Source: http://peoplespatriotnetwork.com/reference/law-gov/man-animals-alfred-adask/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:04:26+00:00

Document:
I believe the “man or other animals” insight may provide the foundation for the most important challenges to governmental power in a century or more. This insight triggers issues bigger than Roe v. Wade, even bigger than the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s & 1970s. The government deems the people to be animals.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4th, A.D. 1776 (a.k.a. “Declaration of Independence”) is the first of four instruments comprising the Organic Law of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
I am a man created by and in the image of our Father YHWH, the Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel and Father of the Christ Yashua.
I am a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
I am intentionally resident and domiciled exclusively within the boundaries of The State of Texas–a member-state of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
My proper name is “Alfred Adask”.
I use the name “ALFRED ADASK” only as an alias and without any attendant disability.
I am domiciled, intentionally resident, and acting exclusively within the boundaries of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” and/or within the boundaries of The State of Texas–a member-State of said perpetual Union.
I deny that I have acted at any time relevant to GV400268 at a place outside the boundaries of The United States of America–the perpetual Union.
I deny that I am resident in any “state” other than The State of Texas–a member-state of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
I declare that, as per my express agreement to serve as fiduciary for the TRT-95 trust in the matter of GV400268, all of my functions are to take place exclusively within the boundaries of the perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation of circa A.D. 1777 and styled “The United States of America”.
The plaintiffs in GV 400268 are attempting to subject me to involuntary servitude as trustee for TRT-95 and/or defendant.
I deny that I am amenable to service as trustee for TRT-95 and/or as a defendant in GV400268 in any “state” other than The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
I deny that any court of “this state,” the territorial STATE OF TEXAS, and/or TX has personal jurisdiction over me as a trustee for TRT-95 or as a defendant in the matter of GV400268.
I deny that the Texas Department of State Health Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and/or the Office of the Attorney General or any other independent administrative agency has personal jurisdiction over me in the matter of GV400268.
I deny that any judge acting in an administrative capacity as a “hearing officer” or other “employee” of an independent administrative agency has personal jurisdiction over me in the matter of GV400268.
“TRCP 13. EFFECT OF SIGNING OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS & OTHER PAPERS; SANCTIONS. The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowl­edge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment. Attorneys or parties who shall bring a fic­titious suit as an experiment to get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious pleading in a cause for such a purpose, or shall make statements in plead­ing which they know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the cause, shall be held guilty of a contempt. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after no­tice and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction available under Rule 215-2b, upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both.
The citation accompanying Plaintiffs 5th Amended Petition does not contain the words “The State of Texas” and is therefore defective.
Citation accompanying Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition was signed by “Duke Roberts” with accompanying date of “09-28-06” but is defective in that citation fails to specify the “hour on which he received” such process.
The citation accompanying Plaintiffs’ 5th Amended Petition to Alfred Adask did not contain the text “The State of Texas” and is defective.
The citation accompanying Plaintiffs’ 5th Amended Petition to Alfred Adask declared that the file number was “D-1-GV-04-000268”; all previous process in this matter has been denominated with “Cause No. GV 400268”; plaintiffs failure to specify a single cause number throughout the case constitutes defective service and insufficient notice.
The person receiving process for service to Alfred Adask signed “Duke Roberts” and wrote “09-28-06” on the citation but failed to specify the hour when he received the process; said citation is defective.
On subsequent “Return of Process” sent to Alfred Adask by Assistant Attorney General Raul Noriega on or about October 18th, A.D. 2006, it is claimed that Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition came to process servers hand on the “9th day of August, 2006 at 9:30 o’clock A.M.” but was not “executed” until the “28th day of September, 2006 at 5:00 o’clock P.M.”; said process is defective for unwarranted delay in service of approximately 49 days.
I do not waive my right to lawful service.
Pending service by means of process accompanied by a valid citation, I have not yet been lawfully served in the matter of GV400268 in the alleged capacities of “trustee” or “defendant” and cannot yet be proceeded against in either of said capacities.
