Adask's law

THE PROFIT OF INJUSTICE

Man or other animals Laws #2

16 JUN

i
7 Votes

TWO PAGE SUMMARY

Texas and Federal DRUG LAWS (copies attached below), WAR ON DRUGS and the resulting police
state and prison-industrial complex are based on multiple laws and definitions that expressly
presume man to be an animal.

This presumption violates fundamental principles of the Jewish and Christian faiths and also of the
Declaration of Independence. This means that the drug laws, police state and prison-industrial
complex can be challenged and diminished or perhaps even destroyed based on lawsuit to enforce
our First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion.

As used in current state and federal Health laws, the phrase man or other animals means the
government presumes all mankind to be animals.

The War on Drugs launched circa A.D. 1970 is based on a definition of drugs that presumes man to
be an animal. The War on Drugs spawned the modern police state and prison-industrial complex
all of which are based on a definition of drugs that defines man to be an animal.

The man or other animals definition violates a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian
faiths which declare at Genesis 1:26-27 that on the 6th Day God created manand only manin His
image, gave man dominion over the animals and thereby absolutely separated and distinguished
man from animals. If man is only an animal, man has no hope of eternal salvation.
The man or other animals definition violates a fundamental principle of the Declaration of
Independence which declares in part We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Insofar as state and federal laws define man to be an
animal, they deprive him of his standing to claim God-given, unalienable Rights and thereby strip man
of his claim to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

By declaring man to be a mere animal, the governments drug laws violate the First Amendments
establishment clause and guarantee of the Peoples right to Freedom of religion. I.e., by
declaring the People to be animals the government establishes and imposes a pagan religion
upon the People of the United States of America.

IMPLICATION: The drug laws, the resulting police state and prison industrial complex can be
challenged and potentially diminished or even destroyed based on a FIRST AMENDMENTs
freedom of religion.

The attached text describes a lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General against seven defendants based on
violation of Texas and federal health laws based on the manufacture and sale of colloidal silver. The
text includes copies of relevant law that can be verified by any reader.

Each of the seven defendants are facing civil penalties of $25,000 per DAY ($750,000 per month, $9
million per year; EACH) even though the Texas Attorney General admits that after a seven-year
investigation, they cannot find a single man, woman or child who has been injured, damaged or
defrauded by the defendants and/or the defendants colloidal silver products.

The essential state and federal HEALTH LAWS both charge the defendants with manufacturing or
distributing drugs [in this case, colloidal silver] based on claims unapproved by the F.D.A. to man or
other animals.

The phrase man or other animals appears twice in the federal law, twice in the Texas law, and at least
17 more times in Texas and federal definitions.

Our government presumes us to animals. This is intolerable and cannot allowed to continue.

The following text was handed to Ron Pauls son in A.D. 2007. His son promised to deliver the text
to his father. I suspect that Dr. Paul was too busy with his campaign to read the document. Whatever
the reason, as of June 16, A.D. 2008, Ive had no response from Dr. Paul.

December 24th, A.D. 2007

Dear Dr. Paul,

Ive been a political activist in legal reform for 24 years. Ive understood for at least a decade that
government regards us all as a pack of animalsbut I never expected to see multiple admissions of
that description in the written law.

However, about a year ago, I started finding about 17 instances in federal and Texas food & drug laws
that repeatedly define man as an animal. These definitions clearly violate my Christian faith (which
declares that God made man in His image and gave man dominion over the animals) and the
cornerstone on which this nation was founded: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .

I believe the implications are huge. As Ill explain below, a religious freedom challenge to laws that
define man as an animal could badly damage the FDA, the modern police state and prison-
industrial complex since all are in large part based on the legal presumption that man is an animal
rather than a man made in Gods image.

This notion may seem preposterous, but Ive attached a file at the bottom of this document that lists
seventeen instances in Texas and US food and drug laws where man is deemed to be an animal.

I discovered the relevant man or other animals laws as one of seven defendants accused by the Texas
Attorney Generals Office for violating both Texas and federal laws which make it a civil offense to
manufacture and distribute drugs (in our case, colloidal silver) based on claims unapproved by the
FDA (testimonials from customers) to man or other animals. (Our case is filed in the 201st District
Court of Texas as cause # GV400268.)

The case began with an investigation in A.D.2001 and was first filed against three original defendants
(husband, wife, corporation) in A.D. 2003. Three additional defendants (another man, another
corporation and a trust) were added in A.D. 2005. I was added in A.D. 2006 for the offense of serving
as fiduciary for the trust previously declared to be a defendant in A.D. 2005.

After seven years of investigation at a cost now estimated to approach $500,000, the Texas OAG admits
that they havent found a single customer who has been damaged or injured by the colloidal silver
products nor have they found a single customer whos been defrauded out of even five cents.

Nevertheless, each of the seven, alleged defendants are threatened with fines of $25,000 per DAY.
$750K per month; $9M per year. EACH.

Incidentally, the two principle government officials in charge of prosecuting this case (a Texas Assistant
Attorney General and an employee of the Texas Department of State Health Services) are both fully-
commissioned officers of the FDA (we have copies of their commissions). The Texas Assistant
Attorney General (Raul Noriega) admitted in an unguarded moment that they are taking orders from
Washington DC in prosecuting this case.

The three original defendants spent $160,000 on attorneys fees, went broke, were driven into poverty
and then divorce and have left Texas not be seen in court in 18 months. I and one other defendant are
the only remaining living defendants. We are defending ourselves in propria personawithout an
attorney.

In reading the state and federal laws under which we are charged, I noticed that both laws are nearly
identical, and both laws charge that we have manufactured or distributed drugs based on claims
unapproved by the FDA to man or other animals. That phrase man or other animalsappears
twice in the federal law and twice in the Texas law, as well as repeatedly in the state and federal
definitions of drugs and food and devices.

