Misc RM 39 Misc reference material
man or other animals laws Part 1
Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.
We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.
If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it.
Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.
One of our classmates Alfred Adask is involved in a court action.
Following is a letter sent to Dr. Paul by hand-delivering a copy of the document to Ron Paul's son in Iowa December 27, 2007.
Some people have asked to see my references to the laws that define man to be an "animal". I finally assembled a semi-presentable document for "laymen" to support my claim. I assembled the document hastily and primarily for presidential candidate Ron Paul.
As you may know, Dr. Paul is critical of the police state, the FDA, big government etc. All of those entities bound together by "man or other animals" food and drug laws. All of those entities are vulnerable to a religious freedom challenge to the "man or other animals" drug laws.
If my analysis is valid, the "man or other animals" food and drug laws could strike a strong blow against the FDA, food and drug laws, police state and prison-industrial complex.
A friend of mine hand-delivered a copy of the attached document to Ron Paul's son on
December 27th, A.D. 2007, in Iowa. The son promised to deliver the document to Dr. Paul. We shall see if that really happens.
1) The grammatical construct "A or other B" always means that "A" is a specific example or "subset" of the generic class "B". For example, if I said "trout or other fish," you'd know that "trout" ("A") was a specific example of the generic class of entities called "fish" ("B"; which could include several "fish" such as trout, bass, shark and sunfish, etc.). Likewise, If I said "banana or other fruit," you'd understand that a "banana" ("A") was a specific example of the generic class ("B") called "fruit" (which could include several kinds of "fruit" such as bananas, apples, oranges and watermelons). Thus, the phrase " man or other animals" must mean that "man" ("A") is a specific example of a generic class called "animals" ("B"; which could include monkeys, apes, cows, cats, dogs and man, etc.). When used in laws, the "man or other animals" phrase must mean that government deems man to be an animal.
2) A number of fundamental Texas and federal food and drug laws expressly apply to "man or other animals" and thereby presume man to be an animal;
3) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—champion of Big Pharmaceutical companies—is largely built on the "man or other animals" laws that presume man to be an "animal".
4) The health laws of Texas are based on "man or other animals" definitions that presume man to be an "animal". (And I'll bet that virtually every other state's food and drug laws are based on that same presumption.)
5) The "War on Drugs" began by President Nixon in A.D. 1971 is based on "man or other animals" definitions of drugs that presume man to be an "animal".
6) Insofar as the modern police state was built primarily on the "War on Drugs, that police state is ultimately based on "man or other animals" definitions of drugs that presume man to be an animal.
7) Insofar as the U.S. "prison-industrial complex" (which imprisons a higher percentage of Americans than are imprisoned by any other government on earth) resulted from the police state that resulted from the "War on Drugs" that was ultimately based on "man or other animals" definitions of drugs that presume man to be an "animal"—then the " prison industrial complex" is built primarily on the presumption that man is an "animal".
8) However, my Bible declares at Genesis 1:26-27 that God created man—and man alone—in His image and gave man dominion over the animals. Thus, a Jewish and/or Christian (and probably Muslim) man cannot consent to be labeled as an "animal" without abandoning his standing as a creature not only made by God but made uniquely in God's image. To consent to the status of "animal" is tantamount abandoning one's faith in the God of the Bible. The principle that man is not an "animal" is crucial to the Jewish and Christian (and probably Muslim) faiths. I.e., if man is not made in God's image, man is no more important to God than cows, cats, dogs or worms. If man is not made in God's image, man has no hope for eternal life or salvation. Therefore, any laws that declare man to be an animal violate a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths. More, when government enacted "man or other animals" laws that implicitly declared all men to be animals, government effectively refuted a fundamental principal of the Jewish and Christian faiths and " established" and imposed a pagan religion upon the People of The United States of America. Such "establishment" violates the First Amendment the federal Constitution as well as guarantees of religious freedom under the First Amendment and State constitutions.
9) The Declaration of Independence declares as self-evident truth that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." By enacting "man or other animals" food and drug laws, state and federal governments declare man to be an "animal" and thereby strip us (without due course of law or our voluntary consent) of our standing to claim God-given, unalienable Rights. The God-given, unalienable Rights are the foundation for our sovereignty, our Liberty and our claim to Freedom. As animals without connection to God, we have no standing to claim sovereignty, Liberty or Freedom.
