Free Speech Raido

Who is free to talk! W.B.A.I. now call them­selves. “Your Peace and Jus­tice Com­mu­nity Radio Station” Is that because they can no longer call them­selves free speech radio? Lis­ten to these calls and you be the judge!
Edward Ellis put a ques­tion to the: New York State Com

W.B.A.I. now call them­selves. “Your Peace and Jus­tice Com­mu­nity Radio Station”


Is that because they can no longer call them­selves free speech radio? Lis­ten to these calls and you be the judge!

(The calls and story in audios can be found below.)

Edward Ellis put a ques­tion to the: New York State Com­mis­sion of Cor­rec­tions ( both of this listener’s calls are here back to back) A lis­tener put a ques­tion to the com­mis­sioner This short phone call demon­strates the length that the power struc­ture will go to hide its deception.


 Audios can be found at
 The story below in audio format (Adjust your volume)

This phone call was placed to On The Count, the only pub­lic affairs radio pro­gram in the United States hosted by Edward Ellis on WBAI radio. In an ear­lier por­tion of this phone call (heard here) Edward Ellis States He would like to see more schools and less jails, but when asked a rel­e­vant and related ques­tion a caller is uncer­e­mo­ni­ously dis­con­nected! Let genet­icmem­ory read this story for you! Click here Who is free to Talk? Ellis also regards the caller as unin­formed or mis­guided stat­ing “the uni­form code (of con­duct?) has noth­ing to do with this con­ver­sa­tion” obvi­ously Mr. Ellis thinks he’s back in the mil­i­tary, if he was ever there. The uni­form code that he might be refer­ring to is the uni­form code of mil­i­tary Jus­tice (if he even knows what he was talk­ing about). Is far from the mark of what we were talk­ing about,and was most likely added as a red her­ring to fog the issue. In fact the Uni­form Com­mer­cial Code has been cod­i­fied in to all laws of this nation and many oth­ers. It is unclear to this reporter whether Mr. Ellis is just unin­formed or if he has a vested inter­est, because you can never expect those in power to tell you some­thing that is averse to them, and is of ben­e­fit to you. 1. Obvi­ously the ques­tion was rel­e­vant see­ing that he just asked a ques­tion of sim­i­lar nature. (He basally asked Should there be more schools and less pris­ons) A ques­tion which found the com­mis­sion of quite off guard! And had to scram­ble for an answer. 2. Also obvi­ously he had no idea of what the caller was talk­ing about, or was he just try­ing to con­fuse his listener- ship ( Uni­form Com­mer­cial Code/ uniform code of mil­i­tary Jus­tice [con­duct?]) which to caller started to say, but quickly cor­rected. WHAT IS THE UCC The Uni­form Com­mer­cial Code (UCC or the Code) is one of a num­ber of uni­form acts that have been pro­mul­gated in con­junc­tion with efforts to har­mo­nize the law of sales and other com­mer­cial trans­ac­tions in all 50 states within the United States of Amer­ica. This objec­tive is deemed impor­tant because of the preva­lence today of com­mer­cial trans­ac­tions that extend beyond one state (for exam­ple, where the goods are man­u­fac­tured in state A, ware­housed in state B, sold from state C and deliv­ered in state D). The UCC deals pri­mar­ily with trans­ac­tions involv­ing per­sonal prop­erty (move­able prop­erty), not real prop­erty (immov­able prop­erty). The unin­formed might say that “he is right”. It has noth­ing to do with the sub­ject of the show on that day. Well we also might think that the host of “The only pub­lic affairs radio pro­gram in the United States on The Prison Crim­i­nal & justice(Injustice) sys­tem ” might have a bet­ter grasp on the facts.(but this is not to be expected from a col­lab­o­ra­tor) or one who has been duped! HERE ARE THE FACTS Arti­cle 3 Sec­tion 2 of the Con­sti­tu­tion states “The judi­cial pow­ers( of the courts) shall extend to all cases in Law and equity aris­ing under the Con­sti­tu­tion” Supreme Court gives us two areas of juris­dic­tion law and equity, Law “being the com­mon law which was once the law of the land” and equity “# Equity (law), a branch of jurispru­dence in com­mon law juris dic tions .In many polit­i­cal and legal sys­tems, a con­cept encom­pass­ing ideals of jus­tice (fair­ness) and/ or equal­ity When you go into court you should ask ( I said ask but really mean think about it) these per­ti­nent ques­tions: 1. Is this a com­mon law court? The answer to that ques­tion will be no this is not a com­mon law court. 2. Is this a court of equity? The answer to that ques­tion will be no this is not a court of equity. 3. And just a cover all your bases you should ask? Is this an Admiralty/ maritime court. The judge will likely make a smart remark like no we are not out in the ocean (Law of the high seas) some­where. As you saw ear­lier the Con­sti­tu­tion grants two areas of juris­dic­tion. So if we aer not using com­mon law and when not using equity and there is no such thing as mar­itime on the land than what are we using? If you were to put that ques­tion to the judge he would have to say statu­tory. This I know from past expe­ri­ence. The Con­sti­tu­tion talks of two forms of juris­dic­tion Law and Equity, it says noth­ing about mar­itime because that’s the law of the sea .So where dose this curi­ous juris­dic­tion of statu­tory come from? Statu­tory laws is the mar­riage of mar­itime (the law of the sea) and equity. 