Im sure you understand that while the phrase man or animals means that man is separate and
distinct from animals, the phrase man or other animals means man is deemed to be an animal.
There is no other grammatical construction or interpretation for that phrase. Man or other animals
must mean that man is deemed to be an animalbut if we are only animals, we have no spiritual
connection with God.

Yes, it sounds impossible and perhaps even insane to suppose that our government really means to
define us all as animals. But how else can you explain multiple uses of the man or other animals
phrase in both the federal and parallel Texas food & drug laws and associated definitions?

If theyd written man or other animals only once, I might dismiss the phrase as some accidental and
unfortunate choice of words. But when I found the phrase used repeatedly in both US and parallel
Texas laws, I could only conclude that the usage was intentional. If Im right, the drug laws and
resulting War on Drugs and resulting police state and resulting prison-industrial complex are all
based on the premise that all of We the People are just animals rather than men endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Ive done some research that suggests I may be the first that the Good LORD has allowed to 1) see what
man or other animals means; and 2) have opportunity to base a legal defense on that insight.

The phrase man or other animals can only mean that government regards us all as animals. But
my Bible declares at Genesis 1:26-27 that on the 6th day, our Father YHWH created man (and man only)
in His image, and gave man dominion over the animals. Thus, under the Jewish and Christian (and
probably Muslim) faiths, man cannot be an animal; man must be seen as distinct and separate from
animals.

I believe that the principle that man, and man only, is made in Gods imageand thus, that man is
distinctly different from all the animalsis the second most important principle in the Bible. (The
first principle is seen at Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Thus,
under the same principles of creation that we still see supported in our patent and copyright laws,
the Creator owns all that He created.) If you and I and the rest of the people of The State of Texas and
of The United States of America are created by God, He certainly owns us. But if we are not made in
Gods image, then there is no more compelling reason for thou shalt not kill other men than there is
for thou shalt not kill chickens, pigs or cows. More importantly, if men are truly no more than
animals, we have no souls, no spirits, and no more hope of eternal salvation than cattle, cats, dogs,
worms or even bacteria.

The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal and endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . [and] That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men. . . . Thus, as envisioned by our Founders, the primary duty of government was
to secure the God-given, unalienable Rights with which every man (made in Gods image) is
endowed.

But if we are all deemed to be animals, we have no claim on those unalienable Rights, and
government has no correlative duty to secure them. By declaring man to be a mere animal,
government reduces us to the status persons entitled to mere civil rights under the 14th
Amendment, and absolves itself from the primary duty of securing our God-given (rather than
man-given) Rights.

I plan to defend against the Texas Attorney Generals lawsuit with a counter-claim that is primarily
based on the First Amendment (religious freedom and establishment of religion), the Texas
Constitutions guarantee of religious freedom and/or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I contend
that by declaring all of the People of The State of Texas and all of the People of The United States of
America to be animals, the government has established and imposed a pagan religion upon the
People that is in complete violation of the Christian, Jewish (and probably Muslim) faithswhich all (I
suspect) deem man to be made in Gods image and therefore distinctly different from animals.

More, by forcing me to treat my fellow man as if he were only an animal, the government compels
me to violate the second of the New Testament commandments: Love thy neighbor as thyself. I
deny that I am an animal. As a man, I cannot love my neighbor as myself if I cant recognize my
neighbor to also be a man (rather than an animal). I refuse to treat my neighbors as if they were
animals, and I refuse to allow my government to do so.

I know that this insight sounds incredibleat least at first. But Ive been involved with the case for
most of three years and a defendant for most of two years, and during that involvement, we generally
received certified mail from the Attorney Generals Office every two to four weeksuntil December,
A.D.2006, when I filed my first notice expressing my religious freedom defense against their man or
other animals laws. I filed that paperwork in December 06 and the OAG went dead silent for 5
months.

When they finally came back, Judge John K. Dietzthe chief administrative judge for Travis County,
Texastook control of the case and worked hard for 3 months to engineer an out-of-court settlement.
He was unsuccessful. He recused himself, appointed another judge (Gisela Triana, who also tried
unsuccessfully to encourage a settlement), and we are probably on track to litigate in the second
quarter of A.D. 2008.

I cannot prove, but I believe that the 5 month delay and subsequent attempts to negotiate a settlement
were reactions to my threat of making a religious freedom challenge to their man or other animals
laws. I think the judges and/or AGs Office understand the significance of our defense and the
potential threat it poses to the FDA, TDSHS, drug laws, police state and prison-industrial complex. If
we lose, theyll probably win a multi-million dollar judgment that theyll never be able to collect. But if
we win, we may ultimately damage or even destroy much of the FDA, TDSHS, police state and prison-
industrial complex. The government is now in a position where they have almost nothing to gain and a
great deal to lose. And I think that if we can get to a jury, were going to win.

The man or other animals insight is important because the whole FDA (and probably all comparable
state food & drug agencies) are based on laws that define man as an animal and are therefore subject to
a religious freedom and/or establishment of religion challenge. (If you check the laws of states other
than Texas, Ill bet youll also find the man or other animals premise.)

But the implications of this insight affect far more than the FDA. Back about A.D. 1971, President Nixon
instigated the War on Drugs that lay the foundation for the modern police state and resulting
prison-industrial complex. Today, somewhere between 50% and 80% of the people in prison are
there based on some drug-related crime. (Actually, those prisoners are there based on violations of
controlled substancesbut the controlled substances laws are ultimately based on the definition of
drugs.) If it werent for the War on Drugs, some of our prisons might be as empty as ghost towns.
Instead, our prisons are overcrowded and constantly growing based on drug laws that declare man
to be a animal.

Thus, it appears that the entire drug war and resulting police state are largely based on the premise
that man is only an animal. This premise should be intolerable to anyone of color or faith. If the
premise were broken, the food & drug laws, the prison-industrial complex and the current police state
would all be seriously diminished in power and application.

