Sov movement "spokesperson" Adask

[Demosthenes]

Alfred Adask Claims Sovereign Citizens Mischaracterized By FBI and Media As Violent Domestic Terrorists

San Jose, CA (PRWEB) June 27, 2011
In a live interview on The Costa Report, spokesperson for the Sovereign Citizens movement, Alfred Adask, described the real mission of more than 300,000 U. S. citizens who now claim “sovereignty.” Adask denied that Sovereign Citizens represent a domestic terrorist threat as described by the FBI.

According to Adask, “There is no Sovereign Citizens ‘movement.’ These are (individual) people who are studying the law. There is no organization per se. Sovereignty flows from God. This (God) places you in a status that is above a government’s ability to control you. You are no longer a ‘subject.’ If you go back (in time) - to Europe - the King of England was the sovereign because the King of England was the only one in the whole country that had the divine right to be King. He went through a coronation ceremony – they gave him a crown intended to emulate the corona on the heads of the saints and the Christ in medieval paintings. He was the one man in the country who got his rights from God. All others were ‘subjects’ because they did not.”

Adask claims that the language in the Declaration of Independence which reads “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” elevated every man, woman and child to the status of sovereign. No longer were citizens subject to the tyranny of leaders or governments because every individual was a sovereign endowed with equal rights.

Sovereign Citizens believe the United States government has overstepped its constitutional authority by relegating citizens to “subjects” who are now enslaved to foreign debt and bound by unlawful regulations and institutions. Consequently, Sovereign Citizens reject government mandates to pay taxes, obtain drivers licenses and social security cards, secure permits and insurances, or obey laws pertaining to victimless crimes.

According to Adask, Sovereign Citizens do not advocate anarchy, as many media personalities have described. He explained, “The difference is this: anarchy is where no one is subject to ANY law. Sovereign Citizens are all subject to God’s law. They are subject to whether we rob or murder or rape or kill. We don’t recognize man’s law if it is in conflict with the Bible. . . I am only liable if I have damaged another sovereign or their property. I am not liable if I haven’t fastened my seatbelt. It’s not anarchy. It’s the system of common law that was recognized at the onset of this country and it is a system that does not recognize political offenses or victimless crimes.”

When asked by the host of The Costa Report, Rebecca Costa, which of the misunderstandings about Sovereign Citizens Adask was most eager to correct, he answered: “That they (Sovereign Citizens) are prone to violence. What they are really prone to doing is reading and writing and that’s why the government finds them dangerous. They (the government) point to a couple of people like Jerry Kane – he and his son got caught up in a shoot-out with police and police officers died. They point to a couple of instances (like this). At the same time, we can point to scores of incidences where innocent people were killed by the police. Shall we castigate the police department and say they are a bunch of Nazi, killers?”

The full interview with the Alfred Adask is available at http://www.rebeccacosta.com, iTunes and KSCO.com.

About Alfred Adask

Alfred Adask worked as a ditch digger, truck driver, heavy equipment operator and miner before becoming a student of the law in 1983. Adask was a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court in 1992 where he garnered more than 200,000 votes. The election motivated Adask to host the country’s largest legal reform meetings as well as publish AntiShyster Magazine and host the AntiShyster radio program. In the 1990’s Adask was identified by the federal government as one of the top anti-government activists, though he describes himself as a Sovereign Citizen and constitutionalist.

About Rebecca D. Costa: http://www.rebeccacosta.com

Rebecca Costa is a sociobiologist who offers a genetic explanation for current events, emerging trends and individual behavior. A thought-leader and provocative new voice in the mold of Thomas Friedman, Malcolm Gladwell and Jared Diamond, Costa examines “the big picture”– tracing everything from terrorism, crime on Wall Street, epidemic obesity and upheaval in the Middle East to evolutionary forces. Retiring at the zenith of her executive career in Silicon Valley, Costa spent six years researching and writing The Watchman’s Rattle: Thinking Our Way Out of Extinction. The success of Costa’s book led to a weekly radio program in 2010 called The Costa Report. A former CEO and founder of one of the largest marketing firms in Silicon Valley (sold in 1997 to J. Walter Thompson), Costa developed an extensive track record of introducing new technologies. Her clients included industry giants such as Hewlett-Packard, Apple Computer, Oracle Corporation, Seibel Systems, 3M, Amdahl, and General Electric Corporation.

[Paul]

This makes me wonder why 200,000 knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers voted for him for the TX Supreme Court.

Candidates were listed in alphabetical order?

[Pottapaug1938]

Alfred Adask worked as a ditch digger, truck driver, heavy equipment operator and miner before becoming a student of the law in 1983. Adask was a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court in 1992 where he garnered more than 200,000 votes.

I am guessing Mr. Adask never, ever received a law degree, nor ever passed the bar exam of his home state. This makes me wonder why 200,000 knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers voted for him for the TX Supreme Court.

I've seen more than a few Boston elections where people would vote for ANYONE just because they didn't like the incumbent, so perhaps that was the reason for these votes.

[Olsenfin]

Mr. Adask is a "student of the law" in the same sense that Willie Sutton was a student of the U.S. banking system.

[fortinbras]

It's astonishing that Adask has attained the status of spokesperson for the "movement". I suspect he was identified as such only by the mainstream media because Adask is most willing to grant them interviews (or at least provocative interviews). Adask's publications tend to fall into the general category of "How to make your legal problems much worse".

[LPC]

This makes me wonder why 200,000 knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers voted for him for the TX Supreme Court.

Candidates were listed in alphabetical order?

Whenever I think about election results, I think about an election in Philadelphia in which a dead guy defeated a blind guy for Congress, and another in which a judge was elected in an Italian precinct and the judge's name ended with a vowel, but the judge was Japanese.

