Tuesday Night Radio: Original Jurisdiction; Are you an “extremist”?; Cops charged with murder; more

13 Jan

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


Posted by on January 13, 2015 in American Independence Hour, Radio



28 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Original Jurisdiction; Are you an “extremist”?; Cops charged with murder; more

  1. Toland

    January 13, 2015 at 6:16 PM

    “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

    — Barry Goldwater, 1964

  2. russ

    January 13, 2015 at 9:52 PM

    The federal court decision in Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. (1972) stated the existence of both Lawful Taxpayers and Lawful Non Taxpayers.

    “Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without
    their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to
    annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them [Non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”

  3. russ

    January 13, 2015 at 10:00 PM – info to revoke the election you may have previously made by mistake

    • NicksTaxFree

      January 14, 2015 at 8:30 PM

      Thank you very much for posting that link.!!! I already knew most of it but to find it all in one place and so well explained IS GREAT. I can use this as a teaching tool for family and friends who have a hard time or closed mind to this subject. I didn’t know Title 26 IRC 6013(g)(4)(A) Termination of Election.
      That was my missing link to the break-away of Statutory U.S. person status.
      I hope more readers will go there to learn it all, Thanks again Russ

      • russ

        January 14, 2015 at 9:35 PM

        Yes, when you first volunteered (elected) to use the privilege at your first job, they expect it every year until you revoke the election (unvolunteer the privilege). That company will help you with an Affidavit you file with Auntie Iris and you can use it with your job to prove you are not eligible for that privilege.

        If interested, here is a deep dive to him explaining it for everyday folks:

        [audio src="" /]
        [audio src="" /]
        [audio src="" /]
        [audio src="" /]

  4. Adask

    January 13, 2015 at 10:40 PM

    Say whut?

  5. russ

    January 14, 2015 at 2:02 PM

    Proof of freedom from Obamacare for all of us non-“man or other animals” with nativity on one of the 50 states united that is expressly not federal territory:

    This document is proof Obamacare is only for federal citizens “within the United States” (District of Columbia) and not for state Citizens. The Act has no implementing regulation and was never promulgated in the Federal Register.

    Being a man created in the image of God “without the United States”, I am protected from that monstrosity. You could write the same letter via FOIA and get an original response letter for your records.

    • Toland

      January 14, 2015 at 2:36 PM

      Hi, russ. I’m chiming in with a point that could be only semantics, but I think it’s worth considering anyway.

      You claim to be a man “created in the image of God”. I would say that’s a redundant statement, because men “created in the image of God” are the only sort of men there are.

      There aren’t any men who, for example, evolved from monkeys, nor are there any men who were created by other men, etc. There is only one sort of man: the sort created by God. And from the Bible we know that when God this man, he created him in his own image.

      Therefore if someone is a man, it necessarily follows that he is “created in the image of God”, because there is no other sort of man in existence.

  6. russ

    January 14, 2015 at 4:21 PM

    Toland, there are some people I know that do not believe in the God of the Bible, and do not claim to be created in His image. They actually believe and claim they are the legal definition of human beings evolved from apes, said apes allegedly evolved from some other primordial soup mixture after the big bang.

    Although I believe they are created in God’s image, and treat them as such, they do not make that claim to their own demise.

    Since last year after discovering the “MOOA” legal definition, in all of my legal documents and statements, I make that claim and stand on it.

    • russ

      January 14, 2015 at 9:19 PM

      “MOOA” is an animal. See the human being family tree I linked. Read Al’s Man Or Other Animals articles and his youtube videos. He shows you where MOOA is linked in federal law to your food, drugs, Obamacare, medical devices, etc. Unfortunately, if you claim yourself to be a 14th Amendment citizen/subject of the United States that is what you are claiming to be in law.

  7. russ

    January 14, 2015 at 4:26 PM

    Here is the archive from last nights show:
    [audio src="" /]

  8. russ

    January 14, 2015 at 6:01 PM

    This is the Human Being Family Tree as shown on the Smithsonian Institute web site back in December:

  9. russ

    January 14, 2015 at 7:20 PM

    Here is the original human family tree still at this site:

    “The Smithsonian Institution is established as a trust instrumentality by act of Congress, and it is functionally and legally a body of the U.S. government, but separate from the government’s federal legislative, executive, and judicial branches.”

    Proof positive the govco thinks of you as, and administers you as a “MOOA”.

  10. Adask

    January 14, 2015 at 8:44 PM

    Some people believe that, if you read Genesis closely, you’ll see that there were other “people” already on earth before Adam & Eve. If that were true, it would indicate that there are two kinds of “people” on the earth today: those who are made in God’s image and those who are not.