I suspect that defeating the man or other animals premise should attract a lot of political support.

For example, African-Americans were enslaved based on the premise that they were not men but
only chattel (animals); they fought the civil rights movement in large measure to be recognized as
men. Our Civil War and the deaths of 750,000 Americans followed, in part, from the premise that
Negroes were animals. Presuming men to be animals almost always leads to violence. I cant
imagine any African-American supporting a law that describes him, his parents, spouse and children
as animals.
During WWII, Jews suffered extermination at the hands of the Nazis based on the presumption that
the Jews were untermenschen (less than men or animals). Nazis could slaughter even Jewish
women and children because they were nothing but animals. Millions of Jews died, the world was
plunged into its most massive war, and the nation of Germany was nearly destroyed based in part on
the premise that Jews were animals.

When the Hutus break out their machetes to slaughter Tutsis, Ill guarantee the resulting murders of
men, women and children are based on the presumption that the Tutsis are mere animals. In fact, I
suspect that in every instance of genocide ever known to man, the perpetrators start with the premise
that the victims are nothing but animals. I suspect that in every instance where one people have
come to be regarded as animals, the inevitable result was violence, slavery or death. If that
observation seems far-fetched, consider again, that the current U.S. police state (and all the attendant
violence) is based largely on the War on Drugs and the federal and Texas definition of drugs
expressly applies to man or other animals.

Thus, allowing our government to presume the People to be animals may be hazardous to our
health. The only known results of such presumptions are slavery, genocide and national destruction. It
is therefore intolerable, seemingly insane and politically explosive that our own government would
pass laws that deem the American people to all be animals. But every bit of that insanity can be
challenged and probably defeated based on a freedom of religion/ establishment of religion basis.

If this insight is properly explained, I cant imagine it being rejected by anyone who is serious about his
faithincluding the religious right. In the end, how many people of faith can accept any candidate
that supports a law that deems the people to be mere animals not made in Gods image nor entitled
to eternal salvation?

How many members of the religious right could deny their support to a candidate who simply
insisted that the government once again recognize all of the People (just as our Founders did) as men
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights? Who could deny the fundamental premise
of our Declaration of Independence? In the end, I believe that the insight and argument that Im
proposing are spiritually compelling and all but certain to attract the support of almost anyone who
pays even lip service to the God of the Bible.

And ifin addition to loving the LORDthe people are also critical of the FDA, police state and
prison-industrial complex, then those people should delight in a religious freedom challenge to man
or other animals drug laws. Their spiritual and political support should rise to the level of dedication.

While its always possible that I might be making some intellectual or spiritual errors in analyzing the
man or other animals laws, I think I understand this issue about as well as any living manand I
think that my understanding it pretty close to being right. If you have any questions or comments, my
email is

alfredadask@yahoo.com
and my phone number is 972-202-7445.

Dr. Paul, you may be the only candidate from either party that might be able to save this country from
what appears to be a fast-approaching political, economic and social catastrophe. I wish you Godspeed
in your candidacy for President.

Sincerely,

Alfred Adask

c/o 2921 Robin Hill Lane

The City of Garland

The County of Dallas

The State of Texas

The United States of America

EXCERPTS FROM AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY Alfred Adask ON OCTOBER 22, A.D. 2006 INTO
THE CASE FILE FOR GV-400268:

1. Plaintiffs [The Texas Attorney Generals] Motion for Summary Judgment dated on or about
May 31st, A.D. 2006 declared in part:

4.2. Definition of a drug pursuant to state and federal health codes.

The key to this case lies in determining, at law and not as a matter of fact, whether the
Defendants colloidal products met the definition of a drug when mislabeled, falsely advertised, and
sold as products intended to treat disease. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 431.002(14) provides in
pertinent part: [Bold emphasis added by Alfred Adask.]

Drug means articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National
Formulary, or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,
mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, [emphasis added] articles,
other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals,
[emphasis added] and articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in this
subdivision. The term does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories. A food for
which a claim is made in accordance with Section 403(r) of the federal Act, and for which the claim is
approved by the secretary, [emphasis added] is not a drug solely because the label or labeling contains
such a claim. [Bold emphasis added by Alfred Adask.]

The federal code, upon which the state code is based and which is virtually identical, is 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; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals [emphasis added]; and (C) articles (other
than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals
[emphasis added]; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause
(A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343(r)(1)(B) and
343(r)(3) of this title or sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the
requirements of section 343(r) of this title [emphasis added] is not a drug solely because the label or the
labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful
and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug
under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement. [Bold emphasis
added by Alfred Adask.]

Defendants colloidal products were therefore `drugs within the meaning of TEx. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE 431.002(14) and 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1) because they were labeled and advertised with
testimonials and sold with the intent for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention
of disease in man or other animals or in some instances, because they are sold with the intent of
affecting the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. These products, when
sold with the testimonial claims regarding treatment of disease, cannot be dietary supplements because
none of the Defendants have ever applied to the USFDA nor received approval for the claims on these
products published by Defendants on their Internet web sites.

2. Note well that the phrase man or other animals appears twice in the cited state law, twice in
the cited federal law, and twice more in the plaintiffs conclusion and summaryfor a total of six
instances in plaintiffs text.

3. Plaintiffs argue, in essence, that the key to determining the allegations in GV400268 is
determining at law whether alleged defendants advertised and sold alleged drugs with the intent
for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals
or sold with the intent of affecting the structure or any function of the body of man or other
animals.

4. The phrase man or other animals can only be read to mean that, under the alleged laws and
arguments advanced by plaintiffs, man is viewed by plaintiffs and/or our current government as
nothing more than an animal.

