Unruly State of Affairs in the United States of America

Recent Discoveries

USOA Latest Content

Portal Home

USOA v2.0 -- April 2025 -- Education & Outreach Committee -- HelpDesk Support is available... Click here to visit the Contact Page...

Recognizing the jurisdictions of the purported Court

 

By: James Allen Homyak

source: Educated In Law

You may find yourself dragged into a Court proceeding. You would be wise to read, comprehend and learn from my short story below so that you prepare yourself intellectually for the very outset of any Court Case, criminal or civil, and you must avoid the whole issue of the "LEGAL NAME” game entirely.

If or when you are asked to "state your name" say only your given name -- "Suzie Jean" for example, or "Suzie" -- and in the same breath admit that you are “here to address the Court in this matter" -- which actually communicates to the Court that you stand in your fleshly body.

According to the well known Alaskan legal researcher born on Wisconsin state, Anna Von Reitz, there exist only three jurisdictions available to the Courts which now assault the American People --

  • Maritime (Commercial) Courts

  • Admiralty (Military) Courts

  • Ecclesiastical (Canon Law) Courts

To stand in victory against any action against you, you must establish that you are outside all three of these potential jurisdictions. Do this without verbally telling the Court what you know thus far [about these three in so far as you hadn't seen this coming, it may just stupify you, to the point of letting God put the Words on your heart, at the risk of otherwise being a moron and dismissed.]  Emphasis mine, jah for the giggles.

At each step of the Courtroom process the jurisdiction changes and the change is signaled when the Judge/Magistrate gets up from the bench and leaves the Courtroom for a recess or a break or for a stated reason which stops the flow. When he/she returns, you have been tacitly (in a way that is understood or implied without being directly stated) advanced into the next and more serious jurisdiction.

The initial Court proceeding will always follow the same order and begin in the Maritime (Commercial) jurisdiction where your speaking to the Court is to "wish for" remedy.

The second more serious jurisdiction is Admiralty (Military) jurisdiction where your speaking to the Court is to "wish for" cure and relief.

If the Judge/Magistrate dares to leave and come back again, you are both playing for High Stakes, and are now in Ecclesiastical Court (Canon Law)..... where your speaking to the Court is to identify your self in connection with The Creator. A Judge/Magistrate who violates your sovereignty in this jurisdiction loses his/her job permanently (the immediate prosecutor has no choice but to enforce this).

In the above illustration, my short story educates you in this "iteration" method when facing any action in one of their Courts (the American Court has unfortunately become a nefarious collusion between BAR attorneys and financial entities masquerading as lawful government).

You make these three "iterations" as your only verbal communication. You will be clearly given the chance to speak in front of the Court in “the matter” at hand. Say nothing else besides each respective reply at each respective iteration as the Judge/Magistrate signals for you to speak:

 

Reply #1 – say this out loud for all in attendance to hear your voice clearly

"Your Honor, for and on the record of this Court, I am a living man/woman, the blood flows and the flesh lives and I wish for remedy....."

He/She Judge/Magistrate will have to get up and leave the courtroom. When he/she comes back....:

Reply #2 – say this out loud for all in attendance to hear your voice clearly

"Your Honor, just to reiterate, for and on the record of this Court, I am a living man/woman, the blood flows and the flesh lives and I wish for cure and relief...."

He/She Judge/Magistrate will have to exit again, or dismiss outright. Most Judges/Magistrates will dismiss at this point rather than risk the consequences of a final confrontation, but if he/she comes back a third time, you reiterate:

 

Reply #3 – say this out loud for all in attendance to hear your voice clearly

"Your Honor, to reiterate, for and on the record of this court, I am a living man/woman, the blood flows and the flesh lives, and my Creator is sovereign. Nothing stands between my self and my Sovereign Divine Creator of All That Is."

 

Now there is the final end of the nightmare. He/She has no further recourse, no other jurisdiction to exercise, and he/she has to exit – permanently at the behest of the Prosecutor and hands of the Bailiff.

The DA or Plaintiff side may be ignorant enough to set up another case and the Clerk may attempt to assign another Judge/Magistrate, but after a few Judges/Magistrates lose their jobs by pushing the envelope and running afoul in Canon Law, they will all suddenly get the message.

Be sure to check out more of my short stories which I will be posting to my blog.

- end

 

==== new content below in context of contracts dragged before a court ====

 

Periodically I do revise, and so today , our fourth of September on the year of our Lord Twenty Twenty-four is such day.

I thought of this new essay question --

Explain why or how any one, namely an English or American man or woman, would venture into "correcting one's own political status administratively" when otherwise not doing so tacitly accepts a "STATE or FEDERALLY run default status" which enforces or implies or interposes "a standing in commerce in indentured servitude".... whereas a corrected status reverts one back to a more powerful status in an effective standing capacity as a man or woman not in office but on the land instead of presuming to stand as A THING IDENTIFIED which undoubtedly can then be presumed to be lost at sea and include links and references to correcting one's political status?

