight city hall”? Or could it be that Fox came close to acquiring legal title to his car but made some oversight in his strategy that gave the state of Texas the opportunity to seize his Lexis? Fox passed away a few months ago, so I don’t think we’re going to find the answer.

      If had to guess, I’d guess that Fox came close to acquiring legal title to his Lexis, but either made a mistake or didn’t know how to sue properly to recover his car once it had been seized by the Texas “authorities”.

      Thanks for your comment. Thanks for reading the AntiShyster. Thanks for your compliment.


        January 23, 2018 at 12:11 PM

        You said, “you must pay in gold or silver.” Perhaps even Bitcoin?

        Yes, it is too bad that Mr. Fox has passed. It would be interesting to discover how he attempted to recover his personal property back into his own possession. What did he do? What process did he attempt? What doesn’t work? These are questions that can’t be answered.

        I’ve also heard stories how others have fought and won their ‘right to travel’ without incident. For the past seven (7) years I’ve been using a system that has worked very well. I’ve been stopped seven times and questioned by LEO’s and they have let me go on my way every time. If any of your readers would like to know how I’ve accomplished this, I’m happy to share it with them.

        Ebediah Yahseph

  114. Wolf who talks too much

    February 23, 2018 at 2:23 PM

    I rejected their programming and but by the grace of god the scales are falling from my eyes and my ears able to hear. I am a sinner but I am not a child of the devil. I woke to how the world actually operates and want nothing here except for family, shelter and food. I am a man wanting to not be a sui juristic person, strawman, CITIZEN nor for my country to have jurisdiction over my property as I live in it. All my debts should be paid past present and future and the courts know I possess knowledge without enough wisdom. My mother was diagnosed schitzophrenic 6 yrs before my birth making original contract or note of manifest void or null. My car wreck at 16 left me under afasia affecting all of my decisions until now by Gods grace. I do not know how exactly to proceed in order to close account and remove the number from me identifying with it and I want to give all I own away to the poor in a contracted and well regulated matter by trust. To distribute in a way that is most beneficial. Not many people have a tale to tell like I do but that is because I was fearfully and wonderfully made. Can you help me or should I continue searching. I just want to be recognised as a man living on the land. The real reason all of this occurs is because our Creator forgives us and disagreement of his Law is Satan at it’s core…..there time is short and I’ve chosen this day who I shall serve and was wondering if you knew what first steps if it were you that you would take for educational purposes?

    • Adask

      February 23, 2018 at 4:15 PM

      You seem to be asking me if I have any “red pills” for sale. Take just one pill and you’ll “see” everything. There is no such pill.

      I’ve been trying to understand what’s happening for 35 years. I may or may not know a lot (compared to some) but I am still a student. Once you begin to “see,” I don’t think that you will ever stop “seeing” even more.

      I wish there was a “red pill” and I could take one and thereby know everything I need to know. No more study. No more research. Just action. But I suspect that such “perfect knowledge” is at least unlikely, and probably impossible, in this life. I strongly suspect that the real object is not to become a man who “knows it all”–but, instead, to be a man who studies continuously and tries to discover and learn as much relevant information as possible.

      If the Good LORD is calling you to “see,” He will guide you on what to see. He will feed you knowledge He wants you to learn.. Maybe every day, maybe every week, maybe every year. Part of what you have to learn may be patience. Patience is faith. Faith that He will feed you more knowledge. You just have to keep your ears and eyes open so you don’t miss your next “lesson”.

      It would be nice if we could all take a “red pill”. Instant knowledge. But if I’d been given “instant knowledge,” 35 years ago, why would I need any contact with the Good LORD over the past 35 years? The “lessons” I’ve learned over the past 35 years are not important as simple opportunities to pack a few more facts into my mind. The “lessons” are important because you get to spend time with your Teacher. And, it’s encouraging that He is willing to spend more time with you.

      Every time I get a new “lesson,” I cheer. Not because I’ve learned another fact of insight–but because our Father YHWH ha elohiym is still talking to me (despite my sins). Every “lesson” includes knowledge that the Good LORD hasn’t forgotten. My name is still on His “rolodex”. I am still a contender for salvation. That’s not knowledge in the sense of learning that 2 + 2 = 4. That’s a blessing that reminds me that my faith is true.