5. I am a man endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

6. I deny that I am an animal.

7. I deny that I do business with animals.

8. I eat animals.

9. I am a Protestant Christian.

10. I fear the LORD; I am sincere in my faith.

 11. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1, The Bible.

12. Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and
over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 27 So God created man in His own image; in the
image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God
said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the
sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. Genesis 1: 26-28,
The Bible.

13. Plaintiffs argument that men are animals defies the fundamental precept of the Jewish
and Christian faiths that of all earthly creations, manand man aloneis made in Gods image and
separate from animals in that man is endowed by God with dominion over animals.

14. Plaintiffs attempt to compel me, other alleged defendants, and all other men and women to
accept the status of animals violates my sincerely held religious beliefs.

15. Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, you shall love
the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first
and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' Matthew 22:36-40

16. Plaintiffs key contention that men are animals prevents mea manfrom loving my
fellow man.

17. The Declaration of Independence declares in part: We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [Emphasis added.]

18. I deny that animals are endowed by their Creator with any unalienable Rights.

19. The third sentence of the Declaration of Independence declares the principle duty of
government: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed.

20. I am a man; the principal business of Government and its officers is to secure my God-given,
unalienable Rights.

21. Plaintiffs attempt to equate all men with animals deprives me of the benefit of religious
freedom and of the benefit of God-given, unalienable rights.

22. Plaintiffs attempt to equate all men with animals is an attempt to establish a pagan
religion that is contrary to the principles of the Jewish and Christian faiths and impose this pagan
religion upon the people of The United States of America.

23. A plea to the jurisdiction is proper when the dispute clearly involves ecclesiastical matters
over which the courts have no jurisdiction. See Hawkins v. Friendship Missionary Baptist Ch., 69 S.W.3d
756,758-59 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Green v. United Pentecostal Ch. Intl, 899 S.W.2d
28, 30 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, writ denied); Patterson v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 858
S.W.2d 602,604-05 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1993, no writ); see also Williams v. Gleason, 26 S.W.3d 54, 55-56
(Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (resolved issue by motion for summary judgment).
Secular courts cannot constitutionally determine the truth or falsity of religious matters. Tilton v.
Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 678-79 (Tex.1996); see also Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S.
696, 723 (1976) (religious controversies are not proper subject of civil court inquiry).

24. As a threshold requirement, [defendant] must demonstrate that her refusal to be

photographed is grounded upon a sincerely held religious belief. See Stevens v. Berger, 428 F.Supp. 896,
899 (E.D.N.Y.1977). Although a religious belief requires something more than a purely secular
philosophical or personal belief, Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at 215-16, 92 S.Ct. at 1533-34, courts
have approved an expansive definition of religion. See United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 165-66, 85
S.Ct. 850, 853-54, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) (test is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful
occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God); see also
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430, 440 (2d Cir.1981);
Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 963, 90
S.Ct. 434, 24 L.Ed.2d 427 (1969). Quaring v Peterson, 728 F.2d 1121 (A.D. 1983)

25. [T]he guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the
members of a religious sect. Particularly in this sensitive area, it is not within the judicial function and
judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow [adherent] more correctly perceived
the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation. Thomas v.
Review Board, supra, 450 U.S. at 715-16, 101 S.Ct. at 1430-31.

26. Under the proper analysis, a burden upon religion exists when the state conditions receipt
of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, * * * thereby putting substantial
pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs. Thomas v. Review Board,
supra, 450 U.S. at 717-18, 101 S.Ct. at 1431-32.

27. By treating all men to be animals, the state withholds from me the important benefits
and/or unalienable Rights of free association and pursuit of Happiness.

28. In Sherbert v. Verner, supra, . . . the Supreme Court held that in denying unemployment
benefits to a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church who refused to work on Saturdays, the
Sabbath of her faith, the state violated her right to the free exercise of religion. 374 U.S. at 402, 83 S.Ct.
at 1792. Assessing the burden of the denial of benefits on the Sabbatarians exercise of her religion, the
Court commented,

The [denial] forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting
benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion [not working on
Saturdays] in order to accept work, on the other hand. Id. at 404, 83 S.Ct. at 1794. Quaring v Peterson,
supra.

29. Under the pretext of treating all men as animals, plaintiffs attempt to force me and other
alleged defendants to choose between following the precepts of our religion and forfeiting benefits, on
the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of our religion [recognizing our fellow men has
made in the image of God rather than as animals] in order to work without the threat of undue
regulation and excessive fines arbitrarily impose by this state.
 30. For additional facts supporting this Verified Notice of Special Appearance and Answer to
Plaintiffs 5th Amended Petition, see attached Notice By Affidavit of Alfred Adask filed with the
Travis County District Clerk on September 7th, A.D. 2006.

Further affiant says naught.

RELEVANT STATE & FEDERAL LAW

CHAPTER 431. TEXAS FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

431.001. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the Texas Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.

431.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) Advertising means all representations disseminated in any manner or by any means, other than
by labeling, for the purpose of inducing, or that are likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase
of food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics.

(2) Animal feed, as used in Subdivision (23), in Section 512 of the federal Act, and in provisions of
this chapter referring to those paragraphs or sections, means an article intended for use as food for
animals other than man as a substantial source of nutrients in the diet of the animals. The term is not
limited to a mixture intended to be the sole ration of the animals.

....

(6)(A) Color additive means a material that:

(i) is a dye, pigment, or other substance made by a process of synthesis or similar artifice, or extracted,
isolated, or otherwise derived, with or without intermediate or final change of identity from a
vegetable, animal, mineral, or other source; and

(ii) when added or applied to a food, drug, or cosmetic, or to the human body or any part of the
human body, is capable, alone or through reaction with other substance, of imparting color. The term
does not include any material exempted under the federal Act.

....

(10) Cosmetic means articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced
into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part of the human body for cleaning, beautifying,
promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and articles intended for use as a component of
those articles. The term does not include soap.

