RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: Jus’ Chillin’

06 May

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

 

I’ll have two guests on tonight:  Todd McGreevy and Corey Eib.  We’ll be talking about various “patriot” concerns and strategies.

I hope some of the listeners will also call in to comment, add their 2 cents worth, etc.

 
24 Comments

Posted by on May 6, 2014 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags:

24 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Jus’ Chillin’

  1. moon

    May 6, 2014 at 10:37 PM

    Thanks Al.

    After hearing your discussion tonight, I’m convinced that govco must have a name to work with AND a contract must be created or validated.

    Until tonight, I’ve thought it was my brilliant paperwork that seemed to cease a “traffic ticket” situation. Maybe it helped, but now I’m sure that they feel they don’t have a name and contract to proceed with. Since I didn’t enter into a contract and didn’t participate by giving bond, they must not feel it’s worth pursuing. A more serious situation, possibly, but not this.

    Sometime, though, I’d like to explore the notion of obstructing government operations.

    Thanks for having Todd on the show.

     
    • Adask

      May 6, 2014 at 10:49 PM

      I doubt that you have any contracts with “this state”. A contract results in a “meeting of the mindS” (plural). That plurality is evidenced by all the people who signed the contract. The documents you’ve signed with “this state” typically have only ONE signature: yours. I regard a document with only one signature as a PLEDGE.

       
      • moon

        May 6, 2014 at 11:15 PM

        Yes, I addressed those things to the cop and “prosecutor” in an attempt at discovery. Also, I doubt that I have any responsibility for JOHN DOE.

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 10, 2014 at 2:14 PM

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        There is a book on Law that says,
        a Seal is Govt’s Signature .
        .
        .
        .
        .

         
  2. moon

    May 6, 2014 at 11:51 PM

    Al, do you ever travel by physically manipulating a gasoline powered conveyance without a driver’s license in your pocket? If so, how’s that working for you?

     
    • Adask

      May 7, 2014 at 8:01 AM

      My last drivers license expired in A.D. 1992. I drove for about 17 years without a license. But the attendant stress became more than I wanted to deal with. So, I sold my last automobile about 5 years ago. Since then, I haven’t “physically manipulated a gasoline-powered conveyance” except on rare occasions.

       
      • moon

        May 7, 2014 at 10:07 AM

        Yep, the stress is something one should seriously consider. Stress is a killer.

        My first DL expired in the 1970s. I’ve traveled more miles without a DL than with. In about 2007, I got another one. I’ve been given one “ticket” without and one with. The last one I consider without, since I had already decided to stop using the latest DL. As the system has evolved, I’ve decided I can do more good without.

        It seems I’m dealing with the stress incrementally.

        I’m considering traveling with no license, no tag, no insurance, and, of course, no seat belt. Haven’t decided what I want to do about identification. I’ve researched a bit of Cory Eib’s approach. Then, I’m considering putting sideboards on my truck that read: “Don’t blame me, I support Ron Paul”.

        You think I might get some attention? In my opinion, more folks should challenge the powers that shouldn’t be. If I don’t challenge, how can I encourage others to challenge?

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM

        .
        .
        .
        .

        This is a Land of Opportunity,
        a car will Help you use that Opportunity,
        you can fight other DisHonest Gov problems,
        better,
        if you stay Mobile.

        Just like the French Resistance would do in WWII,
        have your Papers,
        get You needs taken care of,
        Mobility makes Money more available,

        Money makes fighting a DisHonest gov,
        easier, and more successful.

        Perfect the Methods you find,
        then go Paperless.

        Your Papers pleeze.

        We all want,
        Honest Govmt,

        It could happen,
        one day …

        maybe.

        .
        .
        .
        .

         
  3. Adask

    May 7, 2014 at 10:16 AM

    I agree that people have to set an example, but I also see that we must “pick” our fights. None of us has sufficient intellectual, emotional or financial resources to fight every battle that presents itself every single day. I may be mistaken, but I think I do enough with radio shows and this blog to “set an example”. I see no point in stretching my resources to also drive without a license–especially since doing so may impair my ability to write for this blog and host radio shows.

     
    • Roger

      May 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM

      Agreed, virtually everyone has more important things to do than deal with the consequences of driving without a license.

       
    • moon

      May 7, 2014 at 3:35 PM

      I’m not qualified to say what’s the best use of another’s time, I’m too busy filling my own the best I know how.

      For me, opportunities appear and I try to take advantage of them. “Licenses” and “tickets” seem to be scourges that need to be dealt with. Some others are doing what I’m considering in their own ways and I’m learning from them. The opportunity available to me is that I already know and am known by the ones I’ll be dealing with locally. I just talked with the Sheriff at lunch in general conversation. From past experience and from my research, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want me in “his” jail, 1) because he can’t make much, if any, money from me being there, 2) because he doesn’t want to deal with unknown variables I might create. The judge and others have already been put on notice of the kinds of questions I’ll ask if pressed. Al, I’m a big fan of your idea of asking questions that create a slicky slope for them to answer. My responsibility is knowing the right questions to ask and comprehending the reasons for asking the right questions.

