RSS

41 responses to “Tonight’s Radio Show: Actions of Account

  1. Mark

    January 28, 2014 at 2:10 PM

    AWESOME!! You are a “dangerous man” by the way.

     
  2. Michelle Christensen

    January 28, 2014 at 3:09 PM

    Awesome! Perhaps you can help with my notice of demand to all governors for treason in reference to conflict of interest upon the people over there greed.

     
    • J.M.

      January 29, 2014 at 12:35 AM

      Michelle,
      Good Luck on your notice & demand. My heart goes out to you.

       
  3. J.M.

    January 28, 2014 at 11:04 PM

    TX <etc., Zip Code, Regions = THIS STATE This what the Con (< against) FEDERAL aka Confederate States was against. UNION TROOPS were FOR what we have NOW.
    13th Their Jurisdiction 14th is ITS jurisdiction. The words subject to the Jurisdiction thereof IS also & means ITS jurisdiction. Very clever word move in meaning. Excellent PROGRAM. No Show.

     
    • J.M.

      January 29, 2014 at 2:15 AM

      P.S. To clarify, hopefully. The 13th Amendment & re: their Jurisdiction means & refers to the several states. The 14th Amendment which I sometimes call the stinking FARTteenth & re: “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” does not mean the same thing as is written in the 13th Amendment. IF the 14th said and subject to the JurisdictionS thereof, I would say, this means the several States too. BUT Jurisdiction in the 14th is singular. I have “tons” articles,cases,etc that say, the U.S. & subject to “its” (NOT it is), but ITS jurisdiction, & also there are times where the words say, the U.S & subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Either way it is ITS jurisdiction. AND I say,once again, in the “eyes & minds” of the GANG in power, We the people of the United States (several states) are NOW, We the SUBJECTS of the U.S. AND SUBJECT to its jurisdiction. At least this is the way they “see” it.

       
      • palani

        January 29, 2014 at 6:40 AM

        J.M “We the people of the United States (several states) are NOW, We the SUBJECTS of the U.S”

        Law is always going to provide a remedy where there is a trespass. I am sure you are aware of 15 Stat 223 which by some odd coincidence was passed just the day before the 14th amendment. The extent of window dressing congress put in play prior to passing this act (concerning the rights of Americans in foreign states) should you examine its history will tell you of its importance in the overall scheme of government. After the trespass is removed there is no further trespass.

         
      • Yartap

        January 29, 2014 at 2:51 PM

        Greetings, palani,

        I looked under 15 USC 223 and found it repealed. Can you help?

        Yartap.

         
      • Jethro

        January 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM

        Yartap,

        15 Stat 223 = Statutes At Large, not U.S. Code. Here’s a link to the text: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lawmen/Ak7gxHCMAD8

         
      • Yartap

        January 29, 2014 at 3:59 PM

        Thanks, Jethro!

         
  4. Yartap

    January 29, 2014 at 2:56 PM

    Al,

    Another great show. WOW! What great info.

    If you can for me, could you print out the definition of “this state” as you and others have found?

    Thanks, Yartap.

     
    • J.M.

      January 29, 2014 at 11:03 PM

      Yartap,
      Greetings
      @ The Georgia constitutional citizenship law did not happen after reconstruction, it happened in 1976.
      Maybe we are talking about a different “reconstruction.” The reconstruction acts I am aware of are over 150 years old. So 1976 is AFTER the reconstruction acts, I am aware of. Just trying to be helpful. Maybe I’m just showing more of my stupidity/ignorance,etc.

       
    • J.M.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:05 AM

      @ My guess would be compliance with the US’s 14th Amendment, as reason. I would like your expounded comments, please. Thanks.

      You’re a good guesser. The only way any “State” could be “admitted” BACK into “this” “Union” of States” was on the condition of “this” particular “State” adopting the 14th as part of “its” law Then, we have another one of the, excuse me, These States, in & of “this Union” of these states a.k.a. “this State & that State & each State know as “this State.” Who is on first, no, who is on second.