(11) Counterfeit drug means a drug, or the container or labeling of a drug, that, without
authorization, bears the trademark, trade name or other identifying mark, imprint, or device of a drug
manufacturer, processor, packer, or distributor other than the person who in fact manufactured,
processed, packed, or distributed the drug, and that falsely purports or is represented to be the product
of, or to have been packed or distributed by, the other drug manufacturer, processor, packer, or
distributor.

(12) Department means the Texas Department of Health.

(13) Device, except when used in Sections 431.003, 431.021(l), 431.082(g), 431.112(c) and 431.142(c),
means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other
similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, that is:

(A) recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary or any supplement to
it;

(B) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment,
or prevention of disease in man or other animals; or

(C) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals and that does
not achieve any of its principal intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of
man or other animals and is not dependent on metabolization for the achievement of any of its
principal intended purposes.

(14) Drug means articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary,
or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, articles, other than food, intended to affect
the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and articles intended for use as a
component of any article specified in this subdivision. The term does not include devices or their
components, parts, or accessories. A food for which a claim is made in accordance with Section 403(r)
of the federal Act, and for which the claim is approved by the secretary, is not a drug solely because the
label or labeling contains such a claim.

(15) Federal Act means the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Title 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).

(16) Food means:

(A) articles used for food or drink for man;

(B) chewing gum; and

(C) articles used for components of any such article.

....

(20) Infant formula means a food that is represented for special dietary use solely as a food for
infants by reason of its simulation of human milk or its suitability as a complete or partial substitute for
human milk.

....

United States Code (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/toc.html)

 TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/21/toc.html)
CHAPTER 9 FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/21/chapters/9/toc.html)
SUBCHAPTER II DEFINITIONS
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/21/chapters/9/subchapters/ii/toc.ht

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

Section 321. Definitions; generally

For the purposes of this chapter

(a)(1) The term State, except as used in the last sentence of section 372(a) of this title, means any State
or Territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(2) The term Territory means any Territory or possession of the United States, including the District
of Columbia, and excluding the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Canal Zone.

(b) The term interstate commerce means (1) commerce between any State or Territory and any place
outside thereof, and (2) commerce within the District of Columbia or within any other Territory not
organized with a legislative body.

(c) The term Department means Department of Health and Human Services.

(d) The term Secretary means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(e) The term person includes individual, partnership, corporation, and association.

(f) The term food means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing
gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.

(g)(1) 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; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food)intended
to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended
for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement
for which a claim, subject to sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(3) of this title or sections 343(r)(1)(B)and
343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343(r) of this title is not
a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or
dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with
section 343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling
contains such a statement.

(2) The term counterfeit drug means a drug which, or the container or labeling of which, without
authorization, bears the trademark, trade name, or other identifying mark, imprint, or device, or any
likeness thereof, of a drug manufacturer, processor, packer, or distributor other than the person or
persons who in fact manufactured, processed, packed, or distributed such drug and which thereby
falsely purports or is represented to be the product of, or to have been packed or distributed by, such
other drug manufacturer, processor, packer, or distributor.

(h) The term device (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 331(i), 343(f),
352(c), and 362(c) of this title) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance,
implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or
accessory, which is

(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any
supplement to them,

(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment,
or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or

(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which
does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man
or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its
primary intended purposes.

(i) The term cosmetic means (1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on,
introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying,
promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component
of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap.

....

(3) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (1) and (2), the Administrator may by regulation except a
substance from the definition of pesticide chemical or pesticide chemical residue if

(A) its occurrence as a residue on or in a raw agricultural commodity or processed food is attributable
primarily to natural causes or to human activities not involving the use of any substances for a
pesticidal purpose in the production, storage, processing, or transportation of any raw agricultural
commodity or processed food; and

(B) the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary, determines that the substance more
appropriately should be regulated under one or more provisions of this chapter other than sections
342(a)(2)(B) and 346a of this title.

....

(t)(1) The term color additive means a material which

....

(v) The term new animal drug means any drug intended for use

for animals other than man, including any drug intended for use in animal feed but not including such
animal feed,
....

(w) The term animal feed, as used in paragraph (w) (!1) of this section, in section 360b of this title,
and in provisions of this chapter referring to such paragraph or section, means an article which is
intended for use for food for animals other than man and which is intended for use as a substantial
source of nutrients in the diet of the animal, and is not limited to a mixture intended to be the sole
ration of the animal.

....

(z) The term infant formula means a food which purports to be or is represented for special dietary
use solely as a food for infants by reason of its simulation of human milk or its suitability as a complete
or partial substitute for human milk.

....

(ff) The term dietary supplement

(1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or
more of the following dietary ingredients:

(A) a vitamin;

(B) a mineral;

(C) an herb or other botanical;

(D) an amino acid;

(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or

(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause
(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E);

....

(jj) The term antibiotic drug means any drug (except drugs for use in animals other than humans)
composed wholly or partly of any kind of penicillin, streptomycin, chlortetracycline, chloramphenicol,
bacitracin, or any other drug intended for human use containing any quantity of any chemical
substance which is produced by a micro-organism and which has the capacity to inhibit or destroy
micro-organisms in dilute solution (including a chemically synthesized equivalent of any such
substance) or any derivative thereof.

....

Ballentines Law Dictionary (Professor of Law, University of California,) 1948 Edition, offers the
following definitions:

Human being. See Monster. (Page 599)

Monster. A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. AA monster . . . hath
no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage; but,
although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet, if it hath human shape, it may be heir.@ 2 Bl.
Comm. 246. (Page 830).