      Right now, I’m concerned with making the most hay from my last encounter by going after the cop in a way that sends the proper messages. I might go after the Sheriff and his deputies except that I may need papers served and executed AND I’m trying to stay focused on less risky ventures while I’m learning.

      So, Al, if you and others will keep on researching, writing, and talking, maybe I’ll spend fewer nights in jail, fewer days in “court”/court, and less money. I do admire you and folks like you who stay focused on what you like to do and find the best uses for your talents.

       
      • EarlatOregon

        May 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

        Moon ,
        Let us know, as you go,
        of what you Do, and what happens,
        this will Helpful to others.

         
      • moon

        May 10, 2014 at 12:07 AM

        EarlatOregon,

        If a revolution is successful, we all must opt out AND share each others’ findings.

         
  4. moon

    May 7, 2014 at 3:40 PM

    Here’s a quote of Norman Cousins that’s worth mentioning:

    The tragedy of life is not death but what we let die in side us while we live.

     
  5. palani

    May 8, 2014 at 9:08 AM

    A name change was required for the last monarch of France to be able to lose his head.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI_of_France

    Louis was officially arrested on 13 August 1792, and sent to the Temple, an ancient fortress in Paris that was used as a prison. On 21 September, the National Assembly declared France to be a Republic and abolished the Monarchy. Louis was stripped of all of his titles and honours, and from this date was known as simply Citoyen Louis Capet.

     
    • EarlatOregon

      May 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

      Not just a Name change,
      a Status change.

      Citoyen means Citizen.
      .
      .
      .

      Perhaps,
      being a Citizen,
      is not so good of an Idea?
      .
      .
      .

      Perhaps,
      it is better to be a Man.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

       
  6. Jethro!

    May 15, 2014 at 9:39 AM

    Al — In this broadcast you surmised that obtaining a state license plate/registration for a car shows that the state has become the owner of the car, and that’s how they control the car, and you, the “driver”. I have evidence it may not be that, but rather something else: one’s declaration of “residency” “in this state”.
    I had a lengthy discourse with the TN Dept. of Revenue. They (citing their code) stated that the condition precedent to registration is “proof of >>residency<<" "in this state". IOW, one must voluntarily declare himself "resident" within that political state of affairs that calls itself "this state".
    Question to Dept. of Rev.: "If I do not reside in 'this state', or any 'state', can I register my car with you?"
    Answer: "No. Once you establish your residency, you are then **required** to register."
    Question: "If I never establish residency — that is, I am a non-resident — are you saying registration is not required?"
    Answer: "Yes. And Title and Registration requirements do not apply, meaning you are not required to keep registration documentation in your vehicle."
    Reading their statutes carefully affirms everything they wrote to me. So it's not "ownership" per se that gives them control over your car, it's the (voluntary) political association you make "in this state" with them.

     
    • Adask

      May 15, 2014 at 2:28 PM

      We’re on the same path, but you have access to evidence that I haven’t previously seen. Did your dialogue with the TN Dept. of Revenue occur exclusively face-to-face (orally) or did any of it take place on paper? I.e., did the TN Dept of Revenue send any of those answers to you in WRITING?

      If you received any of those answers in writing from the Dept. of Revenue, I would very much like to see those written documents if you’re willing to share copies.

      In any case,residency may be the key concept. We’ve learned over the years that the 14th Amendment is our enemy–in part because it declares that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they RESIDE.” The word “reside” implicates “residency”.

      But it’s worth noting that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the only kind of States that existed were States of the Union. Thus, the 14th Amendment may not automatically presume us to be “resident in this state” but instead open the door to claiming “residency” in The State (i.e., The State of Texas, The State of New York, etc.).

      Thus, it may be that under the 14th Amendment we still have the right to declare ourselves to be a “resident” of a State of the Union like The State of Texas. If we don’t make that express declaration we may be presumed to be “reside in this state”–but that presumption should be rebuttable.

      Thanks for the info and insight.

       
      • Jethro

        May 15, 2014 at 7:14 PM

        The exchange was via email, so I do have the answers “in writing”, though not on paper. I’d be glad to send it to you. Ultimately, I expect to have evidence of the exchange on paper. That should happen when I buy my next car and engage in a written notification with them.
        The other part of the exchange was the question to the Dept. of Revenue: Since I am not a resident of this state, and do not operate a motor vehicle upon the streets or highways of this state, I may find myself in proximity of agents or officers of this state who not not understand this. To avoid misunderstandings and potential conflict, may I provide you *notice* of me and my car to enter into your system in case they encounter me?
        Answer: Notification to us it not required, but you may send it to us anyway. (Address and fax # provided for that purpose).
        This may be one of the remedies many have sought. If they *agree* that registration isn’t necessary and accept notice of who and where I am, how could they ever bring a charge of driving an unregistered vehicle?

