RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: GMO Apples? Attorney Licenses. Misc.

25 Mar

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191

American Independence Hour--Internet Radio [courtesy Google Images]

American Independence Hour–Internet Radio
[courtesy Google Images]

Tonight we’ll have two hours of miscellaneous subjects ranging from “God didn’t make GMO Apples, and it don’t rain in Indianapolis in the summertime,” to attorney licenses in only “this state”.  We’ll probably discuss some insights into the nature of money, and I’ll hope to receive several calls from listeners who want to discuss one topic or another.

Please tune in.

Please call in.

 
18 Comments

Posted by on March 25, 2014 in Radio

 

Tags: , , ,

18 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: GMO Apples? Attorney Licenses. Misc.

  1. Frank Moorman

    March 25, 2014 at 4:19 PM

    Hope it works better this week.

    FRM

     
  2. J.M.

    March 25, 2014 at 9:01 PM

    Where are the Jails & Prisons located, in a Territory, or ???

     
  3. Adask

    March 25, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    I suspect that virtually everything the purported government does is presumed to take place in a territory rather than a State of the Union. In my unproven opinion, if it has and uses a Zip Code, it’s presumed to be in a territory of the United States rather than a State of the Union. However, I also suspect that such presumptions can be expressly challenged and defeated.

     
    • J.M.

      March 25, 2014 at 10:39 PM

      Thank you, We no longer have “common law crimes, that I am aware of. It’s statutory rape, murder,etc. When most of us at least are trying to “reason” with “jury” & from my experience, they seem to become so baffled at what is being said, & it goes against everything they have been taught & it confuses them, to put it mildly & to the extent the “jury” actually becomes ANGRY. As far as “Identification” I have NEVER been asked “per se” for ID. They SAY, let me see you driver license, etc. WHEN you show them your PROOF of positive Identification papers, made a matter of Public Record, IT’S LOOK, I NEED TO SEE YOUR DRIVER LICENSE, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS PROOF OF DOCUMENT IS. My experiences have been,either have the “ID” THEY DEMAND to see, OR go to jail. trying to keep this short.

       
    • J.M.

      March 26, 2014 at 10:09 PM

      @ >………..if it has and uses a Zip Code,…………..”

      No doubt about it that this IS one of the identifiers. I KNOW for a FACT that U.S.P.S. mail CAN be delivered without a Zip Code & sometime arrive to the destination FASTER than with a Zip Code. I have sent mail as such. But, sometimes, WHEN I am in the Post Office, & because I need a stamp to send the letter, the clerk, looks at the envelope & tells me I “need” to put a Zip Code on the envelope. I try to explain the situation & as to why I cannot do this. THEN, the Clerk gets out the Zip Code book, finds the “street location” (< I guess) & the Clerk puts a Zip Code on the envelope, himself/herself. Not much I can do about that, at least that I know of. ANYWAY, I do have some FACTS about this "Venue" problem, what it is, etc. that you & some others may be interested in. I don't know IF this Venue info IS ALL there is to it, but I'll try to get it together & try to post it. I Said before, there IS a way OUT. I should have said, there MAY be. BUT, I STILL say this, IF there IS ANY integrity ANYWHERE, & through ANYBODY in the "system" there IS a way out. WHEN the Court Clerk ALTERS your paperwork, & IF it's done through the instructions of a Judge, OR IF the clerk ALTERS it on HIS/HER own whim, it's just another thing to contend with. They change your "Common Law document" Change the NAME of the Court & convert IT into a Title 42, section 1983 CASE which IS a 14th Amendment PRIVILEGE for14th Amendment Citizens. IT IS A WAR !

       
  4. Adask

    March 25, 2014 at 11:27 PM

    And why does the cop “need” to see your ID? It MIGHT be because he can’t proceed against you until he has evidence that you “identify with” “this state”.

     
    • J.M.

      March 26, 2014 at 1:10 AM

      And why does the cop “need” to see your ID? It MIGHT be because he can’t proceed against you until he has evidence that you “identify with” “this state”.