Blackstones Commentaries, Book II, page 246, 247, Ch. 15, section 334

Monsters. A monster, which hath not the shape of mankind, but in any part evidently bears the
resemblance of the brute creation, hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be
brought forth in marriage: but, although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet if it hat human
shape, it may heir. This is a very ancient rule in the law of England;(f/n g) and its reason is too obvious,
and too shocking, to bear minute discussion.

footnote g Those who are born with an form no human are not considered children; as when a
woman by a perversion of nature brings forth something monstrous or prodigious.

* United States Code o TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS + CHAPTER 9 FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,
AND COSMETIC ACT # SUBCHAPTER V DRUGS AND DEVICES

* PART A DRUGS AND DEVICES

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

Section 360. Registration of producers of drugs or devices

(a) Definitions As used in this section

....

(e) Registration number; uniform system for identification of devices intended for human use The
Secretary may assign a registration number to any person or any establishment registered in
accordance with this section. The Secretary may also assign a listing number to each drug or class of
drugs listed under subsection (j) of this section. Any number assigned pursuant to the preceding
sentence shall be the same as that assigned pursuant to the National Drug Code. The Secretary may by
regulation prescribe a uniform system for the identification of devices intended for human use and
may require that persons who are required to list such devices pursuant to subsection (j) of this section
shall list such devices in accordance with such system.

....

(j) Filing of lists of drugs and devices manufactured, prepared, propagated and compounded by
registrants; statements; accompanying disclosures

(1) Every person who registers with the Secretary under subsection (b), (c), (d), or (i) of this section
shall, at the time of registration under any such subsection, file with the Secretary a list of all drugs and
a list of all devices and a brief statement of the basis for believing that each device included in the list is
a device rather than a drug (with each drug and device in each list listed by its established name (as
defined in section 352(e) of this title) and by any proprietary name) which are being manufactured,
prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed by him for commercial distribution and which he
has not included in any list of drugs or devices filed by him with the Secretary under this paragraph or
paragraph (2) before such time of registration. Such list shall be prepared in such form and manner as
the Secretary may prescribe and shall be accompanied by

(A) in the case of a drug contained in the applicable list and subject to section 355 or 360b of this title, or
a device intended for human use contained in the applicable list with respect to which a performance
standard has been established under section 360d of this title or which is subject to section

360e of this title, a reference to the authority for the marketing of such drug or device and a copy of all
labeling for such drug or device;

....

(k) Report preceding introduction of devices into interstate commerce Each person who is required to
register under this section and who proposes to begin the introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce for commercial distribution of a device intended for human use shall, at least
ninety days before making such introduction or delivery, report to the Secretary or person who is
accredited under section 360m(a) of this title (in such form and manner as the Secretary shall by
regulation prescribe)

(1) the class in which the device is classified under section

360c of this title or if such person determines that the device is not classified under such section, a
statement of that determination and the basis for such persons determination that the device is or is
not so classified, and

(2) action taken by such person to comply with requirements under section 360d or 360e of this title
which are applicable to the device.

(l) Exemption from reporting requirements A report under subsection (k) of this section is not required
for a device intended for human use that is exempted from the requirements of this subsection under
subsection (m) of this section or is within a type that has been classified into class I under section 360c
of this title. The exception established in the preceding sentence does not apply to any class I device
that is intended for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human
health, or to any class I device that presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.

15 Comments
Posted by Adask on June 16, 2008 in "Man or Other Animals", "The State" vs. "this state", Uncategorized

15 responses to Man or other animals Laws #2

Luke
August 20, 2009 at 1:33 AM

i
Rate This

Man or other animals probably slots right into the U.S. Department of Agriculture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Agriculture

Reply

adask

August 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM

i
Rate This

Youre almost certainly on target. Dessie Andrews has devoted much study to the Department
of Agriculture laws and discovered that the powers entrusted to that Department are almost
shocking. Insofar as the people are deemed to be animals (livestock on the global plantation) it
would not be particularly surprising if most of the laws regarding their care, feeding and
regulation were found under the Department of Agriculture.

Reply

Pingback: The War on Drugs (Says: You Are An ANIMAL) Absentcapacity's Blog
Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)

June 1, 2011 at 10:41 PM

i
Rate This
Mr. Adask,

Ive been compelled to study your blog for about two weeks now.

But it isnt merely your writing style that compels this study.

What compels me is that, aside from the devestating implications of the man or other animals
phrase you disovered and elucidated upon in your essay and many other essays, Ive thought of a
few, devestating implications that might arise or be attendant to the man and other animals
definitionand Im sure others have thought of many more devestating implications.

And, the growing number of devestating implications that have already arisen and will continue to
arise as consequences grow intolerable stemming from an evil rulerships adaptation in real life of
this mere theory of man as animaland, this should help, once theyve been made aware of it,
people of Faith to come to a decision quicklythey cannot in good faith do otherwise, once theyve
caught on to the fact of its actual codification, existing right now, in a hidden rulerships law, and
that that law is taken, by the secular, atheistic rulership to be actionable doctrine

Once theyre free of this ignorance about a devestating matter thats been keep occult from all of us,
if their faith is strong they will do all thats needed to cast off the secretly imposed yoke legally
forced upon themforever.

Some devestating implications:

This legal definition is devestating because it has lawfully bequeathed a strange primacy to men
and women of science as to be exceptions to the man and other animals definition of human
beingsthese scientists will no doubt now feel free to make the sky the limit with their scientific
experimentation upon man or other animals.

It is devestating because it has lawfully adhered an even stranger primacy to men and women
who govern (not surprising) in that it apparently, and by inference, exempts these definers
from their own man as animal rule

It is devestating because it has bestowed a lawfully inviolable Drug monopoly to the

Pharmaceutical Cartel.

At first to me, the most devestating implication of the man as animal definition was its
affectiveness in hiding in plain sight in food and drug laws and secretly being applied by the
rulers with a zealous impudence and insolence reminiscent of nazismupon the American
people without their knowledge.