    Every race would presumably claim that their race alone was made in God’s image. It’s not clear which race was truly made in God’s image–except for one clue: maybe Adam and his racial descendants are the only race that’s able to blush.

    In any case, if we allow for a racial dichotomy where only one race only was made in God’s image, but one or more other races were not–then it would be possible for the race(s) that were not made in God’s image to be the result of, and constantly subject to, evolution.

    The other race–if it were made in God’s image, if it remained in God’s image, and if God is unchanging–would not be subject to evolution. If God doesn’t change,then any race made in His image might not change, too. Under that scenario, both evolution and Creationism might be true. Evolution could be true for most races (and probably most “people”) and Creationism would be true for the minority of men and women made in God’s image.

    As the King of Siam might’ve said to Anna, “It is a puzzlement.”

    • russ

      January 14, 2015 at 10:01 PM

      Jerry, you misinterpret what I said. The question you asked is why use Man created in the image of God when everybody already is. That is what I stand on. MOOA is an animal, that is what evolution believers claim to be.

    • Toland

      January 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM

      > Some people believe that, if you read Genesis closely, you’ll see that there were other “people” already on earth before Adam & Eve. <

      I don't know who believes what you describe, but the Christian Bible states that sin and death began with Adam.

      Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

      Thus, if there were other people on earth before Adam and Eve, these other people would have been without sin or death, which is inconsistent with Christian scripture.

      • Henry

        January 15, 2015 at 2:18 AM

        Toland said: “I don’t know who believes what you describe…”

        It’s clearly someone who either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that the existence of a pre-Adam population is inconsistent with Christian scripture.

        If the person is a genuine Christian, then the first of these two possibilities must be the case. So be sure to inform them of their error by citing relevant chapter and verse (as you have done here). This person will surely be eager to, if not immediately accept your information, at least diligently “search out the matter” before continuing to misrepresent God’s word.

        2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

        If they are not a Christian, or are merely pretending to be a Christian, then there may not be much point in pursuing the topic with them. Play it by ear.

  11. russ

    January 14, 2015 at 9:49 PM

    There were a total of 4 couples on the Ark. Noah’s wife and the wives of his sons could account for variety.

    “In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark.” Genesis 7:13

    • Adask

      January 14, 2015 at 10:17 PM

      Good point. Even if there were one or more “evolutionary” races on earth before Adam & Eve (the beginning of the “Creation race”), if the flood of Noah’s time really submerged the whole earth under water, then all of the “evolutionary races” should’ve drowned and perished as would all but a handful of the “Creation race”.

      The exception might be Noah’s son’s wives. I’m going to presume that all of Noah’s sons were by the same mother, and that Noah and his wife were of the “Creation race” and therefore all of his sons were also of the “Creation race”.

      So, if we accept the story of the Great Flood as true, then we’d have to suppose that the members of the “evolutionary race(s)” that survived with Noah’s sons’ wives.

      I’m not arguing that any of that is true. I’m jus’ sayin’.

      But if it were true that, somehow, there are two generic kinds of races on this planet (a majority who are “evolutionary” and a minority who are “Creationist”), this might offer an explanation for God’s apparent mandate that His “Creationist race” not interbreed with other “races” since those other “races” were evolutionary rather than made in God’s image.

      Following that conjecture, we’d be left to wonder if anyone was left who was not the result of inter-racial breeding and no longer strictly “made in God’s image”.

      It all becomes very confusing if we get too close to some of the details.

      I am going to resolve that confusion (for myself, at least) by simply declaring (as my Freedom of Religion allows) that I am a man made in God’s image and endowed by Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Given that is do so as an act of religious freedom, who can deny my claim under oath?

  12. Adask

    January 14, 2015 at 11:12 PM

    I’m not saying that I believe there were other “evolutionary races” on earth before Adam & Eve. I’m saying that I’ve met people who believe that.

    For example, Dennis Bynum wrote several documents that I’ve posted on this blog that allegedly caused him to be recognized as a sovereign. Dennis passed on several years ago. But during the time that I knew him, he contended that while Chapter 1 of Genesis reported the creation mankind as being made in God’s image, Chapter 2 of Genesis reported a second creation where God created a second kind of “man” who was made from dust and had life “breathed into him” by God.

    I’m not arguing that Dennis was right. I’m only saying that Dennis was an intelligent man who believed that the Bible offered evidence of at least two “races” of mankind: one made in God’s image; one not made in God’s image.