      I do not know WHY he “needs” to. All know is, I only have my proof of positive Identification to show him & this is NOT what he wants. I have been through this repeatedly with him/them. I am not trying to start an argument. I only know what HAS happened in the past. We can be arrested for anything they want to arrest us for, AT LEAST most of us,I would think, for I believe if they do this to me, surely they do it to others,some others. I don’t think I’m the ONLY one. Sometimes They will arrest us,some of us anyway, for concealing ID EVEN tho we show PROOF of positive Identification. People just need to experience these things before they can understand what I’m trying to say. OR, know something to do or say that I do not. I do NOT have ANY kind of license. I do have my own “ID” plate on my clunker. They call it a “homemade license plate.” It is not a license of any kind, at least to my knowledge. The only reason they haven’t bothered me for “quite a while” & as far as I’m concerned, is because, the “Good LORD” is not allowing them to “SEE” my so called homemade license plate, at least I thank him for doing so. I don’t who else I can give credit to. And even it’s the devil not allowing his servants to see my “plate” I thank the Good LORD for allowing the devil to do this.

       
      • J.M.

        March 26, 2014 at 1:21 AM

        P.S. missed the 1st 35 minutes of your program. I enjoy listening to you, as always. I like your choice of music. ALL of it. I wish there was something I could think of to say about you that I don’t like, so you would know I am being honest with you but I don’t KNOW of anything about you that I don’t like. I LIKE THAT TOO. I’m going to go to bed. Shalom.

         
    • Joe

      March 26, 2014 at 12:26 PM

      It is true that a police officer cannot proceed against you without some evidence that you are a member of “this state.” The occupying military force is under orders not to harm the peaceful inhabitants or needlessly interfere with their day-to-day affairs. But they can abuse the civil officers all they want. A “mister” is a warrant officer in the civil service. The first thing they are taught to do, as soon as they have a surname, is to call you “Mr. Surname.” You had better promptly rebut his claim that you are acting as a “mister.” The Lord already warned you not to let yourself be called this title. (Let no man call you master. Mister is a derivative of master.) I tell them “I’m Joseph, a peaceful inhabitant.” I have found it necessary to notify them of what I am; otherwise they presume I am a part of the provisional government that has been instituted by the military dictatorship.

      I once went to the Georgia Department of Revenue to give notice that they were harming me by compelling me to register my private automobile in order to use it for non-commercial needs on the common way. I asked to speak with an attorney for the department because I had heard that they had authority to interface with non-citizens. They sent out a criminal investigator to try to trick me. The first thing he asked for was “I.D.”. I gave him my witnessed, notarized declaration of nativity. He says “What’s this.” I said “It is a document that identifies who I am.” He says “I need some state issued I.D.” I said “I am not a part of your corporation. There is no state issued I.D. that identifies me.” He says “I need some state issued I.D. or we cannot do business.” I said “I am not here to do business. I am here to give you notice that you are harming a man.”

       
      • Jethro

        March 26, 2014 at 3:11 PM

        What happened next, Joe?

         
      • Henry

        March 26, 2014 at 4:24 PM

        He lived happily ever after, obviously.

         
      • J.M.

        March 26, 2014 at 7:32 PM

        Joseph,
        @ notarized
        @ The Lord already warned you not to let yourself be called this title.

        A Notary is WHAT?? It’s not 2 or 3 witnesses. I think a NOTARY has to do something with permission FROM WHO to do WHAT??? Sometime back I left a message with, palani, a poster, about just another experience of mine with the benevolent govco. Will see if I can find it. It just might be interesting to see what the judge said WE “NEED” to understand

         
  5. Jack

    March 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

    When will you archive last night’s show?

     
  6. Adask

    March 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM

    I don’t know. That’s up to the producer (Frank) at AmericanVoiceRadio.com.

     
  7. J.M.

    March 26, 2014 at 8:06 PM

    Re: S.S.N. After learning about this, 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. The police thought I might have stolen the shirt & I can understand why. It’s because I was trotting, not walking I had the receipt for the shirt BUT I did NOT have what they NEEDED to see, ID, wise 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”(as THEY said) 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. Said he hoped I had learned my lesson. It’s just something else I did not know I “needed” to understand. There IS a word called “TYRANNY.” TYRANTS, too.