Then the suspicious conspiracy theory-like thought cropped up as to how attorneys, lawyers,
counsels, advocates and judges AT LAW, all of whom are obligated to study and know
contemporary law intensely; most of whom must have dealt with drug cases as professionals how
could ALL of them have overlooked the implications of the food and drug laws that define man as
animal?they could not ALL have been atheists or pagans or heathens or secular humanists,
could they?have they ALL been diabolists, then?Is there some sort of ultra-secret ritual or rite
of acceptance for diabolist-lawyers wherein they swear, on penalty of debarment or death NEVER
to reveal the implications of the devestating food and drug laws that define man as an animal?

Could explain why all my life Ive mistrusted politicians in general and lawyers in particulareven
lawyers whove defended me.

Worst of all then, how many other devestating definitions are hidden in plain sight by the law?

Its almost impossible that this devestating definition that defines man as animal is not the
essential justification and basis from which diabolical governance administers from within the
alternate reality theory you are exploring, Mr. Adask.

May God protect you, sir.

May God help us all.

Reply

Adask

June 2, 2011 at 1:53 AM

i
Rate This

Firstas to the danger attendant to exposing a secret like man or other animalsthe only time
youre in real danger is when youre the only one who knows the particular secret. If you can be
silenced, the secret remains concealed.
But once youve shared the secret with others, if you are mysteriously silenced, that silencing
only underscores the importance of the secret. If something were to happen to me, it would not
stop the spread of the man or other animals insightit would accelerate that spread.
This rationalization doesnt necessarily mean that Im safe. But it does make it easier for me to
sleep.
Second, I knew from the moment that I first read the man or other animals text and realized that
it was no mistake, that our Father YHWH ha Elohiym had given me this insight. In some regards, I
was aware from the beginning that Id been groomed for years to understand enough about the
Bible and about the Declaration of Independence, and even enough about grammar so I could see
and understand the meaning of the man or other animals phrase.
I have never doubted that Im doing the Good LORDs work in this matter. This is not to say that
Im doing that work well or as effectively as I should, but I am nevertheless doing the Good LORDs
work.
So, if He wants to protect me, good. And if He wants to sacrifice me, thats also OK with me.
But all of the personal implications and beliefs aside, what really astonishes and even frightens me
is that I appear to be the first outsider to read and comprehend the meaning and implications of
the man or other animals laws in OVER A CENTURY. I.e., the earliest evidence Ive found for
man or other animals is the Food and Drug Act of A.D. 1906.
How th hell has the meaning of man or other animals been kept a secret in plain sight for at
least 105 years? How th hell can the American people have been so freaking ignorant for so long?!
In the end, the insight into the meaning of man or other animals is not rocket science. No priest,
no minister, no biblical scholar, no lawyer, no laymanno one else has deduced and publicized the
meaning of man of other animals.
This scares the hell out of me. Im an intelligent man, but Im not that intellectually exceptional.
Somebody shouldve read man or other animals and understood the meaning long before now.
But, so far as I know, no other outsider has recognized the meaning of man or other animals in
over a century. How can a nation of 300 million people be so uniformly ignorant? I dont see how
its possible for this secret to have been sustained for over a century without some sort of
supernatural assistance.
And, thanks to recent email from readers in Australia and England, it appears that variations on the
man or other animals phrase are found in the drug laws of those countries, too. So, its not just
Americans whove been somehow prevented from understanding the secret phrase; its also
hundreds of millions of people in other countries who have also failed to perceive a fairly obvious
truth.
I am flat-out flabbergasted. This is too strange to be explained by mere secular notions about
grammar or education. I cannot explain this level of pervasive ignorance without supposing that
mens minds have been clouded by supernatural forces.
Finally, Ive tried to advance understanding of the man or other animals insight and of its
political and spiritual implications for most of four years. Until now, Ive had virtually no success.
Ive written about the concept; Ive talked about it in public meeting and on the radio. People hear,
they get excited . . . and then nothing seems to come of it. They seemingly hear, and then forget.
My inability to build a fire under this insight has amazed me just as much as my original discovery.
How could I be so inept that I couldnt properly promote what I believe may be the single most
important political and spiritual discovery in over a century?
But in the past two weeks, the responses Ive had on this blog and in my email cause me to think
that this ideas time may have finally come. People are beginning to get this idea in a way I
havent previously observed. Perhaps well just see another flurry of excitement followed by apathy
or memory loss. But I dont think so. I think the genii is out of the bottle. I think the idea will now
start to propagate on its own.
I know that at least one manyou, Dominicktruly understand the concept. I can see that
understanding in the fears youve expressed in your email. I can see that you, Dominick,
understand that the man or other animals phrase is far beyond mere issues of law or politics. You
understand that man or other animals hidden in plain sight for over a century is tangible
evidence of big-time, spiritual warfare. This is the real deal. Its like something out of Revelation
and end times. Im unable to even imagine that the persons responsible for devising, instituting
and maintaining the man or other animals phrase are not motivated by Satan.
Dominick, I know you understand. I am grateful for your understanding.
And, as you wrote, May God help us all.

Reply
 jArAt

March 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM

i
Rate This

man and other animals is in plain site and thus make a belief a statement, like a bible the law
of the state is a belief any one reading it would believe it to be fact people are told they are
animals and thus act like animal
exactly what they want to happen

Reply

jArAt

March 5, 2012 at 11:13 AM

i
Rate This

Revelations 22:14 the right to the tree of life is an inalienable Right

hemp=cannabis=marijuana = the tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil
the drug war is targeted at those who eat and have the right to the tree of life
thus we are the body of christ not animals but gods

Pingback: Speculation on Persons, Emergency, and the Obligation to Pay Taxes and Fines
Adask's law
Pingback: Territorial vs Extra-territorial Application of Law Adask's law
jeff

July 30, 2011 at 5:51 PM

0
 0

i
Rate This

Florida definition words it as humans or other animal

499 of the Florida statutes under definitions
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statuTes/index.cfm?
App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0400-0499/0499/Sections/0499.003.html

Reply

Anonymous

November 25, 2011 at 8:58 PM

i
Rate This

What was the outcome of this case? Did you write that yourself? Where did you learn how to do all
that?

