On this Flashback Friday episode, Jason Hartman interviews Citizens for Legal Reform founder Alfred Adask. He discusses his time being jailed for nearly one year at a maximum-security prison with no warrant or charges ever filed against him. In addition, he was sued by the Texas Attorney General for over $9 million.
Announcer 0:00
Welcome to this week’s edition of flashback Friday, your opportunity to get some good review by listening to episodes from the past that Jason has hand picked to help you today in the present and propel you into the future. Enjoy.
Announcer 0:14
Welcome to the holistic survival show with Jason Hartman. The economic storm brewing around the world is set to spill into all aspects of our lives. Are you prepared? Where are you going to turn for the critical life skills necessary to survive and prosper? The holistic survival show is your family’s insurance for a better life. Jason will teach you to think independently to understand threats and how to create the ultimate action plan. sudden change or worst case scenario. You’ll be ready. Welcome to holistic survival, your key resource for protecting the people, places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Ladies and gentlemen, your host Jason Hartman
Jason Hartman 1:03
Welcome to the holistic survival show. This is your host, Jason Hartman, where we talk about protecting the people, places and profits you care about in these uncertain times. We have a great interview for you today. And we will be back with that in less than 60 seconds on the holistic survival show. And by the way, be sure to visit our website at holistic survival calm, you can subscribe to our blog, which is totally free has loads of great information. And there’s just a lot of good content for you on the site. So make sure you take advantage of that at holistic survival calm, we’ll be right back.
Announcer 1:35
What’s great about the shows you’ll find on Jason hartman.com is that if you want to learn how to finance your next big real estate deal, there’s a show for that. If you want to learn more about food storage, and the best way to keep those onions from smelling up everything else, there’s a show for that. If you honestly want to know more about business ethics, here’s a show for that and if you just want to get away from From it all and need to know something about world travel. There’s even a show for that. Yep. Here’s the show for just about anything, only from Jason Hartman calm or type in Jason Hartman in the iTunes Store.
Jason Hartman 2:23
You’re going to hear some fascinating things from our next guest. We are going to talk about legal reform. We’re going to talk about the sovereign citizens movement and what you are about to hear will absolutely amaze you. And it may give you some hope that little guy can stand up against some of the evils that government commits from time to time and all too often nowadays. Our guest today is Alford at us and he is with us from Dallas, Texas. And Alfred, how are you?
Alfred Adask 2:49
I’m doing well.
Jason Hartman 2:50
Thank you, Jason. Well, good. I’m glad to have you on the show today. You were sued by the Texas Attorney General for $25,000 $9 million per year. Tell us about that.
Alfred Adask 3:03
I was the last of seven defendants in a case that involved the manufacturer and distribution of a controlled substance. The case began in 2001 against a husband and wife and their Corporation and they were manufacturing and distributing Colloidal Silver, which is an inexpensive antibiotic that consists of distilled water with silver ions in suspension in the water. The FDA initiated the suit it was prosecuted by the Attorney General of the state of Texas. It was the Texas Department of State Health Services they fronted on the suit and they threatened each of the defendants. Again, husband wife and their Corporation were the three original events. And then another man came in and they added him to the he bought some of their equipment. They added him as a defendant and his Corporation and his trust. He asked me if I could assist him and I volunteered to be fiduciary for his trust in the Attorney General made me a defendant, which was surprising Turns out, I didn’t understand that part of the law. But I was much surprised where I was not merely a, you know, a fiduciary, I was now a defendant for 25 grand a day, 9 million a year.
Jason Hartman 4:12
And that must have been a very, very scary experience for you. Now, Alfred, I gotta ask, you know, when most people hear the phrase controlled substance, they’re thinking drugs, recreational drugs, hallucinogenic drugs, this is Colloidal Silver. I mean, why is it a controlled substance? First of all?