Never underestimate voter ignorance, if not stupidity.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Whenever I think about election results, I think about an election in Philadelphia in which a dead guy defeated a blind guy for Congress, and another in which a judge was elected in an Italian precinct and the judge's name ended with a vowel, but the judge was Japanese.

Never underestimate voter ignorance, if not stupidity.

Especially paid and bought-for ignorance at the behest of manipulators of the so-called "news."

[Thule]

I am guessing Mr. Adask never, ever received a law degree, nor ever passed the bar exam of his home state. This makes me wonder why 200,000 knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers voted for him for the TX Supreme Court.

He ran for the Libertarian party, I guess that gave him a lot of votes that he would never get as an independent. And his 200.000 votes are still only 3.57% of all votes cast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gene ... 2C_Place_1

[Famspear]

I am guessing Mr. Adask never, ever received a law degree, nor ever passed the bar exam of his home state. This makes me wonder why 200,000 knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers voted for him for the TX Supreme Court.

He ran for the Libertarian party, I guess that gave him a lot of votes that he would never get as an independent. And his 200.000 votes are still only 3.57% of all votes cast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gene ... 2C_Place_1

I find it astonishing that over 200,000 of my fellow Texans reportedly voted for this bozo.

And, by the way, did any of those people even bother to read the Texas Constitution?

No person shall be eligible to serve in the office of Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court [of the State of Texas] unless the person is licensed to practice law in this state and is, at the time of election, a citizen of the United States and of this state, and has attained the age of thirty-five years, and has been a practicing lawyer, or a lawyer and judge of a court of record together at least ten years.

--from Texas Constit., Art. 5, sec. 2(b) (emphasis added).

[The Observer]

No person shall be eligible to serve in the office of Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court [of the State of Texas] unless the person is licensed to practice law in this state and is, at the time of election, a citizen of the United States and of this state, and has attained the age of thirty-five years, and has been a practicing lawyer, or a lawyer and judge of a court of record together at least ten years.

Texas' elections laws have no requirements that a justice candidate be verified as qualified to run?

[wserra]

Texas' elections laws have no requirements that a justice candidate be verified as qualified to run?

Exactly. How'd he get on the ballot?

[Famspear]

Texas' elections laws have no requirements that a justice candidate be verified as qualified to run?

Exactly. How'd he get on the ballot?

Sec. 145.003. ADMINISTRATIVE DECLARATION OF INELIGIBILITY. (a) Except for a judicial action in which a candidate's eligibility is in issue, a candidate may be declared ineligible only as provided by this section.

(b) A candidate in the general election for state and county officers may be declared ineligible before the 30th day preceding election day by:

(1) the party officer responsible for certifying the candidate's name for placement on the general election ballot, in the case of a candidate who is a political party's nominee; or

(2) the authority with whom the candidate's application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed, in the case of an independent candidate.

(c) A candidate in an election other than the general election for state and county officers may be declared ineligible before the beginning of early voting by personal appearance by the authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot for the office sought by the candidate is required to be filed.

(d) The presiding officer of the final canvassing authority for the office sought by a candidate may declare the candidate ineligible after the polls close on election day and, except as provided by Subsection (e), before a certificate of election is issued.

(e) In the case of a candidate for governor or lieutenant governor, a declaration of ineligibility by the final canvassing authority's presiding officer may not be made after the final canvass for that office is completed.

(f) A candidate may be declared ineligible only if:

(1) the information on the candidate's application for a place on the ballot indicates that the candidate is ineligible for the office; or

(2) facts indicating that the candidate is ineligible are conclusively established by another public record.

(g) When presented with an application for a place on the ballot or another public record containing information pertinent to a candidate's eligibility, the appropriate authority shall promptly review the record. If the authority determines that the record establishes ineligibility as provided by Subsection (f), the authority shall declare the candidate ineligible.

(h) If a candidate is declared ineligible after the deadline for omitting an ineligible candidate's name from the ballot, the authority making the declaration shall promptly certify in writing the declaration of ineligibility to the canvassing authority for the election.

(i) If a candidate is declared ineligible, the authority making the declaration shall promptly give written notice of the declaration of ineligibility to the candidate.

--sec. 145.003 of the Texas Election Code (emphasis added).

Maybe Addled Al just slipped through the bureaucratic cracks.....

EDIT: I would think that in any election for a judgeship in Texas (other than Justice of the Peace, where there is no requirement that the justice be licensed to practice law), somebody would be checking on each and every candidate. Although the web site did not exist back when Adask ran for office, the State Bar of Texas web site today has an easy search function to determine the status of every person licensed to practice law in this state. Texas has an integrated, or mandatory, bar. The State Bar is an agency of the judicial "department" (i.e., judicial branch) under the jurisdiction of the Texas Supreme Court, and bar membership is required in order to practice law here.

[grixit]

No person shall be eligible to serve in the office of Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court [of the State of Texas] unless the person is licensed to practice law in this state and is, at the time of election, a citizen of the United States and of this state, and has attained the age of thirty-five years, and has been a practicing lawyer, or a lawyer and judge of a court of record together at least ten years.

Texas' elections laws have no requirements that a justice candidate be verified as qualified to run?

Yeah, we want to see his real birth certificate!

[notorial dissent]

I somehow suspect, that little things like requirements sort of slipped his mind when he was filing, or more in keeping, that they didn't apply to him, since that seems to be one of his themes. Just like being qualified, other than being the Libertarian candidate sort of slipped the voter's attention as being important.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I have seen very few Libertarian candidates whose qualification was that they were running on that ticket, and could breath. So hardly surprising.

[notorial dissent]

I find it astonishing that over 200,000 of my fellow Texans reportedly voted for this bozo.

Almost as incomprehensible as repeatedly returning Ron Paul to Congress.