1 : a law enacted by the leg­isla­tive branch of a gov­ern­ment (is the seat belt (just to name one of many) enacted by the leg­isla­tive? 2 : an act of a cor­po­ra­tion or of its founder intended as a per­ma­nent rule 3 : an inter­na­tional instru­ment set­ting up an agency and reg­u­lat­ing its scope or author­ity Remem­ber the Con­sti­tu­tion: Arti­cle 3 Sec­tion 2 — Trial by Jury, Orig­i­nal Juris­dic­tion, Jury Tri­als The judi­cial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, aris­ing under this Con­sti­tu­tion, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Author­ity The first ques­tion is are you sov­er­eign, are you respon­si­ble for your actions are a some­one else. I leave that for the indi­vid­ual to decide. The spirit of this idea was expressed in the famous Supreme Court case cited in below. “The indi­vid­ual may stand upon his con­sti­tu­tional (if there were such a thing, we will get to that later!) rights as a cit­i­zen. He is enti­tled to carry on his pri­vate busi­ness in his own way. His power to con­tract is unlim­ited. He owes no such duty [to sub­mit his books and papers for an exam­i­na­tion] to the State, since he receives noth­ing there from, beyond the pro­tec­tion (there is very lit­tle of that in our com­mu­nity) and of his life and prop­erty. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Com­mon Law] long antecedent to the orga­ni­za­tion of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accor­dance with the Con­sti­tu­tion. Among his rights are a refusal to incrim­i­nate him­self, and the immu­nity of him­self and his prop­erty from arrest or seizure except under a war­rant of the law. He owes noth­ing to the pub­lic so long as he does not tres­pass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906). So the least accord­ing to the Supreme Court you have the right to con­tract and carry on your life as you see fit. Very few Amer­i­cans know that they have a fun­da­men­tal choice: To live their lives and con­duct their busi­nesses under common- law juris­dic­tion or under statu­tory juris­dic­tion. Com­mon Law is the law of the land, the law of the Con­sti­tu­tion. Statu­tory law is leg­is­lated law. I can not be made to com­ply with any leg­is­lated law that is not leg­is­lated as “Pos­i­tive Law”. Check the Con­sti­tu­tion, Arti­cle I, Sec­tion 8, clauses 17 & 18. Because I am not a 14th Amend­ment Fed­eral cit­i­zen, ONLY clause 18 applies to me!! Look at the 14th Amend­ment, “All Per­sons” — I am not a “per­son”, never have been and never will be — born or nat­u­ral­ized in the United States — I was nei­ther born or nat­u­ral­ized in the United States, I was born in the Sov­er­eign union state, and sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof — note the word “and”, it does not say is, that means some peo­ple are and some peo­ple are not; I AM NOT!! — are cit­i­zens of the United States and of the State — the word state is not a proper noun and should not be cap­i­tal­ized! — in which they reside. — I do not reside any­where there­fore I am not a res­i­dent. You can not be a state Cit­i­zen and a res­i­dent at the same time, if you are a res­i­dent then you are a Fed­eral Sub­ject!! Juris­dic­tional lim­its of the United States (Con­sti­tu­tion the United States) (United States) exer­cise exclu­sive leg­is­la­tion in all cases what­so­ever, over such dis­trict (not exceed­ing ten miles square) as may, by ces­sion of par­tic­u­lar states, and the accep­tance of Con­gress, become the seat of the gov­ern­ment of the United States, and to exer­cise like author­ity over all places pur­chased by the con­sent of the leg­is­la­ture of the state in which the same shall be, for the erec­tion of forts, mag­a­zines, arse­nals, dock- yards, and other need­ful build­ings so accord­ing to the Con­sti­tu­tion the United States is adju­di­cat­ing in venues other than there domain. The broad lan­guage of Title 27, Code of Fed­eral Reg­u­la­tions, Part 72.11 makes almost all crimes whether or not they are Fed­eral or States crimes “com­mer­cial crimes.” In the Pro­peller Genessee Chief, supra, it was revealed that admi­ralty courts have juris­dic­tion over inter­state com­merce, so it would fol­low that the crimes listed in 27 CFR 72.11 are cog­niz­able in an admi­ralty or mar­itime court, and such are com­mer­cial courts. The rel­e­vant part of the text is as fol­lows: Com­mer­cial crimes. Any of the fol­low­ing types of crimes (Fed­eral or State): Offences against the rev­enue laws; bur­glary; coun­ter­feit­ing; forgery; kid­nap­ping; lar­ceny; rob­bery; ille­gal sale or pos­ses­sion of deadly weapons; pros­ti­tu­tion (includ­ing solic­it­ing, procur­ing, pan­der­ing, white