Alfred Adask 4:30
Well, you would have to ask the FDA about that. But that was the rule on it. It involves their definition of drugs and I don’t know I can’t the why. Ultimately, the Why is they wanted off the market on behalf of large pharmaceutical manufacturers who don’t want inexpensive antibiotic available to the people, or at least that’s our belief and they wanted it removed from the market and they were going to just stomp us flat and beat the essentially beat the hell out of us in ordered and make an make make a statement and try to scare everyone else in the country that was manufacturing Colloidal Silver seems it seems today that we have a we have a new flavor of fascism where the government is just in bed with the corporations. But all the time, it seems like they’re being socialist in so many ways. It’s just a really, really amazing thing. I want to get to the the prison system and talk about that too. But first of all, tell me what is your take on the relationship between the modern drug laws we have and genocide? Most people would never make this connection? No, I do have one day now. No, it was it was it was unusual. I’m sure I’m the first person to realize what this is. What happened is going on the last person added as a defendant in this case, and I read the relevant law and part of the relevant law. We’re being charged for manufacturing distribution of a controlled substance and it applies to drugs. And I’m reading right now from plaintiffs motion. This was the Texas Attorney General motion for summary judgment dated May 31 2006. And it declares in part definition of 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 drugs and then they quote, Texas Department of Health and Safety Code for 31.002 subparagraph 14 and it says drug means articles recognized by the official United States pharmacopoeia yada yada yada, and or any supplement to it articles designed or intended for the use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation treatment, prevention of disease in man or other animals. And I saw the phrase man or other animals The first thing I thought is these people gotta be crazy. I can read and I understand it didn’t say man or animals it said man or other animals. And I said, Well, well that means they regard man as an animal. And I first one of the first time I saw it, I thought, why that boy the damn fools they must be crazy. They don’t know what they’re doing with it right this time. And I continue reading and it says, articles other than food intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. They said it twice in the definition of drugs in the state code. And then in the federal code at title 21, the United States Code Section 321 G, one, same definition, and it says twice man or other animals. Well, I’m a student of the Bible. All right, I’m not a scholar, but I’m a student. And I understand that a Genesis 126 through 28. It says that On the sixth day, God created man in His image in God’s image, and gave man dominion over the animals that tells me that as a man made in God’s image, I cannot be an animal. And it tells me that if the government passes a law that presumes me to paint an animal, they do so in violation of the Jewish faith, the Christian faith and probably the Muslim faith. I’m not a student of the Muslim faith, but I assume they operate on the same principles.
Jason Hartman 7:57
So what you’re getting to here is is a defense a constitutional law defense? Yeah. Under your right to freedom of religion?
Alfred Adask 8:07
Yes. As a defense against the drug laws, this definition of drugs. And this is the definition of drugs on which the the war on drugs was based. When President Nixon started that war on drugs back in 1971. It’s based on the presumption that the people or animals and the war on drugs gave us MMA laid the foundation for much of the modern police state, and the police state laid the foundation for much of the modern prison industrial complex right now. 70% of the people in federal penitentiaries I’ve heard, I don’t know what the truth of matter is, but I’ve heard 70% of they’re on drug related crimes. All of this is based on a definition of drugs that presumes the people to be animals in violation of fundamental principles of the Bible.
Jason Hartman 8:47
So when you entered this defense, how did you do it? Was it in your answer to their lawsuit? Yeah,
Alfred Adask 8:54
that’s what we did. We responded and I first off, tried to establish that I’m a man made in God’s image, who’s gonna argue with it, I mean, I guarantee I can prove it. I certainly have a Bible I can point to I just laid out an extensive document. And we essentially said, Look, we are men made in God’s image. You can’t declare us to be animals without violating our freedom of religion. Up until that point, did you actually sue
Jason Hartman 9:17
them? Or do you just sense? This was just a defense. Okay. It wasn’t a cross
Alfred Adask 9:22
complaint them? No, we didn’t file a counterclaim on them or anything like that. We all we did was this was simply a defense. And we weren’t absolutely certain of what we were doing. No, this was new to us, and nobody’s done it previously.
Jason Hartman 9:33
Yeah, that’s a very fascinating defense. I never would have thought of it,
Alfred Adask 9:37
we advanced the defense. And up until that time, we’d been getting new paperwork from the Attorney General’s Office certified mail every two to six weeks, we’d get another thick bundle of paper from them involved in the case. And that has been going on for over 18 months. 1218 months that I had been involved in the case up until that point in time, once we advanced this defense, they went dead silent for five months. We didn’t hear a word from and we’re usually getting something every two to six weeks, got nothing. Then they came back after five months. And they spent the next five months trying to settle the case. And they ultimately offered to let us skate without any fines and without even paying any court costs. And we had an assistant attorney general of handling the case, roll Noriega, and he said he’d been there for 22 years. And he told us that he had never heard of the attorney general’s office. He said, they’ll sometimes offer not to find people, but they always impose the court costs. Alright, and they’d invested close to half a million dollars before this case was over. They should normally have at least tried to take us where the court costs. They weren’t letting us go, just skate. All they wanted is been Taylor to take a food manufacturers license, and that was it walk away. We did we refuse to settle with them under any terms. And then we had two more hearings on jurisdiction. They declared they did have jurisdiction and then they simply drop the case they disappeared in 2007. And we haven’t heard another word from them. Well, the point is You know, we don’t have a victory where you can point to it in court or somebody said, Yep, you absolutely won. But they did drop the case. And after investing again, we know because the assistant attorney general told us how much they’ve invested in the case and how much time and so on, it’s virtually unprecedented that the government would invest a half million dollars in the prosecution of a case and then simply drop it. The reason is, because if we went to court on this, and we get in front of a jury and explain to a jury that the government regards you and your children and your parents and everyone you ever loved as nothing but livestock animals, there’s no jury in the world that’s going to rule against us. There’s just no way I mean, I would pay money to see the prosecutor that can persuade a jury to vote that we should be found guilty, because we are animals in the jury are animals. On top of which the whole war on drugs is built on this definition. If this case, one forward on appeal, as we get up the letter assuming in the unlikely event that we were convicted or found guilty at the trial court level if it went up The letter we start sooner or later we’re going to get to a court that’s going to have to admit that the people are not animals. And when they do that the drug war ends in that part of the country.