    Part of the reason that we have Freedom of Religion is that there are almost always elements of religion that some people believe in fervently that other people regard as silly, stupid, irrational of even blasphemous. Rather than force the kinds of virulent arguments that might result from sincere differences of opinion as to which faith is the true faith, or which elements of a particular faith are true, the Founders declared we were all free to adopt whatever religion and/or religious beliefs we liked and no one,not even government could legally force us to abandon those sincerely-held beliefs.

    The fact that I believe some things doesn’t mean that you must also believe as I do. We can secretly view each other as idiots, but so long as there’s Freedom of Religion, we don’t have to try to behead each other to prove which of us has the one “true faith”. Muslims don’t have Freedom of Religion. Therefore, they must behead anyone (even fellow Muslims) who disagree as to the canons of the “one true faith”.

    Freedom of Religion is an implicit admission that religious arguments are generally not very profitable. Discussion is fine. Consideration is fine. Debate is fine. But arguments on spiritual issues are dangerous because most true believers of any religion believe or strongly suspect that God would approve if they beheaded those other fools who didn’t believe the exact same thing as the first group of “true believers”.

    There is no war like Holy War because no compromise is possible. Religious arguments can precipitate Holy War. Religious arguments are therefore potentially dangerous but can be avoided (or at least minimized) if we all respect each person’s Freedom of Religion.

    Most people sincerely believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 describe the same act of Creation. But, some people sincerely believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 describe two separate acts which resulted two different races of “men”. Whatcha gonna do? Tell one group that they’re absolutely right and tell the other group that they’re absolutely wrong? If you do, you may find yourself in the middle of a Holy War–and you probably won’t like it.

    Best to merely consider the two arguments. Pick the one that seems closest to the truth for you. And leave those you disagree with to continue to exercise their Freedom of Religion.

  13. Adask

    January 15, 2015 at 12:51 AM

    I can’t say that either act (Genesis 1 or Genesis 2) is false. But I hang my spiritual hat on Genesis 1:26-27 where our Father YHWH ha Elohiym created man in His image and gave that man dominion over the animals. That’s the verse that implicitly declares that men made in God’s image can’t be “animals”. That’s the kind of man I claim to be and, thanks in part to 1st Amendment’s freedom of religion, I can make that claim under oath.

    Once I swear to be a man made in God’s image, who–on all the earth–can swear under oath that I’m not?

    Q: If I swear Yes, and no one else can swear No, whose statement/evidence will prevail in court?

    A: Mine.

    And thanks to my Freedom of Religion, once it’s recognized that: 1) every Jew and Christian’s faith must be based in part on the principle that he’s a “man made in God’s image,”; 2) I’m recognized as a Christian; then, 3) I (as an act of religious faith in Christianity) must be a man made in God’s image. As such, I should not be subject to any law that presumes me to be an “animal”. That should exempt me from virtually all laws that involve food, drugs or medical devices.

    Have you ever been tasered? I think the taser may conform to the definition of (medical) “devices”. As such tasers may only be lawfully applied to “animals” but not to men made in God’s image.

    The new Secretary of Health is said to favor treating gun violence as a health issue. So far as I know, he hasn’t yet tried to define “firearms” as (medical) “devices”. But I doubt that he can declare gun violence to be a health issue without expressly or implicitly defining guns as (medical) devices. IF that happens, as a man made in God’s image, I should be exempt from any laws–including gun control–that presume me to be an animal.

    Obamacare provides medical care that includes the use of “drugs” and (medical) “devices”–which are defined in terms of MOOA. That means Obamacare is based on the presumption that I’m an “animal”. But, thanks to my Christian faith and my Freedom of Religion, I shouldn’t be subject to to Obamacare laws.

    The IRS is now in charge of imposing tax penalties on those who don’t pay into Obamacare. But insofar as Obamacare is based on MOOA, and the IRS enforces tax penalties against those who don’t pay into Obamacare, the IRS collection procedures must be based in whole or in part on the presumption that “taxpayers” are “animals”.

    Do you see where I’m going with this? As a man made in God’s image, I may not be subject to paying income taxes.

    Describing all of these potential defenses based on a claim that you’re a “man made in God’s image” is fairly easy. Making such a claim in court is similarly easy.

    Nevertheless, nothing is guaranteed to work in court first time, every time except the Hand of God. Lots of people may try to make a “MOOA” defense, but I won’t be surprised if some or even most such defense arguments fail for one reason or another.