      • paulbearson

        February 23, 2018 at 8:35 PM

        Adask – What you say seems in other words to be saying: “you gotta play the hand in life you have been dealt!” Could be a good hand, could be a bad hand – but, whatever the hand is that’s your hand. So, play it.

      • Adask

        February 23, 2018 at 11:59 PM

        It’s not so important whether you win this hand of poker or the next hand of bridge. It is important that you identify the one real “game” and play it steadily until the end.

  115. Ty Schor

    October 8, 2018 at 3:06 PM

    Love and miss you Al… God bless you and yours’

  116. Rockford

    April 9, 2019 at 3:00 PM

    Crime and offences are two entirely different things. Crime relates to law, offences relate to legal

    Could be cars, licences or any other offence else…

    The Cop supposedly works for the people but is in fact an agent for the Prosecution Service. He wears two hats, common law for the protection of the people, here we call him a constable and he’s under oath in that roll.
    He is also a police officer carrying out the duties associated with Legislation, ensuring the legislation is complied with so if he sees a car doing more than the state set speed limit set for that piece of road he’s entitled to stop the vehicle demand the details of the “State Agent” driving it and if he sees fit issue a ticket which brings a charge against that state organisation THE ALLCAPS (as all state organisations are bound by legislation) however the Cop is not legally trained and cannot make a legal determination all he can do is bring the charge and the evidence and the witnesses.
    The charge goes to the prosecution service who might decide that the information provided by the cop is insufficient to support the charge and drop the case or that everything seems to be in order according to the cop and they bring the case as charged but they can also decide that the cops interpretation of the event is entirely wrong but that a different offence and or crime may have occurred and so you could find you have an entirely different charge to what the cop brought as in your case or in some case the prosecutor ads further charges, e.g, recklessness or without due care and attention, not in control of the vehicle, construction and use offences add infinite, etc. because they have the authority to make the legal determination, unlike the cop.
    Now this is where it gets technical and just about everybody that goes to court misses this…
    The cop is an officer of the court. That has to be fully understood because he is also going to be a witness in this case if you plead not guilty and in most cases he’s the primary witness and in some jurisdictions the ONLY witness, e.g England but in Scotland two witness are required (they are trying to change that)
    You enter the court and when asked if you are THE ALL CAPS (because that was who the paperwork was sent to) you say yes, and you agree. As I’ve stated previously you can’t be ALLCAPS (no two things can be the same) you are the Organisations agent for service, so the court is now holding you as surety in this matter until its settled.
    So clearly if the paperwork was mailed to the ALL CAPS (organisation) and you, the agent they are holding as being accountable for failing to ensure that the ALL CAPS complied with the legislation. In effect no matter what the offences are, you are here for contempt.
    Now your asked to plead if you agree and plead Guilty they deal with your contempt but give you a bit off for not wasting the courts time and encouraging other to simply take the hit.
    If you plead Not Guilty… Now have a serious think about this, what exactly are you saying here? You might think you’re going to argue some facts about what the fine details are in this case that should persuade the judge that you shouldn’t be punished. I’ll tell you what the judge thinks you’re doing by pleading not guilty.
    As I said, the Cop is an officer of the court and what is an officer? An officer and a gentleman. and what do gentlemen not do?
    They don’t tell lies. But not only that, this officer is working for the people, he had no axe to grind with you and he has taken an oath upon which his entire career depends, in order to work and feed his family.

    So before jumping to a not guilty plea consider carefully how you can discredit this cop’s testimony showing him to be a prevaricator (we don’t use the word liar in a court room) or at the very least mistaken in his interpretation of the event. Because if you can’t discredit his interpretation there will be no bit off because you’re wasting their precious time, nor will there be any leniency and many leave the court saying “but I shouldn’t have been found guilty” when in fact if you cannot discredit the cop the judge as a matter of honour must give the cop the benefit of any doubt and so the unincorporated state Agent takes the hit for the contempt of allowing the state organisation to breach legislation. Hope all that makes sense… and that’s why the not guilty plea loses 98% of the time
    IMHO some the best arguments to invalidate the cop’s testimony are Mark Stevens methods lots on you-tube but you really do have to be able to set the judge up first and you really do have to be on your game. The courts are aware of this stuff now, but it can be done with a cool calm head, confidence and a lot of research work. I think you also have demur as a plea option at least in some courts, we don’t have that, but we can find ways to argue it. Again, if you know what you’re doing that’s an option, essentially that might be an offence, but it didn’t apply because…


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