Jason Hartman 12:10
So what’s Why haven’t you filed a civil rights claim?
Alfred Adask 12:14
Well, I never violated our civil rights. This was never such when no one was ever jailed on this thing. Um, we were so this was a civil action throughout the whole thing. And, and part of the reason is that the guy that I was associated with on this, that it asked me to help, all he wanted to do was just get back to his business. He didn’t want to make any more waves if they were done. If they were, if the government had gone away that suited him just fine. He didn’t care about that. He was not interested in sewing. I wanted to go ahead with that he didn’t want to I said fine. It was all right.
Jason Hartman 12:42
In what happened to all of the other defendants then?
Alfred Adask 12:45
Well, the husband and wife the original husband and wife, they spent $160,000 on attorneys. When the case first began. The cost of the attorneys drove them into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy pushed them into divorce. The two of them divorced and they left For Parts Alfred Adask, right their Corporation was done. The other guy, Ben Taylor, he’s still manufacturing Colloidal Silver down there in utopia, Texas. He in his corporations trust and I’m no longer fiduciary for his trust. What do you see is the most important trend in in politics today? I mean, people are upset like I have never, ever seen it before. There’s a lot of dissatisfaction going on with the system nowadays, in the power of the beat. A couple answers to the question, the biggest, the biggest problem we have, of course, is the debt is beyond ever being repaid. As point one, the debt is too great to ever be repaid. And this is what the government understands. People don’t yet understand it. They were being led to believe that we have to pay the debt. And they’re led to believe that it’s possible to pay the debt.
Jason Hartman 13:43
And I just want to chime in there and say when you say it can’t be repaid, it can’t be repaid in constant dollars. It can’t be
Alfred Adask 13:51
in terms of purchasing power. Yeah, it’s like Alan Greenspan made the point this last weekend. Oh, we we can’t default on our debt because We’ll just print more money.
Jason Hartman 14:01
It is unbelievable how these Keynesian thinkers like that think that they can just keep printing money with with wild abandon and no no penalty for the money printing. I mean, of course the penalty is massive monetary inflation.
Alfred Adask 14:15
It’s the whole idea is as crazy as me saying that I can’t possibly be broke because I still have more checks in my checkbook. That’s exactly right. Doesn’t matter how many checks you have in your checkbook. How much money do you have in the checking account? That’s what counts in this great
Jason Hartman 14:29
analogy,
Alfred Adask 14:30
girl. That’s what it comes down to it. It’s just in the eye. The debt however, you probably familiar with john Williams and shadow stone. Sure.
Jason Hartman 14:38
Yeah. Yeah.
Alfred Adask 14:39
Well, the government is assuring us that the the current debt, national debt is in the neighborhood of $14 trillion. Williams calculates that the debt is now about 75 trillion, at least the last time I last time, I’m aware of his calculation several months ago, but $75 trillion. We’re talking five times greater than what’s being reported by the government. $75 trillion, divide that by the population, roughly 300 million, and you’re talking $250,000 in debt for every man, woman and child in the country, and there’s no way in the world I look out the street, I know I don’t have an extra quarter million for my fair share of the total national debt and you take a family for their fair share would be $1 million. I just don’t see that this is possible. I look at it certain amount of guesstimate certain amount of common sense. I’m just saying, I don’t think they can collect more than 20% maximum on the existing national debt. I think 80% has to be repudiated. Because there’s no way you’re not going to squeeze all of that money out of all of these people, isn’t gonna happen.
Jason Hartman 15:42
You know, in my opinion, there are only six ways out of the mouse. And I think the way they will get out of the mess is they’ll just inflate their way out of it. And in so doing in that process, they will impoverish 200 to 200 and 50 million or more people in this country. Unless you’re positioning yourself Assets properly and you’re positioning your liabilities properly, you’re gonna get burned. And you may
Alfred Adask 16:05
burn even if you don’t, yeah, well, even if you have positioned yourself properly, because if they can break this country down where 200 and 50 million people are suddenly broke, and perhaps starving, you better not have your neighbors had better not suspect that you have some food when they don’t?
Jason Hartman 16:21
Well, that’s why we talk on the show about survival techniques, because there is a possibility that it could get really, really ugly like that. But that brings me actually to another question. I mean, where do you think the country is really headed? I mean, that’s what you’re really talking about, but maybe more broadly, what else do you want to say about that?