       
  5. J.M.

    January 29, 2014 at 4:37 PM

    Re:15 Stat 223 = Statutes At Large, not U.S. Code. Here’s a link to the text:

    Who would want to expatriate from something he/she is not a part of? Am I missing something, again? IF there was not a 14th Amendment would there still be Citizens of the United States (several States) within the “meaning” of the “1789” Constitution of the United States?

     
    • palani

      January 29, 2014 at 5:28 PM

      @ J.M. “Who would want to expatriate from something he/she is not a part of?”
      15 Stat 223 recognizes the RIGHT to expatriate. Read that as the RIGHT in this case to not belong to a government that includes the 14th amendment.

      “IF there was not a 14th Amendment would there still be Citizens of the United States (several States) within the “meaning” of the “1789″ Constitution of the United States?” Following the (un)civil war government faced the task of getting the southern states voluntarily back into the fold (so to speak). This was not going to happen. The (un)civil war created a rift and essentially dissolved the federal government. In any event, the concept of a U.S. citizen under the organic U.S. constitution was that of a holding container for immigrants until they passed through this federal filter and became eventually state citizens. In this sense state citizens were never U.S. citizens and once immigrants fit into the state they lost their status as U.S. citizens although immigrants that settled in the District of Columbia or its attached territories maintained their U.S. citizenship (at least until a state formed in the territory). The true U.S. citizens were the several States during the federal period.

       
      • J.M.

        January 29, 2014 at 8:15 PM

        palani,
        First, thank you for your information. Please, allow me to say I submit comments ONLY for the purpose of HOPEFULLY adding what “may” be “A” missing part of the puzzle that someone else MAY not have. IF I knew what everybody else knows, then, I would know or not know what to, or not to submit. I am not trying to “educate” anyone. In any event, you say, in pertinent part: > “The true U.S. citizens were the several States during the federal period.” Are you saying, for example, that “THE” not This State, are you saying, e.g., that The State of Pennsylvania is or maybe “was” a “true U.S. citizen?” I ask this also, meaning, well let’s say in the year of 1805. Also, I am aware that the word “state” ALSO means, the people who comprise Or “comprised” the State, i.e.,e.g., State means, People, IN the state. Also, when I say people IN the State/state (< don't know which is the correct spelling) I am meaning, well, you know who. I don't want to get a "Race" battle started. The State of Pennsylvania is a true U.S Citizen.< Unless this means those "people" in the State of Pennsylvania, I cannot understand it to be anything other that. Once again, please allow me to ask you this. Would there be "Citizens of the United States (<several states) TODAY within the SAME meaning as it meant in the year of1800, IF IF the 14th amendment DID NOT exist. I say YES what sayest thou? Thank you so much for your comments in the past & in the future.

         
      • palani

        January 29, 2014 at 8:53 PM

        @ J.M. “Would there be “Citizens of the United States (<several states) TODAY within the SAME meaning as it meant in the year of1800, IF IF the 14th amendment DID NOT exist."

        The 14th amendment is optional. That is the purpose of 15 Stat 223. There is no reason why original jurisdiction states cannot exist in this day and age. By the way go back and re-read the title to that act … 'rights of Americans in foreign States' … where the foreign states being referred to are the several States… which are domestic only insofar as those relationships established by the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. constitution.

        A state is a body politic aka a group of people united for a common purpose. They select a capital. The capital is a municipality … a city. Territory is attached to a municipality. This is where the metes and bounds description of the land mass you identify as a state comes in. The state is not the land mass. The state is a group of people. 'Within this state' refers to the federal areas within the exterior boundaries of the state. There is a federal plane and a state plane and they overlap but never touch. If you are not one of the people of the state then you might be described as being 'within this state' rather than 'within the state'. There may very well be other planes at play as well. There could be a private plane, a commercial plane, a monetary plane, a transportation plane, an admiralty plane, a military plane, and on and on. You are only limited by your imagination when it comes to these planes.