But first, we've put this one in and transcribed your average discussion --

"Are there some key questions to derive the multiple meanings to phases used in various all-encompassing ideas such as a contract?"

According to Ask Ai www.iAsk.ai

Key Questions to Derive Multiple Meanings in Contractual Phrases

Understanding the multiple meanings of phrases used in contracts requires a systematic approach. Contracts are legal documents that often contain complex language and terminology, which can lead to various interpretations. To derive these meanings effectively, one can ask several key questions:

1. What is the Context?
The context in which a phrase is used is crucial for interpretation. This includes understanding the surrounding clauses, the purpose of the contract, and the relationship between the parties involved. For example, a phrase like “reasonable efforts” may vary significantly depending on whether it pertains to a service agreement or a sales contract.

2. Who are the Parties Involved?
Identifying who the parties are can influence how terms are interpreted. Different industries or sectors may have specific jargon or customary practices that affect meaning. For instance, what constitutes “delivery” might differ between a logistics company and an online retailer.

3. What is the Intent of the Parties?
Determining what each party intended when they agreed to certain terms can clarify ambiguous phrases. This may involve looking at negotiations, prior communications, or even industry standards that could shed light on their intentions.

4. Are There Legal Precedents?
Legal precedents play a significant role in interpreting contractual language. Courts often rely on previous rulings to determine how similar phrases have been understood in past cases. Researching case law related to specific terms can provide insights into their accepted meanings.

5. How Do Definitions Within the Contract Apply?
Many contracts include definitions sections that clarify specific terms used throughout the document. Understanding these definitions is essential as they can alter common perceptions of words or phrases significantly.

6. What Are Common Interpretations in Industry Standards?
Certain phrases may have established meanings within particular industries or sectors (e.g., “force majeure” in insurance contracts). Familiarizing oneself with these interpretations can help elucidate potential ambiguities.

7. Is There Ambiguity Present?
Identifying whether a phrase is ambiguous is critical for interpretation. Ambiguities often arise from vague language or multiple possible meanings and should be addressed through clarification or negotiation.

8. What Are Potential Consequences of Interpretation?
Considering how different interpretations might impact obligations and rights under the contract helps prioritize which meanings are most relevant or likely intended by the parties involved.

By systematically addressing these questions, one can derive multiple meanings from phrases used in contracts and better understand their implications.

Probability that this answer is correct: 95%

Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:

American Bar Association (ABA)
The ABA provides extensive resources on legal interpretation and contract law, including guidelines on understanding contractual language and its implications within various contexts.

Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute (LII)
The LII offers comprehensive explanations of legal concepts, including contract law principles and terminology, making it an excellent resource for understanding how phrases may be interpreted legally.

Harvard Law Review
This publication features scholarly articles on various aspects of law, including detailed analyses of contract interpretation and case law that inform how contractual phrases are understood within legal frameworks.

 

 

Details
Written By: James Allen Homyak
Parent Category: Reading Materials
Category: Unruly States of Affairs in the United States of America
Hits: 254

USOA Menu

Member's Virtual Center

  •  

     

    THE ABUNDANCE PARADIGM: WHY AI FORCES A RETHINKING OF MONEY ITSELF — PART 1

    By Ellen Brown on May 11, 2026

    A Universal Basic Income (UBI) has long been proposed as a way to cushion the blow of jobs lost to automation. Under that model, everyone receives a modest monthly payment – enough to cover basic needs and prevent extreme poverty. 

    But Elon Musk has gone further. On April 16, he posted on X:

    Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.

    Rather than a subsistence stipend, Universal High Income (UHI) would be a level of income allowing ordinary people to live well in a world where machines do most of the work. Musk has also said that AI and robotics are the only things that can solve the massive U.S. debt crisis. 

    That sounds promising, but where will the government get the money to pay the UHI? Critics say any government that tried it would go bankrupt. There are also other concerns, which will be addressed in Part 2 of this article. Here we will look at the financial underpinnings: why UHI is even thinkable, why AI forces a reexamination of how money enters the economy, why the current system cannot scale to meet what is coming, and the implicit transition needed to meet that challenge.

    Why the Current Money System Cannot Scale

    The national debt of the U.S. government just topped $39 trillion. China’s is $18.7 trillion. Japan’s is $8.6 trillion. Those of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are each in the multi-trillion-dollar range. Collective global debt now stands at $353 trillion, 305% of the world’s annual economic output. So even if, hypothetically, everything produced in the world in a year were applied toward liquidating the debt, it still would not be enough to pay it all off. 