Alfred Adask 16:37
Well, we’re headed for extraordinarily difficult time. And what will happen? No one knows. It depends a lot on how bad things get, you know, is it going to break down to where we have hordes of people looting and robbing? Or is it simply going to break down to where we have people that are unemployed and managing to get through, but just barely through the next great depression? Hard to say how bad this will be. But it’s going to be a terrible situation. And in the context of that situation, it’s possible that we’re going to see a lot of political instability, it’s possible that we could see a brand new form of government come into this country.
Jason Hartman 17:14
And that might be a good thing. You know, some good might come out of that
Alfred Adask 17:17
it’s possible. I mean, it’s the kind of thing though, that you have to be careful about. Because when these people you get, you break this this economy down where people can barely find anything to eat, and anybody who comes up and I don’t care if he’s a Nazi, or communist or whatever, if he can make a credible promise to put a chicken in every pot, he’s going to have a bunch of people following. Alright, it’s going to be a dangerous time. It’s a time when people who are sensible In my opinion, would begin to study the Declaration of Independence, and pick up on the principles we have in that declaration and be in a position and begin to understand what it means to have the republican form of government that’s guaranteed in our Constitution, we have a democracy and the word doesn’t even appear in our federal constitution. Have a democracy, we’re guaranteed republican form of government and they’re not the same.
Jason Hartman 18:04
And I just want to I just want to say for the listeners who may not have really learned a lot about that issue, when you say Republican, you don’t mean the Republican Party, you mean a republic? Well, not exactly, not even a
Alfred Adask 18:14
republic. In fact, what article four, Section four of the Constitution, the United States declares, it says the United States shall guarantee to each state in this union, a Republican form of government, technically, there are supposed to be 50 republican forms of government, that all together comprise the several United States. That’s what we’re supposed to have. What we have instead is essentially a national democracy.
Jason Hartman 18:39
Well, tell us about that. You know, what’s the difference between a given state I know Texas now you’re you’re in Dallas, and I know Texas has something actually different in their state constitution than other states. And they they have a much more independent way of thinking there. So does Arizona Nevada to an extent one of the northeastern states, I think Rhode Island maybe don’t quote me on that has a similar trend running through their their thought process there. You talk about the Texas penal code in your notes section 1.04. d, what? What’s that all about?
Alfred Adask 19:13
section one is general provisions of the Texas penal code. Point. 04 is territorial jurisdiction in subparagraph. d is a definition of the territorial jurisdiction of what they call this state. And section again, our Texas Penal Code 1.04. subsection D says this is what the text says. This state includes the land in the water, and the airspace above the land in the water over which this state has power to define offenses. That is the definition of the territorial jurisdiction of this state. But what is this state? It appears that the term this state does not refer to the state of Texas, it refers to a territory and it sounds I’m sure crazy to most people, but there’s reason to think that This might be correct. There’s a reason to believe that what the government has done is essentially shut the states of the Union down, render them insolvent and supplanted them. With a territory we’re in. If you’re within the state of Texas, that’s one venue. If you’re within TX or state of Texas, all uppercase letters, a different venue. And I know this sounds hard to believe, far fetched, fantastic, but it’s not a new concept. It’s been around for at least 15 years.
Jason Hartman 20:30
I don’t see why it would be that far fetched, really, because if you think about all the unfunded mandates, where the federal government is just pushing all these burdens onto states,
Alfred Adask 20:41
well, they’re actually pushing them onto territories in my opinion, and it’s quite legal when they do so. I’m trying to think which Section of the Constitution deals with it? It’s article four out but in any case, I think it’s article four, Section three, clause three, and it says, the Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needed rules and rules. regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, the government, the federal government has absolute jurisdiction do anything they want within the territories. And this is why they can pass all sorts in our opinion. We think this is why they can pass all sorts of bizarre laws. People look them so well, that’s unconstitutional. it’s unconstitutional within a state of the union. Yeah. But if it’s presumed that you’re operating in a territory, it’s not unconstitutional. Congress has virtually no constitutional limits on what it can do in the territories. All the constitutional limits apply to the states of the Union. This goes back to article one section 10 clause one constitution the United States which says no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender and payment of deaths,
Jason Hartman 21:47
legal tender laws,
Alfred Adask 21:48
Vietnam, no, it doesn’t say legal tender, a tender, not a legal tender, a tender it says no state it does not say no territory. It does not say the federal government can’t do it. It says only that the states have to operate on gold and silver coin. Now what happened? They took the gold out in 1933. They took the silver out domestically in 1968. How did the governments of the states of the Union continued to function since 1968? Without any gold or silver coin in circulation? constitution article one section 10. Clause one says no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender and payment of debt. How do they collect taxes? How do they impose fines? How do they pay their help? Without any gold and silver?