         
      • palani

        January 29, 2014 at 9:15 PM

        By the way, when a state government makes a major change they signal that change by moving the capital. So far as I can tell the federal government has never relocated from the District of Columbia although they did set up a new organization for their municipality in 1871. This can be found by diligent reading of the statutes at large from that period. They did change the name of their capital from Washington City to Washington … based upon some old envelopes I have come across. Should one desire to communicate with the original jurisdiction perhaps one might address their letter to the proper address?

         
      • J.M.

        January 29, 2014 at 9:44 PM

        @ Should one desire to communicate with the original jurisdiction perhaps one might address their letter to the proper address?
        What about the proper address of the “Final Court.” How can we find that?

         
      • Yartap

        January 29, 2014 at 10:00 PM

        palani,

        Here in Georgia, our state’s constitution requires that a person be a citizen of the US (first), in order to become a citizen of Georgia. My guess would be compliance with the US’s 14th Amendment, as reason. I would like your expounded comments, please. Thanks.

        Yartap.

         
      • palani

        January 29, 2014 at 10:19 PM

        @ Yartap “Here in Georgia, our state’s constitution requires that a person be a citizen of the US (first), in order to become a citizen of Georgia”

        Reconstruction era. When you lose the war the victor gets to point their bayonet in your direction and you do things that are not otherwise rational.

         
      • Yartap

        January 29, 2014 at 10:38 PM

        palani,

        The Georgia constitutional citizenship law did not happen after reconstruction, it happened in 1976. Please offer your knowledgeable expounded comments further. Thanks, Yartap.

         
      • J.M.

        January 29, 2014 at 11:09 PM

        palani
        @ >MUNICIPALITY. The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its interests.
        Same difference. Defends its interests = tyranny. I am ALWAYS available to be corrected.

         
      • palani

        January 30, 2014 at 7:33 AM

        @ Yartap “The Georgia constitutional citizenship law did not happen after reconstruction, it happened in 1976”

        Yes. That is after reconstruction. The 14th amendment is a reconstruction amendment.

        Many people don’t know that the Napoleonic wars were finally settled … about 1990 … with a treaty that permitted the two Germany’s to be rejoined. The civil war is likely to be the next such war to be settled. People in other countries are getting tired of the drama.

         
      • Yartap

        January 30, 2014 at 12:52 PM

        palani, Thanks! Yartap

         
      • J.M.

        January 30, 2014 at 3:31 PM

        Palani,
        ITS BACK. Yes here I am again you lucky one. I know you are jumping for joy. but try, & I know it will be hard to do but try anyway. Try to gain your composure. Now look E here. I gave up on trying to contact the reprobates excuse me, the REPROsentatives, there we go, in gov-co, years ago. Now, how do I go about getting these, or whatever it’s called, expatriate(ion) forms? Also, Bail out forms, like in, General Motors. I need to be bailed out of debt too. Thank you my dear palani.

         
      • palani

        January 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM

        @ J.M. “how do I go about getting these, or whatever it’s called, expatriate(ion) forms?”
        1. Gain access to Wizard of Oz … Judy Garland version
        2. Watch it non-stop, day and nite, until you have an idea WHERE home is
        3. Perform a NATURAL act and hie ye hence

        “Also, Bail out forms, like in, General Motors. I need to be bailed out of debt too.”
        1. Deposit twenty one silver dollars (may include quarters) on account.
        2. At the place you placed them on account have them give you a bond in that amount.
        3. Use copies of the bond to renegotiate your existing contracts.

        Q.E.D.

         
      • J.M.

        January 31, 2014 at 12:17 AM

        @hie ye hence
        @Deposit twenty one silver dollars
        Then I could say, HI YO SILVER instead of, hie ye hence, or, let’s went.
        I scrolled “up” to a reply button on one of your comments. Yartap told me to do this. These messages get so out of chronological order when there is no reply button following a comment.

         
    • PatriotOne

      February 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM

      I’m not looking at the 14th Amend while writing this, so…

      A person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen….

      a flesh and blood (wo)man cannot be BORN from (out of) words on paper. BUT a congress-man can only be BORN by words on paper, in fact every government employee is BORN by words on paper.