slav­ing, keep­ing house of ill fame, and like offences); extor­tion; swin­dling and con­fi­dence games; and attempt­ing to com­mit, con­spir­ing to com­mit, or com­pound­ing any of the fore­go­ing crimes. Addic­tion to nar­cotic drugs and use of mar­i­huana will be treated as if such were com­mer­cial crime. In the Ebsworth & Ebsworth lec­ture of 1994, infra, Proc­tor Wiswall states: “Con­gress has been repeat­edly held by the Court to have the power to extend the admi­ralty and mar­itime juris­dic­tion by statute, and Con­gress has repeat­edly exer­cised that power;” (see e.g., The “Lot­tawana”, 88 U.S. 558 (1875); also Panama Rail­road v. John­son, 264 U.S. 375 (1924)). for more infor­ma­tion on this see : THE SECRET OF THE SPE­CIAL MAR­ITIME JURIS­DIC­TION OF THE UNITED STATES EXPOSED What is com­mon law There 10 major prin­ci­ples or max­ims of com­mon law. 1. WORK­MAN IS WOR­THY OF HIS HIRE 2. ALL ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW 3. IN COM­MERCE TRUTH IS SOV­ER­EIGN 4. TRUTH IS EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF AN AFFI­DAVIT 5. AN UNRE­BUTTED AFFI­DAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COM­MERCE. 6. AN UNRE­BUTTED AFFI­DAVIT BECOMES THE JUDG­MENT IN COM­MERCE. 7. IN COM­MERCE FOR ANY MAT­TER TO BE RESOLVED MUST BE EXPRESSED. 8. HE WHO LEAVES THE BAT­TLE­FIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT. 9.SACRIFICE IS THE MEA­SURE OF CRED­I­BIL­ITY (NO WILL­ING­NESS TO SAC­RI­FICE = NO LIA­BIL­ITY, RESPON­SI­BIL­ITY, AUTHOR­ITY OR MEA­SURE OF CON­VIC­TION). A LIEN OR CLAIM CAN BE SAT­IS­FIED ONLY THROUGH REBUT­TABLE BY AFFI­DAVIT POINT BY POINT, RES­O­LU­TION BY JURY, OR PAY­MENT. 10.A LIEN OR CLAIM CAN BE SAT­IS­FIED ONLY THROUGH REBUT­TABLE BY AFFI­DAVIT POINT BY POINT, RES­O­LU­TION BY JURY, OR PAY­MENT. For more infor­ma­tion why these are max­ims though most are self- explanatory see : law and max­ims or max­ims law revis­ited avail­able on the site. As you can see none of what they do have any­thing to do with the law (com­mon law) But as if that weren’t enough is impos­si­ble for you to get a fair trial! Rid­dle me this one Bat­man, is it pos­si­ble to get a fair trial if there’s a con­flict of inter­ests. Just in case you didn’t know to answer. No! It is impos­si­ble to get a fair trial when there’s a con­flict of inter­est. Are you won­der­ing what the con­flict of inter­est is. Here are some ques­tions that might clear that up. Who does a judge rep­re­sent? (get paid by) Who does the pros­e­cu­tor rep­re­sent? (get paid by) (If you have a pub­lic defender) Who does the pub­lic offender get paid by? answer: The State Who by the way in most cases is also the plain­tiff, talk about con­flict of inter­est! but this is all made legal by virtue of the straw­man argu­ment. What is the straw­man argu­ment? In gen­eral, a straw­man is an object, doc­u­ment, per­son, or argu­ment that tem­porar­ily stands in for and is intended to be “knocked down” by some­thing more sub­stan­tial. The straw­man is a type of red Her­ring because the arguer is attempt­ing to refute the opponent’s posi­tion in the con­text required to, do so, but instead attacks a posi­tion (the straw man) not held by the oppo­nent. In the straw­man argu­ment, the arguer argues to a con­clu­sion that denies the straw­man he has set up, but misses the tar­get. There may be noth­ing wrong with the argu­ment pre­sented by the odd your when it is taken out of con­text, that is it may be a per­fectly good argu­ment against a straw­man. It is because the bur­den of proof is on the arguer to argue against though oppo­nents posi­tion that the straw­man fal­lacy is com mit ted .so the fal­lacy is not sim­ply the argu­ment but the entire sit­u­a­tion of the argu­ment accord­ing to the con­text. How dose it works? Per­son A (you) have/ has posi­tioned X. Per­son B (pros­e­cu­tor) presents posi­tion Y (the straw­man) Per­son B attacks posi­tion Y ( which is a dis­tor­tion of posi­tion X) There­fore X is false, incor­rect and flawed. Next we should look at stand­ing. From an arti­cle from adven­tures in legal land “We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are cre­ated equal, that they are endowed by their Cre­ator with cer­tain unalien­able Rights, that among these are Life, Lib­erty and the Pur­suit of Hap­pi­ness. — That to secure these rights, Gov­ern­ments are insti­tuted among Men, deriv­ing their just pow­ers from the con­sent of the gov­erned…” Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence. (You must get a good under­stand­ing of this rul­ing) “An analy­sis of stand­ing begins with a deter­mi­na­tion of whether the party seek­ing relief has sus­tained an injury (see Soci­ety of Plas­tics Indus. v. County of Suf­folk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 772773, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1043 [1991]).” Mahoney v. Pataki, 772 N.E.2d 1118, 1122 (N.Y. 2002). As it is impos­si­ble for the state to be injured, the state (the munic­i­pal Cor­po­ra­tion) there­fore can never had a stand­ing in cou