Plaintiffs seek to impose an excessive penalty of $25,000 per day against me as an alleged defendant in GV 400268 by means an administrative proceeding wherein I am deprived of my right as a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas to trial by an impartial judicial tribunal acting under the exclusive authority of Article 5 of said Constitution.
I demand my right to be tried judicially rather than administratively.
This court lacks in personam jurisdiction to proceed against me administratively in the matter of GV400268.
The “clean-hands doctrine” embodies the principles of the party cannot seek equitable relief or assert an equitable defense if that party has violated an equitable principles such as good-faith.
Telling lies, repeatedly and persistently, for the sake of gaining advantage in an alleged lawsuit is a violation of equitable principles.
It is a maxim of law that litigants approaching a court of equity with “unclean hands” are to be denied the court’s insistence, and the litigants are to be left in the same condition as existed before the plaintiff approached the court.
Court-ordered discovery in the matter of GV 400268 expired on April 21, A.D. 2006.
Alleged defendants in the matter of GV 400268, Alfred Adask and Ben Taylor, were denied proper notice for the continuance hearing held on or about August 17, A.D. 2006.
The court order dated on or about August 17, A.D. 2006 authorizing a continuance in the matter of GV 400268 is void for a violation of due process.
The court-ordered date–on or about August 28th, A.D. 2006–set for trial in the matter of GV400268 has come and gone without the plaintiffs appearing to prosecute their alleged lawsuit.
The lawsuit GV 400268 has been abandoned for want of prosecution and is currently dead.
This court can have no subject matter jurisdiction over a case which no longer exists.
Plaintiffs seek to impose an excessive penalty of $25,000 per day against me as an alleged defendant in GV 400268; such penalty is outrageous, excessive and violates my rights as a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas.
Plaintiffs seek to impose an excessive penalty of $25,000 per day against me as an alleged defendant in GV 400268 based on an administrative proceeding wherein I am deprived of my right as a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas to due course of law.
This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed to enforce excessive and unconstitutional fines in the matter of GV400268.
Plaintiffs seek to impose an excessive penalty of $25,000 per day against me as an alleged defendant in GV 400268 based on an administrative proceeding which presumes the correct substantive law is private law.
I deny that the correct substantive law in this matter is private law.
I declare that the proper substantive law to resolve any issues alleged by plaintiffs in GV 400268 against myself is The Constitution of the State of Texas and/or the Public Law that conforms to said Constitution.
A conflict of law exists between plaintiffs in GV 400268 and alleged trustee and/or alleged defendant Alfred Adask.
Determination of what law applies to a particular case is the essential judicial power.
I deny that an administrative court can have subject matter jurisdiction over a case where there is a known and express conflict of law.
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 summary–for a total of six instances in plaintiffs’ text.
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”.
I am a man endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
I deny that I do business with animals.
I am a Protestant Christian.
I fear the LORD; I am sincere in my faith.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1, The Bible.
“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.
Plaintiffs’ argument that “men” are “animals” defies the fundamental precept of the Jewish and Christian faiths that of all earthly creations, man–and man alone–is made in God’s image and separate from animals in that man is endowed by God with dominion over animals.
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.
Plaintiff’s “key” contention that “men” are “animals” prevents me–a man–from loving my fellow man.
I am a man; the principal business of Government and its officers is to secure my God-given, unalienable Rights.
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.
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.
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. Int’l, 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).
“[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.
“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.
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.
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”.
For additional facts supporting this “Verified Notice of Special Appearance and Answer to Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition,” see attached “Notice By Affidavit of Alfred Adask” filed with the Travis County District Clerk on September 7th, A.D. 2006.
In the final analysis, the entire problem with government is a spiritual war. It took me decades to understand that fundamental truth. My understanding is still imperfect and growing, but there’s no a doubt in my mind that we are engaged in Holy War against a government, against a system, that is, at bottom (or more properly, at the very top), ungodly and arguably Luceferian. I am a watchman and a witness. It is not merely my duty to expose this ungodly system, it is my privilege, my calling and my blessing. Praise our Father YHWH Elohiym!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.