      The 14th continues on to describe the birthing and “living” methods/means of government employees.

      Therefore, only government ACTORS are BORN (Born = elected) in (or into) the US (US being a document, a story).

      Nowhere does the 14th mention thee people. If the 14th had anything to do with people it would have read, ‘all people born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens…’

      Sinse thee people created the US, but were themselves created before the US existed, they cannot re-create themselves by way of words on paper. AND, thee people did not create the 14th, a broken gang titled CONGRESS (actor-citizen-person) wrote the 14th.

      Marc Stevens, http://www.marcstevens.net , puts the cards on the table with IRS-CITY-JUDGE-PERSECUTOR by simply asking them “what facts and supporting evidence do you rely upon that prove your constitution or code or law apply to me?”

      They either refuse to answer, or they state that they do not need facts and evidence, or they admit they have neither fact or evidence but that decision is for the COURTS.

      government is subject-ed to thee people. thee people are not subject-ed to the government.

      So……………………… how do thee people re-train GovCo employees to serve as a defense for freedom, not a controller of people?

      Back in 1776, the last time thee people had somewhat of a victory, thee people were forced into revolution.

      Freedom is nothing more than ‘being let alone’. If I let you alone and you let me alone together we are free of eachother, at that place where you and me are freedom exist.

      Where in our lives does GovCo let thee people (we) alone and free?

      thee people are not free when they are not let alone.

       
      • J.M.

        February 6, 2014 at 6:55 PM

        PatriotOne

        The 14th & especially by the power clause within it is/are EVIL & worse than that. I think you, PatriotOne will agree. BUT, I am having some difficulty in understanding the following words from you. If you do not respond then I will know for sure what you mean, for sure.

        @ If I let you alone and you let me alone together we are free of each other,
        @ thee people are not free when they are not let alone.

        IF we let each other alone, e.g. fend for yourself, I cannot grasp this is a or the way to help each other, then the word “freedom” IS just another word, or way of saying, there’s not much left to lose if there is anything left.

         
      • PatriotOne

        February 6, 2014 at 8:05 PM

        ”’ If you do not respond then I will know for sure what you mean, for sure.

        @ If I let you alone and you let me alone together we are free of each other,
        @ thee people are not free when they are not let alone. ”’

        I am not saying ‘do not associate’, by “let alone” I mean ‘do not trespass’,

        or ‘do not force me to live by your LAW, let me alone and I let you alone’. If I let you alone and you let me alone no law is needed.

         
  6. J.M.

    January 29, 2014 at 9:26 PM

    THANK YOU !!! palani,
    @ If you are not one of the people of the state then you might be described as being ‘within this state’ rather than ‘within the state’.

    What must be done to become one of the people “of/within the state” rather than being one of the people ‘within this state’ AND honored, etc., by the powers that be within this state ???

    I see an icy rugged mountain to climb ahead in thinking about what your answer will be. Boy, Wow, Jeepers !!! I sure hope I’m wrong. Thanks again !!!

     
    • J.M.

      January 29, 2014 at 9:40 PM

      P.S.
      @ The capital is a municipality
      Municapality, ummmmm, it’s my understanding the the municipal authorities are the source of tyranny in the “American system of government.” There IS a Court opinion,decision,ruling,etc., that says this. I do not know if those words are dicta or dictum but I do believe those words are true.

       
      • palani

        January 29, 2014 at 9:53 PM

        @ J.M. “municipal authorities are the source of tyranny”

        Read what Bouvier has to say of municipalities in general

        MUNICIPALITY. The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its interests.

         
    • palani

      January 29, 2014 at 9:51 PM

      @ J.M. “What must be done to become one of the people “of/within the state” rather than being one of the people ‘within this state’ ”

      Independence is the essence of sovereignty. Stop accepting gifts from foreign potentates.

       
      • J.M.

        January 29, 2014 at 10:47 PM

        palani,
        @ > Stop accepting gifts from foreign potentates.