Jason Hartman 22:29
What is the answer? I mean, I think there’s two possible answers rhetorical supasub. No,
Alfred Adask 22:33
it’s not rhetorical. But there are two possible answers and you can take your pick. I don’t know which one is true. But there’s two possible answers. One, the government of the state of Texas is violating article one section 10 clause one of the constitution the United States every single time it imposes a fine collects penalties pays itself with Federal Reserve Notes. They were either acting unconstitutionally every time they touch cash or what passes for the government of the state of Texas is no longer the state of Texas in a territory. If it was the government of a territory, it can use Federal Reserve Notes. The requirement at article 110 one only applies to the states of the Union. It does not apply to territories, they are either acting unconstitutionally every time they touch a Federal Reserve Note or they are not truly the states of the Union. You tell me which is which it is, I can’t see a third option.
Jason Hartman 23:26
So in terms of your solution to this, you probably favor as do I further privatization of government activities or no, because then you get then you get it. But then you get the the prison complex, the prison industrial complex, and that sort of privatization really scares me where you get this sort of vigilante justice kind of thing. But I’d like to hear your thoughts on that. If you’d asked
Alfred Adask 23:49
me that question. 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, I would be all in favor of privatizing the government. as near as I can see, what we have right now is a fully privatized government already. Virtually all of the agencies are in fact, private corporations. You can go to manta.com on the internet, ma n ta calm. And right there. On the first page, you’ll see a little search engine manta.com has a list of almost 70 million private companies, most of which are here in the United States. Maybe all of you I don’t know if there’s any foreign countries, companies listed there. The information for this website is provided by Dun and Bradstreet. All right. And again, almost 60 or 70 million i think is almost 70 million corporations that they have here. For example, I’m at the search engine right now and you can type in the White House. Okay, do a search on it. It will take you to you will find a list of 14,140 US companies matching the White House. If you look at here’s number eight on the list. Now this this number moves depending on where they’re at, sometimes it’s number eight, sometimes seen in a number 37 number eight, the White House off 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest washington dc hang on just a second click on at the White House Office in Washington DC is a private company categorized under presidents office. Our records show was established in 1987. And incorporated in the District of Columbia. There is a I’m not saying this, this is done in Bradstreet. That’s telling us that what passes for the White House or at least part of what passes for the White House is a private company. I strongly suspect when you see the not just president obama but his press secretary, he’ll be standing in front of a logo that has a picture says the White House. I think that’s a corporate logo. I can’t prove it. I could be mistaken. But these guys, the White House, this is me.
Jason Hartman 25:46
This is fascinating, because I met the site now and I looked up the White House just like you said, I see that Yeah, it’s a pretty DC is a private company categorized under the president’s office.
Alfred Adask 25:57
Let me give you another one Internal Revenue Service just typed that into the search engine up on the top there 47,188 US companies matching Internal Revenue Service. Some of these are, I don’t know what they are tell you the truth. Others appear to be the individual branch offices of the Internal Revenue Service. They are listed as private companies. The the branch office for the Internal Revenue Service in Dallas is a different private company than the branch office for the one that’s up in Phoenix, Arizona. And they are both the different from the one that’s in Seattle, which one is the real Internal Revenue Service? Which one is the government as opposed to private corporations? The whole thing appears to be what passes for government right now appears to be a conglomerate of private corporations.
Jason Hartman 26:48
That is mind boggling. You know, I mean, I’ve always known and thought about gscs government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and so forth and these sort of in the Federal Reserve, which of course everybody knows is Not the least bit federal. But that’s that’s interesting. I’ve never done this before, though to this level,
Alfred Adask 27:04
you can do it. We’ve looked up courts, we found courts listed as private companies on manta.com. We looked up the Congress of the United States, we’ve identified the individual congressmen as private companies, according to manta.com. And I don’t make this stuff up. This is Dun and Bradstreet.
Jason Hartman 27:23
Really interesting.
Alfred Adask 27:24
Well, it’s, again, you’ve gone too far with privatization.
Jason Hartman 27:26
That probably is very true. And you know, it just makes me wonder who really owns the country and who really owns the world? Is it the 12 families that people talk about the Rothschilds, etc. It’s just
Alfred Adask 27:39
fascinating. Who owns these corporations? Yeah,
Jason Hartman 27:42
quite fascinating. Let me take a brief pause. We’ll be back in just a minute.
Alfred Adask 27:48
Now’s your opportunity to get the Financial Freedom Report. The Financial Freedom Report provides financial self defense in uncertain times. And it’s your source for innovative forward Thinking investment property strategies and advice, get your newsletter subscription today, you get a digital download and even more, the price only $197. Go to Jason hartman.com to get yours today.
Jason Hartman 28:19
Talk to us about the sovereign citizen movement in what was your interest in that originally offered?
