Posted on 02/08/2002 2:09:07 PM PST by mindprism.com
I would like to see evidence that contradicts the premise here.
Of course it is 'kooky', but is that because the presentation of argument is irrational or.... because the reality it is trying to illuminate is indeed insane?
"Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman."
From 34 Op. US Atty-Gen 483 [1925]:
"In flag manufacture a fringe is not considered to be a part of the flag and it is without heraldic significance."
In short, this screed is a nice steaming pile of BS.
I'll randomly pick a paragraph:
I'll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let's say you get a seat belt ticket. What law did you violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though here, the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn't. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.
First of all, "equity law" is misnomer. However, the powers of a court in "equity" are well defined, are refering to remedies and not limited to contract law.
Further, the UCC ( what is it about the Uniform Commercial Code that gets whackos so excited? ) does not apply to all contracts. The UCC, by its own terms, applies to contracts for goods, not services.
In fact, whenever you see a screed like this, if there is a reference to the UCC you can guarantee that its kookytime. The whole paragraph is incoherent because a court's jurisdiction is sometimes but not always related to the substantive law.
Another misstatement statement is:
All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789. "It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine "all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise." -- Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847
The attempt is being made to claim that because Federal district courts are statutorily created with jurisdiction over cases in admiralty law that therefore whatever happens in that court is happening in this whacky conspiracy land called "admiralty". This is a logical fallacy and simple misrepresentation.
I could tear apart any and every other paragraph. There are tons of refutations of this "admiralty law" and the yellow flag fringe nonsense available for those who for some bizarre desire wish to read more.
I wish I'd said that.
If the US is in bankruptcy, what are the instruments of law that manage that bankruptcy, who are our creditors?
What (unspecified but implied) contractual obligations am I under when I have a SS# or drivers license?
Are violations of 'regulations' or 'code' as opposed to 'duly published law' adjudicated by a 'tribunal court' or 'court of admirality'?
The "right to travel" does not imply that a particular MODE of travel is guaranteed to you.
The answers to your questions are available if you research them among real law resources and not whacky-time resources.
For instance, the right to a jury trial has been held to apply only to crimes that are not petty crimes. Infractions are petty crimes. Here are some US S.Ct. cases that discuss it. District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937); Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65 (1904); Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888); District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63 (1930). It has nothing to do with "admiralty", yellow fringe or anything else.
Your question about bankruptcy of the United States is meaningless. Likewise your question about "contractual" obligations of a social security number or driver's license. Those are not contracts under any law. How a violation of a regulation is treated versus a violation of a statute depends on the statute - the rest of your question is meaningless.
You really should not post this whacky sort of stuff on FreeRepublic - it just makes the site look like a congregation of nuts.
Its just flat nonsense.
And some of them are living proof of reincarnation--because their past life suddenly ended when their profile said "No current Freeper by that name."
Do I have a (nonrevokable) right to use the public roads to walk or to cycle? Why?
Do I have a (nonrevokable) right to use the public property in a reasonable manner? Why?
PS 'nonrevokable' means: may not be arbritrarily revoked.
Are you conceding the the state may arbritrarily deny Drivers Licenses since driving is a privilege?
Its kooky because when you hit people with too much truth all at once, its easier to reject the entire premise with words like 'kooky' than it is to wrap their minds all the around the colossal fraud we've been living for our entire lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.