        I presume by your statement that you are aware of “gifts” I am receiving from foreign potentates. The problem is, I am not aware of ANY gift I am receiving from foreign potentates.. Soooo, how do I go about not accepting any more gifts that I’m not aware of I am receiving from foreign potentates? Tell me what ONE of these gifts are? If I am aware of JUST ONE I think I will at least have a fairly good idea of what the “other” gifts are. Also, is there a way to give these gifts back to those foreign potentates? I will at least make the all out effort to give those gifts back, but I am not aware of what those gifts are. Thank you agsin, palani

         
      • palani

        January 30, 2014 at 7:45 AM

        @ J.M. ” Tell me what ONE of these gifts are?”

        You could check 12 USC 411 for a good description of one such gift. Employment might be another. Welfare. OSHA. Definitely Obamacare. Insurance. Mortgage. Commerce. Birth certificate? Drivers license. Even land ownership. Representation? Bankruptcy. Marriage license. In short .. a gift might be anything. As I find no reference anywhere to insolvency I believe this might be the only common law action that may not be regarded as a benefit.

         
      • J.M.

        March 14, 2014 at 3:02 AM

        palani, you advise, in pertinent part,

        @ >1. Gain access to Wizard of Oz … Judy Garland version

        I think Judy Garland was in a dream. I am in a nightmare. I don’t think the “solution” answer in the Judy Garland version will get the job done when there is a difference in a dream & a nightmare.

         
  7. J.M.

    January 30, 2014 at 11:32 AM

    @ Birth certificate?
    Got a birthday gift the same day I was born & didn’t even know it until years later. Sometimes giving gifts is a waste, except for the giver.This made me a beneficiary form the git-go. I do not have any of the other gifts but I did once upon a time, Re: S.S.N. After learning about that, I was trotting along on a Chicago street with a shirt on a coat hanger (just picked it up from the dry cleaners) over my shoulder & I can see how the police thought I might have stolen it because I was trotting instead of walking. I was arrested for concealing ID. Jailers wanted to know my S.S.N. Told them I did not have same. Because of “refusing to provide” that info. I stayed in jail for 90 days. I was told, at first, I would be there “forever” unless I gave them my S.S.N. After about 3 weeks I got to thinking they just might be telling me the truth. But, I said to myself it’s something I have to accept, decided to see it through. Judge was kind in that he gave me time served for my crime of concealing ID, but advised me that if I had provided “your” S.S.N., I could have been out of jail after 1 day, instead of 90. He said i hung myself. Is there anything I may do for you,palani? I’m not going to quit pestering you UNTIL you tell me to. I’m stubborn.

     
  8. J.M.

    February 1, 2014 at 1:16 PM

    Ok, next step is an Equity Court v. a Court of Law. It seems I have been in Equity Courts as the Magistrate/Judge does/rules/decides,etc., as he/she wants too. The confusing thing to me is, & IF it is an Equity Court, they seem to be operating under law too, i.e. statutory law. In other words, the law says,they say, requires me to have a driver license & their “other’ stamp of approval documents” to use/operate, etc. the “Motor Vehicle” you know, those that have “passenger” seats. An affidavit from me, signed by me, along with TWO or THREE witnesses stating that I do not use/operate a Motor Vehicle, I do not have ANY “PASSENGER” seats & my affirmation of what my “mode of conveyance” IS, is, to them, B.S. So, what do we do? Maybe these courts are hybrid.

     
    • J.M.

      February 1, 2014 at 2:50 PM

      P.S.
      Forgot to say that I’m leery of this Statute, 15 Stat 223, that says, in pertinent part, …shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.
      A native-born citizen & a natural born Citizen are 2 different cats,e.g. Panther v. Lion. Red bird v. White bird. Also, a “citizen of the United & a Citizen of the United States are two different cats/birds. I am not an Indian, so I am not a “native born citizen.”

       
    • J.M.

      February 2, 2014 at 4:20 PM

      P.S. Also, at this time, I think the courts are, “IN REM” courts.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s