    NOW, on the other side of the coin, There IS a case, Brown v. Texas. This decent upright colored gentleman knew how to “bait” the “peace officers” & WIN. He had this small Television on his shoulder walking in a “WHITE” Neighborhood, & around 2 a.m. TWO “peace officers” spotted him, AND IF I was a peace officer I would have done the SAME thing they did because to me, there IS something suspicious about this Anyway, HE WAS arrested & I STILL say the arrest WAS/IS Justified, under those circumstances. This colored Gentleman did not have any ID either, IF I remember correctly. ANYWAY, the case went all the way UP the ladder & the colored Gentleman WON. He was NOT doing a DAMN thing wrong. GOT a lot of, as they call it, BREAD for the peace officers INTERFERING with HIS RIGHTS. As my enemies say, READ ALL ABOUT IT. BROWN V. TEXAS

     
  8. J.M.

    March 26, 2014 at 9:22 PM

    Excuse me, It looks like I gave out the wrong case, Brown v. Texas. palani knows a little something about a man, George Gordon. I remember George Gordon IS the one who provided this case about the Colored Gentleman carrying the TV in a White Neighborhood in the wee hours in the morning. I’ll try hard to see if I can find it. In the meantime, palani, if you are by chance reading this & know the specific case I am referring to, the one that George Gordon talked about, help me out here. THANKS !!!

     
  9. J.M.

    March 27, 2014 at 11:26 AM

    Most of “us” ARE regarded as “SUBJECTS” by the “peace officers” the lower levels of the “Court System” Regardless of what we say or do..The transcript in the following case, IS about a 14th Amendment “citizen.” STILL, it should give a GOOD idea of what we, most of us, WILL be subjected to. Most of us cannot go ALL the way to the TOP COURT to have something happen IN our favor. ALSO, believe it or not, ALL of the GOV-CO, Peace Officers AND Judges UP & until the Court of final appeals in, A, THE, OR, this state, are of the belief that the TOP Court’s decision IF it’s in “your” favor, ONLY applies TO THAT “Individual” & no one else. IF the TOP COURT rules against “you” THEN this applies to EVERYBODY else. The Prosecutor’ statements in the following case SHOULD TELL “us” HOW they THINK. & it will remain this way ON THE LOWER LEVELS.

    THE COURT: . . . What do you think about if you stop a person lawfully, and then if he doesn’t want to talk to you, you put him in jail for committing a crime.

    “MR. PATTON [Prosecutor]: Well first of all, I would question the Defendant’s statement in his motion that the First Amendment gives an individual the right to silence.

    “THE COURT: . . . I’m asking you why should the State put you in jail because you don’t want to say anything.

    “MR. PATTON: Well, I think there’s certain interests that have to be viewed.

    “THE COURT: Okay, I’d like you to tell me what those are.

    “MR. PATTON: Well, the Governmental interest to maintain the safety and security of the society and the citizens to live in the society, and there are certainly strong Governmental interests in that direction and because of that, these interests outweigh the interests of an individual for a certain amount of intrusion upon his personal liberty. I think these Governmental interests outweigh the individual’s interests in [443 U.S. 47, 54] this respect, as far as simply asking an individual for his name and address under the proper circumstances.

    “THE COURT: But why should it be a crime to not answer?

    “MR. PATTON: Again, I can only contend that if an answer is not given, it tends to disrupt.

    “THE COURT: What does it disrupt?

    “MR. PATTON: I think it tends to disrupt the goal of this society to maintain security over its citizens to make sure they are secure in their gains and their homes.

    “THE COURT: How does that secure anybody by forcing them, under penalty of being prosecuted, to giving their name and address, even though they are lawfully stopped?

    “MR. PATTON: Well I, you know, under the circumstances in which some individuals would be lawfully stopped, it’s presumed that perhaps this individual is up to something, and the officer is doing his duty simply to find out the individual’s name and address, and to determine what exactly is going on.

    “THE COURT: I’m not questioning, I’m not asking whether the officer shouldn’t ask questions. I’m sure they should ask everything they possibly could find out. What I’m asking is what’s the State’s interest in putting a man in jail because he doesn’t want to answer something. I realize lots of times an officer will give a defendant a Miranda warning which means a defendant doesn’t have to make a statement. Lots of defendants go ahead and confess, which is fine if they want to do that. But if they don’t confess, you can’t put them in jail, can you, for refusing to confess to a crime?” App. 15-17 (emphasis added).