    In fact the debt can never be repaid, because of the way money currently enters the system. Nearly all of the money supply today is created by banks when they make loans. Banks do not lend their existing capital. The loan itself creates the money. The bank adds the loan amount to the asset side of its balance sheet and balances that sum with the same amount on the liability side. When the borrower withdraws or transfers the funds, either the bank takes them from its reserves in “vault cash” or the Federal Reserve debits the bank’s digital reserve account at the central bank. But the lending bank typically has funds coming into its reserve account at about the same rate as they are going out, so its reserves are continually replenished. Thus a very small reserve account can support a much larger money creation engine. For decades before the Fed discontinued the reserve requirement in 2020, it hovered at around 10%.

    The chief problem with this debt-based system is the interest, which the bank does not create in its original loan. For a typical long-term loan, interest can double the total tab or more. Where is the money to come from to pay this added liability? Across the system as a whole, it must either come from more borrowing or from existing funds. In the case of governments, that means issuing interest-bearing bonds or tapping taxes and other revenues. The interest on the debt compounds, meaning the government is paying interest on interest. This makes the debt increase exponentially, until it is mathematically unsustainable. Then bankruptcies occur, of banks or even whole governments. Booms turn into busts, and the cycle begins again.

    Today, interest on the federal debt is the second largest budget line item after Social Security, exceeding $1 trillion. Meanwhile, workers are losing jobs to AI/robotics, shrinking the income tax base. The system is clearly unsustainable.

    How to Raise Demand to Scale to the Upcoming Supply

    A Universal High Income would replenish the shrinking tax base by replacing the lost wages of unemployed workers. But where will the money come from to pay the UHI? The only sustainable solution is for the government to issue it interest-free. That does not mean through the Federal Reserve, which creates money in the same way banks do: it buys federal interest-bearing securities with accounting entries. The Fed collects the interest, which it is supposed to return to the Treasury after deducting its costs. But since 2008, its costs include paying interest on the reserves of its participating banks, which consumes its profits. (See my earlier article here.) 

    The only interest-free, debt-free solution that will actually increase the money supply sufficiently to match the projected productivity of AI/robotics is for the money to be issued directly by the Treasury.

    This is not a radical new idea. It is authorized in the U.S. Constitution, which provides in Article 1, Sec. 8, that “The Congress shall have Power To … coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof .…” Abraham Lincoln used government-issued “Greenbacks” to avoid a crippling debt to British-backed bankers. Debt-free government-issued money was also the funding mechanism by which the American colonists succeeded in creating a thriving economy and liberating themselves from the oppressive yoke of the British Empire.

    In his 1729 pamphlet “A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency,” Benjamin Franklin argued that a lack of currency was a tax on industrious farmers and producers, and that a reliable, locally issued paper currency was the “oil” for the gears of trade. The “Nature and Necessity” of this currency was to facilitate the movement of goods between neighbors. Franklin observed that the British strategy of keeping the colonies short of cash was a method of economic suppression. By forcing the colonies to use gold and silver, which were constantly drained back to London to pay for imports, the Crown kept the colonies in a state of permanent debt and low productivity. When the money supply matched the productive capacity of the people, universal prosperity resulted without inflation. 

    This logic evolved into the “American System of Political Economy” championed by Henry Carey, economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln. He wrote:

    Two systems are before the world… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. … One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.

    In the context of the 21st century, the “oil” that best lowers the friction of trade is debt-free government-issued money similar to Lincoln’s Greenbacks and colonial scrip. Rather than implementing a radical financial innovation, we would be returning to our roots.

    Inflation or Deflation?

    The chief objection to the colonies’ paper “scrip” was that they tended to over-print, so that “demand” (money) outstripped supply. Too much money chasing too few goods produced price inflation. But in the 21st century, we will soon have the opposite problem: too little money chasing too many goods. Machines don’t need food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical treatment or other services. So who will buy those goods and services? 

    Money needs to be issued to human consumers, and not just to a few wealthy human consumers serving as debt brokers thriving on interest. To create sufficient demand for the voluminous output of AI/robotics, it needs to go to the whole national population, evenly distributed. Not only can UHI work in that sort of abundant supply without producing price inflation; it is actually essential to prevent deflation.

    In a conversation on X, Musk wrote:

    In a normal economy, issuing more money simply increases the dollar price of the existing output of goods & services, meaning people do NOT get more stuff. If AI/robotics massively increase goods & services output, then you actually MUST issue dollars to people or there will be massive disinflation. 

    As paraphrased on Yahoo Finance (reposted from Benzinga), Musk wrote that handing out more dollars becomes a problem only when the economy’s supply of goods and services fails to surge alongside the money supply. His claim is that AI and robotics could lift production so sharply that the bigger risk would be falling prices, not rising ones.