Alfred Adask 28:25
Well, my interest is that I don’t like the government, I went through a divorce in 1983, I lost custody of my children, a very, very great deal of trouble came from it. And it was one of those things that started me down this track and one thing leads to another and you begin to understand the concept of sovereignty. I’ve been at it now for 28 years trying to understand what’s happening in the system. And we are brought back for example, Chisholm versus Georgia as a case from 1793, just a few years after the after the constitution was adopted and so on 1517 years, something like that, and the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the of the United States of America or sovereigns, plural. Without subjects, this country was intended to be a nation of individual sovereigns, individual kings and queens. And this is not a small thing. This goes to the heart of the concept of the republican form of government guaranteed that article four section four of the Constitution, the way you become sovereign is by receiving your rights directly from God, virtually no one grasps this anymore. But historically, if you went back into the Holy Roman Empire, and later when England broke loose, the reason the King of England was king is because he received the divine right of kings in a coordination ceremony that took place in a church. It was presumed that he and he alone had the divine right of kings, he got his rights directly from God. That’s what made him a sovereign, and that’s what reduced everyone else in the country to the status of subjects, one sovereign, all else were subjects That fundamental pattern existed throughout Europe up until 1776. When the founders came in in our country and they started the Declaration of Independence which said in the second sentence, We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, not just kings, well, all men including kings, not just the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, those unalienable rights and that endowment from God corresponds to what had previously been the divine right of Kings that was afforded only one man per country. Our founders started out and said, No, everybody gets their rights directly from God. And when they did that, that was the foundation for everyone in this country was presumed to be a sovereign. When you are sovereign, the government is your public servant. It’s not your master. If you’re not a sovereign, you’re subject under those circumstances the government becomes your master rather than your public servant. It goes to the fundamental question of who’s running this show? We the people? Are we the people in charge? Or is the government in charge? Who is the sovereign?
Jason Hartman 31:07
I don’t think we’re very sovereign anymore.
Alfred Adask 31:09
Well, that’s the way government would have you believe. And what we’ve tried to do is educate people look, our historical foundation is they intended us to be a nation of individual sovereigns.
Jason Hartman 31:20
I’m curious, do you live in Texas by design? Or is that just where you happen to live?
Alfred Adask 31:25
No, it’s kind of where I happen to live since 1980. It’s where I happen to live for the last 31 years. I guess you could say that. I don’t know if it’s a designer.
Jason Hartman 31:33
Well, yeah, no way. I mean, it was it wasn’t after you got him became interested in sovereign citizens movement. And so now with the sovereign citizens movement, I mean, or have you studied or thought about moving elsewhere? Are you looking at dual citizenship or I mean, there’s a lot of different flavors of this.
Alfred Adask 31:51
Or you mean like emigrating to a foreign country?
Jason Hartman 31:53
Yeah. You want to sovereign people say go live in South America. Whatever. Are you more being just being a student of have rights and the original plan is established by our founding fathers and really the the old biblical thoughts on
Alfred Adask 32:08
it. If I were a younger man, I might think about immigration. But I’m 66 years old, I’m not inclined to go to a foreign country. And on top of which, that’s that’s one part of the explanation. The other part of it is I’m serious about my faith, and right or wrong. People might say, I’m delusional or whatever. But the truth of the matter is, is I feel the good Lord has called me to do what I’m doing. And whether other people think that’s foolishness or not, I don’t know when I don’t even care. But it does appear that this is what the good Lord wants me to do. I don’t think he wants me to do it from South America. There’s times when I would like to, and I’ve prayed on it. But I insofar as I can get an answer, the answer is no. This is my this is I’m a watchman on this section of the wall. This is my section of the wall. Keep your eyes peeled, stand firm to the end. That’s my that’s that’s my objective.
Jason Hartman 32:58
So do you have any Advice for listeners about protecting their sovereignty?
Alfred Adask 33:04
Yes, learn to read, okay, it’s the most important thing you can do. This whole system operates on words, if you can master the English language, you can control this system. But when I say master it, I do not mean learn to speak at an eighth grade level or 12th grade level. In my opinion, I haven’t been tested on the Bible edited and published a magazine for years, and I’ve, I’ve worked with words on a regular basis for a long, long time. If I had to guess I’d say I’ve got up 22 grade 22nd grade level.
Jason Hartman 33:33
So when you say reading and the whole system operates on words, you mean because laws are defined by words? Is that what you’re
Alfred Adask 33:41
saying? That’s what it comes down to. Right? You know, we talked about that section of the Texas penal code. It says this state includes land in the water and the airspace above the land and the water over which this state has power to define offenses. If you accept their definitions. You’re in the state. If you don’t accept their definitions, you’re apparently not It’s all about definitions. The definitions are the law of the law. If a word you get a law that says Thou shalt not kill, what does that mean? Well, as Bill Clinton said, it all depends on what the meaning of it is. You say, what’s the definition of vow? What’s the definition of shelf? What’s the definition of not? What’s the definition of kill? Part of the problem is that virtually every word you can find has multiple definitions. Which one do you mean in any particular sentence? If you can begin to understand the language, this is part of the reason. Again, I was able to stop these people. When they were threatened us. They invested a half million dollars in six years on the case, I was able to stop them because I can read. I’m a dangerous man, I can read I’ve got a dozen dictionaries. I don’t have a dozen rifles and shotguns the rest of that I have a dozen dictionaries. That makes me a dangerous man. I can read the law.