         
  7. Adask

    May 16, 2014 at 12:00 AM

    Your paper work may be able to stop the traffic cops who try to stop you. But, the traffic cops can still stop you, arrest you, hold you in jail for some days or weeks and then drag you into court if they think they can outfox you procedurally. There is no strategy that’s guaranteed to work in court. Likewise, there is virtually no strategy that’s guaranteed to fail in court. When you get in front of a jury, any verdict is possible.

     
    • Jethro!

      May 16, 2014 at 1:18 PM

      You’re absolutely right that anyone (including cops) can do anything to anybody, including assaulting and kidnapping them. But it seems to me, the question is… can they do it without >liability<? I would think that if I had admissible evidence that they had previously agreed with me (e.g. licensing not being required), any actions they take against me to the contrary would be actionable as torts. Like schoolyard bullies, they would likely quickly discover bullying isn't so fun when the intended victim hits back and it hurts.

       
  8. Adask

    May 16, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    You’re exactly right. They can still bust our heads, but–if we’ve laid the proper foundation for claiming to be men made in God’s image and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and who are operating within the venue of a State of the Union (rather than territory), then we might have legal recourse. If a few of us could fight our way through that maze and actually win compensation in courts, the word would spread among the cops and police departments that they can’t safely beat the crap out of people without being successfully sued–the amount of abuse committed by the cops might diminish.

    The problem we’re having with the police isn’t a debate or even an argument–it’s a fight. It won’t end so long as the cops believe they can hit us with impunity and immunity and we can’t/won’t do anything in return. If, when, the cops discover they can’t hit, taser or shoot people with impunity/immunity, police violence against the American people will continue.

     
    • EarlatOregon

      May 16, 2014 at 5:20 PM

      Questions?

      .
      .
      .

      Is this a Court of Law?

      Is this a Court of Equity?

      Which System of Law ?

      .
      .
      .

      What is the Nature of the Law,
      in this case?
      .
      .
      .

      Equity from Wikipedia

      Equity is wholly “unaffected by any state laws”
      and is “everything, even without law” .

      Equity is commonly said to
      “mitigate the rigor of common law”,
      allowing courts to use their Discretion … .

      A historical criticism of equity while it developed
      was that it lacked fixed rules,
      with the Lord Chancellor occasionally judging in the main
      according to his Conscience.

      The US Supreme Court, however, has concluded
      that courts have wide Discretion
      to fashion relief in cases of equity.

      .
      .
      .

      The first major statement of this power came in
      Willard v. Tayloe, 75 U.S. 557 (1869).

      The Court concluded that
      “relief is not a matter of absolute right to either party;
      it is a matter resting in the Discretion of the court,
      to be exercised upon a consideration of all the circumstances of each particular case.”[9]

      .
      .
      .

      Willard v. Tayloe was for many years the leading case in contract law
      regarding intent and enforcement.[10][11] as well as equity.[10][12]

      .
      .
      .

      In the United States today,
      the federal courts and most state courts
      have merged law and equity in the courts of general jurisdiction,
      such as county courts.

      .
      .
      .

      However, the substantive distinction between law and equity
      has retained its old vitality.[13]

      Today three states
      still have separate courts for law and equity;

      .
      .
      .

      Also, the modern class action evolved out of the
      equitable doctrine of Virtual representation,
      which enabled a court of equity
      to fully dispose of an estate
      even though it might contain contingent interests
      held by persons over which
      the court did not have … Jurisdiction.

      .
      .
      .

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_law

      .
      .
      .

      If you are in a Court of Equity,
      judge uses his Discretion.

      .
      .
      .
      .

      So,
      How does one Find a Court of Law,
      or cause a Court of Law,
      to be Convened?

      .
      .
      .

       
  9. Adask

    May 17, 2014 at 12:53 AM

    I have read that the purpose of a court of LAW is to determine LEGAL rights. (“Legal” does not equal “equitable”.)

    I know that “all rights flow from TITLE”. This tells me that if you want to make a claim on any right, you must base your claim of RIGHT on an underlying claim of TITLE to that right.

    I suspect that it may follow that if you want a court of LAW (which determines LEGAL rights) you must include in your suit a claim to your LEGAL title to to the particular LEGAL right.

    I suspect that if you don’t expressly claim and show evidence of your LEGAL title to whatever right you’re trying to enforce, the court will not hear your case at LAW, but will instead hear it in EQUITY.

     

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