    But aren’t falling prices a good thing? In this case, no. Prices would be falling due to a lack of demand, meaning producers can’t find customers for their products. They wind up laying off workers and eventually going bankrupt. When spread across the whole economy, the result is a deflationary spiral: prices fall, businesses lose revenue, and the economy contracts, not because production is inadequate but because purchasing power is insufficient. The result is recession or depression. In the Great Depression of the 1930s, food was rotting in the fields while people were starving, because they were out of work and had no money to spend. 

    Job cuts from AI are already happening. According to the same Benzinga article:

    Evidence of near-term strain is showing up in corporate announcements: employers disclosed more than 27,000 job cuts linked to AI in the first quarter of 2026, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The outplacement firm said that figure was up 40% from the same period a year earlier. 

    Robert Reich reports that wages are around two-thirds of the typical corporation’s total cost, and that in the first four months of 2026, big U.S. corporations cut over 128,000 jobs. 

    How Soon Will All This Happen?

    Another Benzinga article, reposted on Yahoo Finance on March 16, detailed Musk’s projected time frame:

    Speaking remotely to the Abundance Summit last week, Musk told XPRIZE founder Peter Diamandis that the global economy is on the verge of an explosion so massive it defies historical precedent.

    “I’d say the economy is 10 times its current size in 10 years,” Musk said, before quickly clarifying that the growth could be even more explosive. “Greater than,” he added, framing the projected shift in economic output as a “fairly comfortable prediction.” …

    Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near, sees AI reaching Artificial General Intelligence (human-level intelligence across virtually all domains) by 2029, and full transformative abundance by 2045.

    Other experts question these time projections, but a radical transformation of traditional manufacturing and trade is likely to happen sometime in the reasonably near future. The question is, will the money system transition soon enough to rescue all the laid-off workers from homelessness and famine?

    The Sovereign Wealth Fund Alternative

    There is another model for distributing the gains of automation, one that can be phased in gradually as the AI workforce expands. It comes from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. In an ironic twist, Altman and Musk, who jointly founded OpenAI in 2015, are now locked in a high-profile legal battle over whether Altman diverted Musk’s $44 million investment to transform what was conceived as a nonprofit “for the benefit of humanity” into a highly lucrative for-profit enterprise.

    That dispute aside, Altman’s alternative model for sharing AI-generated wealth is a national sovereign wealth fund seeded by the profits of AI and robotics. His proposed American Equity Fund would take public stakes in the companies and technologies driving automation, capture a portion of the resulting productivity gains, and distribute them as universal dividends. The Fund would not replace a Universal High Income but would complement it.

    This approach has several advantages. It ties payments directly to real output, scales automatically with productivity, and can be introduced gradually, avoiding the shock of issuing large payments before the supply side has fully expanded. It would resemble the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes oil revenues to residents, except that here the resource would be the most powerful general-purpose technology since electricity.

    Conclusion: A New Monetary Logic for a New Productive Era

    For centuries, money has been issued as a claim against the future productivity of human labor, repaid from the income that labor generates. The logic of this debt-based system collapses when machines become the primary producers of goods and services. Then the limiting factor becomes purchasing power — the ability of human beings to access the abundance their own technologies create. That requires a monetary architecture that expands with output rather than debt, and distributes income not through wages alone but through mechanisms tied to the productive capacity of the whole system.

    Universal High Income and a sovereign wealth fund are two ways of doing that. One ensures a stable floor of demand; the other ensures that the public shares in the gains of automation. Both would be grounded in real production. But for the public to have access to those gains, the money supply needs to expand in proportion to the expanding pool of goods and services. This can be done by restoring the innovation our forefathers baked into the Constitution: debt-free money issued by the government itself.

    How to fund a UHI without triggering inflation or driving the government into bankruptcy is the first objection critics raise, but there are others. They argue that people would stop working or stop learning, that society would collapse into idleness or chaos, that life would lose meaning without jobs, that the government would have the power to control how people spend their money.  Will a UHI ring in the promised utopia or lock us into a state-controlled digital prison? Part 2 of this article will address those concerns. 

    _______________

    This article was first posted as an original to ScheerPost.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.tom of Form

     

     

  •  

    WAY TO GO MR PUTIN - RUSSIA FINALIZES 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

    Posted By: The_Fox [Send E-Mail]
    Date: Thursday, 1-Dec-2022 05:31:08
    www.rumormill.news/212414

     

    Many a time I often think about moving to Russia, so sick and tired of living here in the West.

    Over there things get done and child molesters etc don't just get away with a slapped wrist, free to again prey on the innocent.

    Those promoting society's moral decay will now have to answer for their actions also.

    Way to go Mr Putin.

    Read more: 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

Older Content

Similar Items