Ive been researching the whole sovereignty thing, and it is quite overwhelming. Almost have to
have a couple law degrees.

Reply

Adask

November 26, 2011 at 5:05 AM

i
Rate This

Yes, with the grace of God, I wrote all of that.

And Im not kidding or trying to act sanctimonious with my grace of God comment. Theres
not the least doubt in my mind that the Good LORD has guided much of my self-education and
writing. I dont mean to imply that my work is perfect (its not) nor that its the work of a
 prophet. But theres been instance after instance when discoveries were made, information
was suddenly made available and insights I could not have imagined were suddenly present.
For reasons I do not begin to understand, the Good LORD sometimes helps me to see. Once I
see, I can do better work.
And dont imagine that the Good LORDs help is all fun and games. Its tough, difficult, and
sometimes painful. There is a price to be paidat least in my case. Much of pleasures that this
world has to offer must be abandoned. Its worth it. But its very hard to understand that its
worth it until youve been at it for many years. Even now, Im something of a double-minded
man in that part of me is glad to try to serve the Good LORD, but another part of me is
practically whining like a little kid who cant understand why he cant go out and have some
fun with the rest of the kids.
What would be so bad if I had my own home or a family? Couldnt I have those things and also
serve God?
In my case, the answer appears to be No.
As you correctly observe, you almost have to have a couple of law degrees to reach a certain
level of understanding. I couldnt reach that level of understanding based on my own self-
education if I was also burdened with the obligations of paying for and maintaining a home and
holding a family together. There just arent enough hours in the day to do all of that. If Id had
access to all the pleasures of this life, my level of understanding might not be half of what it is
today.
So theres a price to paid if you would seek to understand.
Given the chance, Id pay that price again.
But theres still part of me thats whining about How come I have to do my homework, while
all the other kids are out playin?

More, Ive been studying and trying to understand the legal system (doing my homework) for
an average of 60 hours a week for 28 years. I dont know that my study equates to a couple of
law degrees. Over the years Ive come to a number of false or at least imperfect conclusions.
But I know that the current legal system is incredibly sophisticated and not easily understood or
believed. Trying to understand it absolutely takes time. The time you spend on one thing, you
cannot spend on another. So, the first step towards knowledge is the necessity that you choose
between what this world has to offer and the knowledge that you seek and might discover. That
choice can be painful. Either way you choose, you lose something wonderful. You can only hope
that whichever way you choose, you will choose that which is more wonderful and your gain
will be greater than your loss.

The outcome of the case is that the Attorney General of Texasafter investing 6 years and nearly
$500,000 in pre-trial investigations and pre-trial hearings, simply dropped the case. They never
sent me a letter explaining their disappearance. They never admitted that theyd lost or that
we were pretty smart. They simply stopped contacting us and ceased all effort to prosecute after
November of A.D. 2006.

Reply

Dane Metcalfe

September 21, 2015 at 7:08 PM

 0

i
Rate This

Heres a few from Oklahoma:

63 O.S. 1-1401:

For the purposes of this article:

A. The term drug means:

2. Articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in
man or other animals;
3. Articles, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or
other animals; and

B. The term device, except when used in subsection K of this section and in subsection (i)
of Section 1-1402, subsection (c) ofSection 1-1409, and subsection (c) of Section 1-1411 of this title,
means instruments, apparatus and contrivances, including their components, parts and accessories,
intended:
1. For use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other
animals; or
2. To affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

63 O.S. 2-201 Definitions

14. Drug means articles:

b. intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man or
other animals,
c. other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other
animals, ..

Schools 70 O.S. 1210.222 Drug defined:

As used in this act, the term drug means articles recognized in the official United States
Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National
Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,
mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; articles, other than food,
intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and articles
intended for use as a component of any article specified in this paragraph; but does not include
devices or their components, parts or accessories. It shall also include alcoholic and intoxicating
liquor and beverages and tobacco.
Historical Data

Laws 1972, c. 212, 2, emerg. eff. April 6, 1972.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=91248

Wilson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 605 P. 2d 1327 Okla: Supreme Court 1980

Drug is defined by 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B) as including articles intended for use in the diagnosis,
cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals. The intended use
determines whether even the most commonly ingested foods and liquids are drugs within the
meaning of the Act.[3] It is undeniable that laetrile is a drug under the Act.[4]

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=4698

STATE v. BROADRICK, 1980 OK CR 107, 620 P.2d 450

4 The State argues that the term any other drug should be construed in a nontechnical sense so as
to include any substance which has an intoxicating effect. The appellee urges that because toluene is
not intended to affect the structure or function of the body of man or other animals, it does not fall
within the drug definition.

7 We are further of the opinion that when paint vapors are inhaled for their intoxicating effect, they
fall within Clause 3, which includes articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or
any function of the body of man or any other animals. Also applicable is Laws 1979, c. 105, 1,
now 37 O.S.Supp. 1979 8 [37-8](A), which provides penalties for consuming or inhaling
intoxicants in public places.2

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=5499

Wilson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 1980 OK 9, 605 P.2d 1327

6 Drug is defined by 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B) as including articles intended for use in the diagnosis,
cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals. The intended use
determines whether even the most commonly ingested foods and liquids are drugs within the
meaning of the Act.3 It is undeniable that laetrile is a drug under the Act.4

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=4698

Reply

Adask

September 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM

 0

i
Rate This

Thanks for your research. Much appreciated.

Reply

Pingback: Today Sunday | Cynthia's Journal

Blog at WordPress.com.

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Save