Jason Hartman 34:54
Let’s talk for a moment here. And I know we’ve got to wrap up but let’s talk about employee And in free trade, and it’s my opinion that the country is just being hollowed out. And that’s what’s going on with America right now. And it’s just really disheartening. Frankly, I think we do have we still have some real possibilities of correcting our course. But boy, it’s, I mean, the jobs have just gone off shore. What can the government do to restore employment? What are your thoughts on on free trade and tariffs and wages and standard of living changing around
Alfred Adask 35:27
both the Republican and Democratic Parties the leadership has been captured by globalists. They are both determined to move us into a new world order and the global government and as part of that, and they’re part of that is to embrace global free trade. they’ve embraced global free trade by knocking down our tariff barriers. Ross Perot warned in 1992
Jason Hartman 35:46
giant sucking sound
Alfred Adask 35:48
that’s right. He said if you pass NAFTA, there’s gonna be a giant sucking sound as all the jobs in the industry is move over moves overseas, and he
Jason Hartman 35:54
was right. But the corporate media just marginalized him marginalized. marginalized him. But he was absolutely right, wasn’t he?
Alfred Adask 36:02
That’s exactly right. And the solution is these. It’s it’s alleged that we’re all going to get rich by engaging in global free trade, but it’s a bunch of crap. We’re going to go broke, we are going to go into poverty, the American Dream is going to be ended for the sake of the New World Order. If you want to stop it, you put people in office who are going to restore high tariffs. There’s no reason why me if I had a little company down here manufacturing products, I’m effectively encouraged to manufacture my products to compete in Peking or maybe Nairobi or someplace. I don’t want to compete in Peking. I don’t want to compete Nairobi. I am content to compete in Des Moines, Iowa, understand, put up a high tariff barrier around this country. The industries come back, the jobs come back. All of a sudden we are beginning to be prosperous again. We may not have to be we don’t have to be selling across the world and competing head on with people that are working for five bucks a day,
Jason Hartman 36:55
Alfred Tell me though, why? What is the agenda behind Say you have a bush, you have a Obama you have a Clinton, whatever, what is the what are why are they doing this? Why would they know it’s bad for the country? I mean, is the deal that when you when you become president that you’re taken into a room and saying, Look, you’re gonna end up like JFK if you don’t follow our agenda by the people that really run the world, the Bilderberg Group, why would they do this? I mean, what what’s in it for them?
Alfred Adask 37:25
It’s a it’s the kind of question that no one can answer for an absolute fact you can trace it back to n times. If that’s your mindset. You can trace it back to Satanists. If that’s your mindset. I have no idea what the people at the top are doing. I’ll probably never get close enough to find out but I do know that they are destroying fundamental principles this country was built on. They don’t want us to be men and women endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. They want us to be animals. They want us to be livestock that they can control on the global plantation. One of the justifications for this I think comes back after World War Two, where people were so terrified. By the threat of nuclear war, that they decided we can’t risk another nuclear war, we’ve got to have some kind of global government. And based on that, I think
Jason Hartman 38:08
that was what un was created. And yeah,
Alfred Adask 38:11
I think that was perhaps whether it was a true cause, or if it was merely a rationalization that was exploited. Who knows? You know, I wasn’t there, I don’t know. But I can understand how a lot of people would be tempted, say, My God, it doesn’t matter. We got it, we can sell people’s rights right down the river and destroy the nation, but at least will prevent global thermonuclear war. That would be a rationalization for some people. Now, I don’t know that that’s a true story in the sense that, you know, it’s the real reason,
Jason Hartman 38:40
but hard to say it’s at least probably a contributing factor for sure. Sure. Well, what is the difference between a nation and an economy when we look at this world where the borders have largely dropped, the tariffs are gone, the trade is free. The libertarian side of me says hey, I love free trade. I certainly love being a consumer. And having a few bucks to go spend at the store because everything’s cheaper. And I say that one of the ways they’ve sold this to the American people and sold their jobs down the river is is that they’ve basically imported deflation. In an era where since 1971, we’ve had massive hidden inflation, that is far beyond the quote unquote official statistics even far beyond what shadow stats would publish, I’d say, because because we’ve taken down these borders, and we’ve imported deflation in the form of labor from Mexico, and products from China and other low end low wage countries.