10) The food and drug laws, the FDA, the "War on Drugs," the resulting police state, the resulting "prison-industrial complex," and even our loss of Liberties—which are the heart of our increasingly fascist political system—are all ultimately
based, at least in part, on a series of laws and mere definitions that presume man to be an "animal". I believe those "man or other animal" laws and definitions are absolutely vulnerable
to a suit based on "freedom of religion" and/or the "establishment of religion" clauses of the First Amendment and similar guarantees of religious freedom under State
In broad strokes, somewhere between 90 and 95% of the American people at least pay lip-service to the God of the Bible. What jury—90 to 95% of which at least pay lip service to the God of the Bible—could convict anyone of a food- or drug-related offense if, in doing so, the jury would have to implicitly admit that they, their parents, spouses, children and loved ones were all nothing but "animals" and thus with no more hope of eternal salvation than their cats, dogs, chickens and cows?
This argument is not merely theoretical. The practical implications of being deemed an animal are historic, profound and dangerous. The American Civil War was initiated or at least justified by the goal of freeing the slaves. But Negroes were "slaves" because they were deemed not to be "men" but were instead deemed to be "animals"—chattel, livestock, etc. 750,000 American died in the Civil War based, at least in part, on our nation's willingness to recognize Negroes as animals.
During World War II, the Nazis executed Jews based on the presumption that all Jews were "untermenschen" (under-men or "animals"). Some untold number of Jews died based on the Nazi's refusal to recognize Jews as men. To some degree, the entire WWII was arguably based on the German "master race" beliefs that necessarily deemed people of other races to be "animals".
The American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was characterized by Negroes wearing signs that declared "I am a man". Americans died and cities burned, at least in part, based on a felt refusal to admit that Negros were men.
I doubt that any instance of genocide in the man's history has ever been advocated or taken place without the perpetrators first declaring that the victims were nothing but "animals". So long as the victims are deemed "animals," there's no reason why non-belligerant men, woman and even children can't be killed like so many troublesome rats.
Whenever any people are designated as "animals," history repeatedly suggests that such people are headed for violence, slavery or genocide.
1 071224 Letter to Ron Paul ED3
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 man—and only man—in 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 government's drug laws violate the First Amendment's "establishment clause" and guarantee of the People's 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 AMENDMENT's "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 defendant's 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 be allowed to continue.
December 24th, A.D. 2007
Dear Dr. Paul,
I've been a political activist in legal reform for 24 years. I've understood for at least a decade that government regards us all as a pack of "animals"—but 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 I'll 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 God's image .
This notion may seem preposterous, but I've 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 General's 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 haven't found a
single customer who has been damaged or injured by the colloidal silver products nor have they found a single customer who's 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 persona "—without 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 animals"—appears 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".
I'm 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 "animal"—but 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 they'd 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 I'm 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."
I've 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 God's image—and thus, that man is distinctly different from all the "animals"—is 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 God's 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.
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 General's lawsuit with a counter-claim that is primarily based on the First Amendment ( religious freedom and establishment of religion), the Texas Constitution's 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) faiths—which all (I suspect) deem man to be made in God's 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 can't 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 incredible—at least at first. But I've 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 General's Office every two to four weeks—until 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. Dietz—the chief administrative judge for Travis County, Texas—took 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 AG's 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, they'll probably win a multi-million dollar judgment that they'll 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, we're 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, I'll bet you'll 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 substances"—but the "controlled substances" laws are ultimately based on the definition of "drugs".) If it weren't 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 can't 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 Nazi's 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 Hutu's break out their machetes to slaughter Tutsi's, I'll guarantee the resulting murders of men, women and children are based on the presumption that the Tutsi's 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 can't imagine it being rejected by anyone who is serious about his faith—including 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 God's 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 I'm 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 if—in addition to loving the LORD—the 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 it's 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 man—and I think that my understanding it pretty close to being right. If you have any questions or comments, my email is
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
Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".
|RM 01 RM 02 RM 03 RM 04 RM 05 RM 06 RM 07 RM 08 RM 09 RM 10 RM 11 RM 12 RM 13 RM 14 RM 15 RM 16 RM 17 RM 18 RM 19 RM 20 RM 21 RM 22 RM 23 RM 24 RM 25 RM 26 RM 39 RM 40|