    This is no game, and there’s no guarantee that if you apply a MOOA defense, that you’ll succeed. But there is a chance that you MIGHT succeed–IF you really understand the argument and IF you are truly sincere in your faith.

  14. Toland

    January 15, 2015 at 3:59 PM

    Hello again, russ.

    This is the topic that first brought me to this blog in search of answers. I’m still seeking clarification on a basic point.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “animal” when you say “MOOA is an animal”. Specifically, the following:

    The definition of “animal” used in everyday speech excludes man. But such a definition would make “man or other animals” as meaningless and nonsensical a phrase as “man or other vegetables”.

    Therefore, “man or other animals”, as intended by the legislature which authored this phrase, must use a definition of “animal” that includes man.

    What could this definition be, and where do we find it? No one has been able to identify this definition among the many candidates. If you know, please cite it.

  15. russ

    January 15, 2015 at 5:11 PM

    Toland, that is a great question. I am not sure how familiar you are with reading and comprehending the statute/code world. It is a 2D fictional world compared to God’s 3D world. The legal society creates their own legal definitions of common words we use in everyday speech. You are presumed to know the definition if you contract with govco or a corporation.

    Look up 1 USC 8:
    “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
    (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation
    of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo
    sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any
    stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
    (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or
    legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born
    alive” as defined in this section.
    (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

    So Congress considers you a human being. A specie of primate, homo sapien. An evolved animal. Look at the link I provided above for the human family tree aka the “Ape Tree”.

    Look up the terms in a legal dictionary like Black’s Law and Bouvier. You can get some for free online.

    MAN. A human being. A person of the male sex. A male of the human species above the age of pu-
    berty. – Black’s Law 4th

    7 USC 136:
    (d) Animal
    The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish.

  16. russ

    January 15, 2015 at 5:54 PM

    This is a excellent video of Al explaining MOOA and the consequences for todays society:

  17. russ

    January 15, 2015 at 7:06 PM

    Here is a copy of Public Law 97-280 (96 Stat.1211) passed by both houses and printed from the GPO. It recognizes the Bible as the Word of God. Notice they refer to the people. There is no mention of any MOOA, human beings, homo sapiens, or persons. Interesting.

    One could get a certified copy of this from GPO, along with certified copies of the 4 organic documents, and submit these in to evidence that you claim and stand on this status.

  18. Toland

    January 16, 2015 at 1:21 PM

    7 USC 136 (d) “The term “animal” means all vertebrate and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish.”

    That’s interesting. Since the term “vertebrate” of course means “having a spine”, and man was created with a spine, then man does qualify as an “animal” by this legalistic definition.

    Whether this was the actual definition used in “man or other animals” remains to be seen, though this appears a likely candidate.

    Another definition of “animal” that includes man is the original definition of this word – namely the definition “animal” has from its origin in the Latin language. The Latin word “animalis” means “having breath”, which obviously describes man.

    An argument for “man or other animals” using the Latin root definition of “animal” is Genesis 2:7, where we read that God created man a living “nephesh” (in the original Hebrew). This word “nephesh”, like the Latin word “animalis”, means a breathing creature.

    • Toland

      January 16, 2015 at 4:35 PM


      The legalistic definition of “animal” only matters, to me at least, because we are trying to understand the legislature’s intended meaning when they wrote “man or other animals”.

      The intended meaning of the legislature is not immediately obvious because, if we simply use the everyday definition of “animal” (which excludes man), the phrase “man or other animals” is meaningless nonsense like something you’d hear at a tea party with Alice.

      Another example of an “animal” under the definition “a breathing creature” is the hare. Since the hare breathes, it’s an “animal”.

  19. Toland

    January 16, 2015 at 6:48 PM

    “…Man is ALSO an animal BECAUSE, Man BREATHES.”

    Yes, though let’s be sure to specify the definition of “animal” we’re using, because it makes a huge difference. Under the definition of “animal” possibly used by the legislature that wrote “man or other animals”, you’re correct.

    Another way of stating it is that Genesis 2:7 tells us man was created a “nephesh”, a Hebrew word meaning “a breathing creature”. The hare is, like man, a “nephesh”.

    Next we note that the Latin word “animalis”, from which the English word “animal” derives, also means “a breathing creature”. So “animalis” and “nephesh” are synonyms.

    Thus, if the legislature was using this definition of “animal”, the apparently nonsensical “man or other animals” actually means “man or other breathing creatures“.

    And, since Genesis 2:7 says God created man a “breathing creature”, this possible intended meaning of “man or other animals” has Biblical precedent.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s