Also see on this site The Con­sti­tu­tion of no Authority

A story from Aesop’s — African fables


The cat and the mice There was once a house over run with mice, the cat said that’s the place for me and off she went and took her quar­ters in the house and she cap­tured and ate the mice one by one. At last the mice could stand it no longer and were deter­mined to take to their holes and stay there. This could be a prob­lem the cat said to her­self, the only thing to do is to coach them out by a trick. So she climbed the wall and allow her­self to hang down by a peg and pre­tended to be dead. By and by a mouse peaked out and saw the cat hang­ing there, Aha, he cried you a very clever Madam no doubt you can turn your­self into a bag of meal if you like but you won’t catch us com­ing any­where near you! The moral of the story. If you’re wise you won’t be deceived by the inno­cent airs of those who you once found to be dan­ger­ous! Another inter­est­ing page on this sub­ject see The Wiz­ard of OZ — Decoded Side Note: If you look at

Aesop’s fables with a dis­cern­ing eye, you will see that he wrote about many Ani­mal that where not in Europe at that time! (NO ZOO'S) Those who have eyes let them see

akoben adinkrahene

1 Blog posts

akoben adinkrahene 4 yrs

Next, post how we get around this but I will not post if I see no interest. or you can do your own research at

akoben adinkrahene 4 yrs

What does all this mean? It means that when you go to court you volunteer to be under the authority of the court because you don't know the game that is being played. It's like using the rules of basketball in a baseball game!