    YEAH RIGHT WELL I THE COURT: . . . What do you think about if you stop a person lawfully, and then if he doesn’t want to talk to you, you put him in jail for committing a crime.

    “MR. PATTON [Prosecutor]: Well first of all, I would question the Defendant’s statement in his motion that the First Amendment gives an individual the right to silence.

    “THE COURT: . . . I’m asking you why should the State put you in jail because you don’t want to say anything.

    “MR. PATTON: Well, I think there’s certain interests that have to be viewed.

    “THE COURT: Okay, I’d like you to tell me what those are.

    “MR. PATTON: Well, the Governmental interest to maintain the safety and security of the society and the citizens to live in the society, and there are certainly strong Governmental interests in that direction and because of that, these interests outweigh the interests of an individual for a certain amount of intrusion upon his personal liberty. I think these Governmental interests outweigh the individual’s interests in [443 U.S. 47, 54] this respect, as far as simply asking an individual for his name and address under the proper circumstances.

    “THE COURT: But why should it be a crime to not answer?

    “MR. PATTON: Again, I can only contend that if an answer is not given, it tends to disrupt.

    “THE COURT: What does it disrupt?

    “MR. PATTON: I think it tends to disrupt the goal of this society to maintain security over its citizens to make sure they are secure in their gains and their homes.

    “THE COURT: How does that secure anybody by forcing them, under penalty of being prosecuted, to giving their name and address, even though they are lawfully stopped?

    “MR. PATTON: Well I, you know, under the circumstances in which some individuals would be lawfully stopped, it’s presumed that perhaps this individual is up to something, and the officer is doing his duty simply to find out the individual’s name and address, and to determine what exactly is going on.

    “THE COURT: I’m not questioning, I’m not asking whether the officer shouldn’t ask questions. I’m sure they should ask everything they possibly could find out. What I’m asking is what’s the State’s interest in putting a man in jail because he doesn’t want to answer something. I realize lots of times an officer will give a defendant a Miranda warning which means a defendant doesn’t have to make a statement. Lots of defendants go ahead and confess, which is fine if they want to do that. But if they don’t confess, you can’t put them in jail, can you, for refusing to confess to a crime?” App. 15-17 (emphasis added).

    Yeah Right, Well, I erruh, erruh. YOU KNOW, yeah right, I know

    Footnotes
    [ Footnote 1 ] The entire section reads as follows: ” 38.02. Failure to Identify as Witness “(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and residence address to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.”

    [ Footnote 2 ] This situation is to be distinguished from the observations of a trained, experienced police officer who is able to perceive and articulate meaning in given conduct which would be wholly innocent to the untrained observer. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 -885 (1975); Christensen v. United States, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 35, 36, 259 F.2d 192, 193 (1958).

    [ Footnote 3 ] We need not decide whether an individual may be punished for refusing to identify himself in the context of a lawful investigatory stop which satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 210 n. 12 (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 34 (1968) (WHITE, J., concurring). The County Court Judge who convicted appellant was troubled by this question, as shown by the colloquy set out in the Appendix to this opinion. [443 U.S. 47, 55]

    FindLaw Career Center

    Search for Law Jobs:

    Post a Job | View More Jobs

    Need a New Take on the Nine?
    Read FindLaw’s Supreme Court Blog now!
    blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court
    SSDI Benefits – File a Claim
    Ensure You Receive Your Full SSDI Benefits. Free Evaluation 800-955-8317
    SocialSecurityDisabilityCenter.org
    FindLaw’s on Facebook!
    Like FindLaw now for daily updates on topics for Legal Professionals.
    facebook.com/findlawlegalprofessionals
    Ads by FindLaw

    .

     
    • J.M.

      March 27, 2014 at 11:39 AM

      I goofed on this post above, I thought, I was at the end of the transcript, & right before the footnotes, When I thought I typed in, myself, my thoughts > Yeah Right,Well I erruh erruh you know.
      My apology.

       

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