Alfred Adask 39:35
And it’ll work just fine as long as we can continue to buy on credit. But without jobs, if they shut the credit off, all of a sudden, we can’t buy at any price because we don’t have any money. In terms of the difference between an economy and a nation. A nation operates with a system of values that is conducive to the people, succeeding prospering, getting what the people want, as men and women. It’s one system of As you go into an economy, the economy is based on an entirely different system of values. And virtually everything in the economy ultimately devolves down to money. The economy is all about efficiency. The economy is all about profit and loss. Are you in the black? Are you in the red? That’s what the economy is all about. And decisions are made on that basis. And these decisions are often contrary to what people would regard as human values. People are routinely just sacrificed and abandoned, because it is financially efficient to do so in the economy, in so far as we are persuaded to worry about, Oh, my gosh, the economy, the economy’s there, and you can’t get away from it. But you got to recognize there is also a nation composed of real living men and women, boys and girls, children, infants, and they are not just livestock, they’re not just commercial entities. They have values and lives that have worth without regard to how much money to have you will embrace insofar as we begin to see this place as an economy rather than In a nation, we embrace a system of values that are essentially inhumane. They may be efficient, they may be profitable, but they they don’t give a damn who lives or dies. It’s just words. What’s the bottom line? Ultimately, it’s about the love of money, get into the economy. hard to find any economic indicators. I know there’s some but virtually all of them are about money. measured in money, or they at least they implicate money, love of money if the Bible is true says the love of money is the root of all evil.
Jason Hartman 41:28
Yeah. And just to clarify, it doesn’t say money is the root it says no, says the love of money. Right? It’s exactly right. Absolutely. You know, I want to wrap up with one final question, but it’s a pretty big one. Okay.
Alfred Adask 41:39
And that is Alfred, the Constitution of the United States of America. I think that is one of the highest achievements of mankind. What do you think, is the biggest flaw in our Constitution article one section 10 clause one. What is that I said no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender and payment of debts. They only imposed that restriction on the states of the Union. They didn’t impose it on the territories, and they didn’t impose it on the federal government. If they had extended that to include the federal government and the territory, we wouldn’t have a Federal Reserve System today we’d be it would never be out money, we’d still be on the gold standard, or the constitution would have been amended one or the other. But I’d say that’s the biggest mistake right there that I’m aware of?
Jason Hartman 42:23
Well, that is the reason for our debt. But your key and it’s the reason the monetary system is built on smoke and mirrors. It’s essentially a sort of a form of a Ponzi scheme. It’s not exactly a Ponzi scheme. But tell us more about that. I mean, what do you what do you mean, like, why is that other than the things I’ve just mentioned, why is that such a big flaw?
Alfred Adask 42:43
Well, one of the reasons is that the states of the Union were created, the states that became the union were created under the principles found in the Declaration of Independence, Declaration of Independence created the first 13 states. These were the ones that had are based on the principle The first rights flow from God. And the second sentence of the Declaration and the third sentence of the declaration. It says that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. They are saying in the first half of that sentence that the fundamental purpose of government as envisioned by the founders, was to secure to every man woman and even unborn child, their God given unalienable rights. Now, the question is, which are the government’s among men? Again, it says that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, which are the government’s among men. Clearly they are the governments of the states of the Union. These are the ones that were obligated to secure your God given unalienable rights under the terms of the declaration. Today, it’s not at all clear. And it’s perhaps it’s debatable at best. It’s not clear, but it’s not clear that the federal government ever had an obligation to secure anyone’s God given unbelief. rights. All right, they may have been secured under the 10th amendment, you might have been able to make a claim or excuse me, the ninth amendment on the Constitution, you think you could make a claim on them. But the fundamental business of the federal government was to balance things between the states of the Union, but it was the states of the union that were obligated to come to to secure your God given unalienable rights. If, by means of a removing the gold and removing the silver, they could render the governments of the states of the Union insolvent and inoperable. All of a sudden, there’d be nobody left to secure my god given unbelievable rights. Under those circumstances, I might be reduced to the status of an animal as an animal. They kill me anytime they want. If I get up, buddy, just like any other wild animal, you get up to you, they’ll throw you in the slammer, and maybe they shoot you.
Jason Hartman 44:45
Well, Alfred, thank you so much for sharing your story with us. I mean, you have really had that as quite a story about what the government was doing in their lawsuit against you. It’s just amazing. I know that’s led you to study a lot of this other very Very important stuff. give out your website if you would and tell people where they can find out more and follow you. I’m at attaced
Alfred Adask 45:07
ada sk.wordpress.com. That’s a blog I have. And virtually everything I’ve written for last three, four years is on that blog,
Jason Hartman 45:17
and quite an interesting blog. With that. Thanks so much for joining us today offered we really appreciate it. My pleasure.
Thank you for joining us today for the holistic survival show, protecting the people places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Be sure to listen to our creating wealth show, which focuses on exploiting the financial and wealth creation opportunities in today’s economy. Learn more at www dot Jason hartman.com or search Jason Hartman on iTunes. This show is Produced by the Hartman media company offering very general guidelines and information. opinions of guests are their own and none of the content should be considered individual advice. If you require personalized advice, please consult an appropriate professional information deemed reliable but not guaranteed.