FreeSpeech Raido


From the way-back machine...

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.

Let geneticmemory read this story for you!

1st call I was disconnected

Called back somewhat up set

Audio of text below work in progress.


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!

 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.


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 jurisdictions.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 are 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 such as the 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   Are you responsible for your actions "sovereign" or is 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 brown communities) 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 a Sovereign union state, and subject to the "Common Law" 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 now Airports) and other needful buildings so according to the Constitution the United States is adjudicating in venues other than there domain.

Now let's focus in on the problem. 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.










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 straw-man argument. What is the straw-man argument?

In general, a straw-man is an object, document, person, or argument that temporarily stands in for and is intended to be "knocked down" by something more substantial.

The straw-man 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 straw-man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the straw-man he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the argument when it is taken out of context, that is it may be a perfectly good argument against a straw-man.

It is because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponents position that the straw-man fallacy is committed. 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 straw-man)

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, 772-773, 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 court.

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 ZOOS) Those who have eyes let them see

{jcomments on}


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

joomla templatesfree joomla templatestemplate joomla
2018  GeneticMemory   globbers joomla template