Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Admiralty on Land
barefootsworld.net ^

Posted on 02/08/2002 2:09:07 PM PST by mindprism.com

Treason in Government!

Admiralty on Land!!
Where's the Water?

Below is a letter that sums up what is wrong with the our union of Sovereign states (but like always, do some research to find out if this is true, then you have the knowledge and the understanding).

(((( Please review the data concerning the subversion of our nation at web sites
"THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM OF MIXED COMMON AND ROMAN LAW HAS BEEN USED TO ENSLAVE US(A)" - http://www.detaxcanada.org/cmlaw1.htm
and "Admiralty Courts in Colorado?" - http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/admir.html
Inform all of the members of the veterans organizations in your town and concerned citizens everywhere to the exact extent that we have been misinformed.))))

This Treason and Tyranny by the bankers, the lawyers and judiciary, the bought politicians, and other vested interests is not what we or our ancestors fought and died for.

It is time for all men who took the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to be fully informed and take the actions necessary to uphold their oath. This is no time for us to rest on the laurels of our past. The best action we can take is to inform all the people so they can make fully informed decisions at the ballot box.

Thank you for your attention and assistance in passing this data along to We the People!!


The Letter below is restored from a page that disappeared from the WEB


AMERICAN PEOPLE, YOU have the ability to understand the information in this letter. YOU have the ability to understand the present law and past law, the Constitution. That's right!...I'm saying the Constitution is past tense, as a restrictive document on Congress. I do not make this statement lightly and I can prove it.

The Constitution was a commercial compact between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment...

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose. The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!

First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (Note - of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)

A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:

"Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy." - 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."

From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:

"Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides...........use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power."

The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that by its use our Constitutional Republic is no more. Our system of law was changed without the public's knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. From being able to own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land). If you think you own your property, stop paying taxes, it will be taken under the prize law.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." - Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.

By our allowing to let these military flags fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you'll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law, being governed by the Law of the Flag is Admiralty law. I will cover this in a minute, the following is a definition of the legal term Law of the Flag.

"...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law." - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

Don't be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it doesn't apply to land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come on land. Next a court case:

"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

When you walk into a court and see this flag you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king the people are no longer sovereign. You're probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here's how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law govern's contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that's what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

"The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state's Constitution, said:

"Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty." -- Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review:

"These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States." -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer:

"...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution..." "In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ...And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable." -- Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)


"The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise."

"I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism."

"It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution." -- Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. 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.

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

When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statuary law. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don't exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it's procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!

The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It's up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king's government (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don't it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again where is the injured party or parties, this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:

"Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power "to declare war," "to raise and support armies," "to provide and maintain a navy," and to call forth the militia to "repel invasions." Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that "the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion." Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?.... Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads." -- Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857,..Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster's Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen, which I won't go into in this paper or the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case where common law was over turned. Read the following definition to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:

"Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of "contribution," a tort-feasor against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (Note - tort feasor means wrong doer, what did you do to be defined as a wrong doer???) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer's share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. -- (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean? Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy: In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it says that these declared war powers did not affect citizens of the United States:

"Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States of the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term "enemy."

Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying. Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the following Congressional quote:

"My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness. . . As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Dies, March 15, 1933

Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold. Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven billion in gold in the whole world, and we had about four billion. To keep from being hung by the American public they obeyed the banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are. In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters, and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government." -- Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, 1933

The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters. In return, the nations 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven. I have two papers that have circulated the country on this subject. Remember Jesus said "money is the root of all evil" The Congress of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their asses. Read the following Congressional quotes:

"I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation--they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation--to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Patman, March 13, 1933


"That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Long, March 11, 1933

What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our childrens fate, but worst of all, he declared War on the American People. Remember the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act? He declared emergency powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work)

The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:

"In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

"Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."

Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

"As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES(emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." - United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine's Law Dictionary

Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death....But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers." - Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933

The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." - Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read the following: In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you'll find the following codification of the Emergency War Powers:

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed." - (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)

So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions: The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as:

One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. - 1 Kent 73.

He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; -1 B. & P.163.

Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king's special favor, during time of war; - 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we've been under a declared state of war since October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States citizen.]

"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as: Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as "alien enemy" within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship." - Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

"Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an "alien enemy: within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder." - Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374.

"By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an `alien enemy' as if he were born there." - Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.

Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not, it gets worse. I have established that war has been declared against the American people and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government were responsible for Congress' actions, because Congress was there in their proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque? Well, read the following:

A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914.

Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of Marque, read the following:

"The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended, in strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress "to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." -- Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.

Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances, power was divided between the three branches of government. To do anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government. I'm not even talking about the obvious which we have already covered, read the following:

"The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917." -- Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.

How about Clinton's new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds un-Constitutional to me, but read on.

"The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a)"

How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters or the courts or Congress. I tell you how, under martial law, under the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:

"...And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager's to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers..." -- (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395


Submitted January 28

"Lloyd Bentsen, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the African Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development Fund; and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development." -- Presidential Documents, February 1, 1993.


At the same time, Bentsen was the Secretary of Treasury. Gee, I don't know, this sounds like a conflict of entrust and interest to me, how about you? Also, Congress is the only one under the Constitution able to appropriate money.

How about a few months ago when Secretary of Treasury Ruban sent tons of money to Mexico, without Congress' approval. Also, Secretary of Treasury Ruban was president of the bank that made the loans to Mexico, he was then made Secretary of Treasury and paid Mexico's debt to his bank with taxpayers money. Again, sounds like a conflict of entrust to me.

"Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes of this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions under which licenses may be granted by or through such officers or agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and the decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting, denial or other disposition of an application or license shall be final." -- Section 7, Title 12 U.S.C. Banks and Banking

Do the issues I have brought up sound like this is a Constitutional government to you? I have not covered the main nexus, the money. I didn't make this information up, it is the government's own documents and legal definitions taken from their dictionaries. I wish the hard working Americans in the government that are loyal to an American Republic could read this, the more that know the truth the better.


Originaly placed on the web by James Montgomery, Knowledge is Freedom BBS, 910-869-1945, High Point North Carolina, August 27, 1995.


More -- Flag Code, Etiquette, History,
Flag Definition, Civil and Martial Flags

Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.
This HTML presentation is copyright by Barefoot, April 1997

Mirroring is not Netiquette without the Express Permission of Barefoot.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: tinfoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

We play checkers, they play chess


1 posted on 02/08/2002 2:09:07 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
This is very kooky stuff.
2 posted on 02/08/2002 2:35:43 PM PST by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Lazamataz
Ank-cray uff-stay ing-pay.
3 posted on 02/08/2002 2:41:02 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
This is very kooky stuff.

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?

4 posted on 02/08/2002 2:57:18 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dighton
From McCann v. Greenway, (WD Mo 1997) 952 F.Supp 647:

"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.

5 posted on 02/08/2002 3:07:20 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
Check Post #5. This argument gets raised periodically in court, and gets overruled every single time.
6 posted on 02/08/2002 3:08:47 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
This article is full of errors of fact, misquotations, made up citations, and logical fallacies. I could spend days listing the errors as there isn't a paragraph in it that is without errors.

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.

7 posted on 02/08/2002 3:11:19 PM PST by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
In short, this screed is a nice steaming pile of BS.

I wish I'd said that.

8 posted on 02/08/2002 3:12:26 PM PST by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I saw a guy try to raise this point in his written response to a ticket for no drivers license. When he showed up for court he was disappointed to find that the rural Justice of the Peace, far from flying a naval ensign, in fact had no flag at all... He'd built his whole defense around the flag thing, and when he couldn't use it he just hemmed and hawed a bit and agreed to renew his drivers license.
9 posted on 02/08/2002 3:17:22 PM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
When I am ticketed for a seat belt violation, why am I denied a right to a jury trial?

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'?

10 posted on 02/08/2002 3:29:31 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Re:Right to travel--Your right to breathe is not being infringed, you just have to have someone jump on your chest or give you mouth-to-mouth, OR ask the state for permission to take in air under your own power.
11 posted on 02/08/2002 3:32:54 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
A driver's license does NOT infringe on one's right to travel. One is free to hire transport, or walk.

The "right to travel" does not imply that a particular MODE of travel is guaranteed to you.

12 posted on 02/08/2002 3:37:17 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
Just adding whacky stuff doesn't help.

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.

13 posted on 02/08/2002 3:40:03 PM PST by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
whats kooky about it. Did you read it. I guess you think Thomas Jefferson was weird too. Hmm
14 posted on 02/08/2002 3:44:23 PM PST by The B Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The B Man
Yes, I read it. Its kooky for the reasons I listed above. Misstatement of fact, misquotation, logical fallacies, etc.

Its just flat nonsense.

15 posted on 02/08/2002 3:45:43 PM PST by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
We've had a LOT of kooks show up of late.

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."

16 posted on 02/08/2002 3:47:39 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
This is too long. Take out an excerpt and post a link for the rest. All in all, ranks high on the kookmeter.
17 posted on 02/08/2002 3:50:32 PM PST by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
One is free to hire transport, or walk.

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?

18 posted on 02/08/2002 3:50:35 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
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?

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.

19 posted on 02/08/2002 3:53:06 PM PST by Ridin' Shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
driving is a right not a privelage
20 posted on 02/08/2002 3:54:27 PM PST by The B Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
This is too long. Take out an excerpt and post a link for the rest.

I posted it whole to preserve its content, which I believe is part of the policy at FR.

All in all, ranks high on the kookmeter.

Of course it does, but this is due primarily to the reality it claims to illuminate, and not because of the presentation of argument.

21 posted on 02/08/2002 3:54:39 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
show me the law that says case law is law. You can't. It isnt.
22 posted on 02/08/2002 3:57:08 PM PST by The B Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ridin' Shotgun
I don't think people are avoiding thinking. When somebody says that something's kooky, they're saying it in the sense of "this smells kooky" - they've heard the arguments or same type of arguments before, so they're comfortable making a quick pre-judgment. Nobody is going to sit there and respond line-by-line to every argument in that 10-page paper. As you point out, that's the problem with throwing too much stuff at people at once. To really get your point across, it's good to make two or three simple points that use examples to prove a broader argument. Beyond that, it gets messy.
23 posted on 02/08/2002 3:59:45 PM PST by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ridin' Shotgun
wrap their minds all the around the colossal fraud we've been living for our entire lives.

Indeed. I'm trying myself to proceed a step at a time in judging the validity of the premise and I come to one definite conclusion:

The law is designed to obscure reality. They sharpen a spoon and slice you with it, claiming the important thing is that it is not a knife.

Function IS reality, labels exist as camouflage.

24 posted on 02/08/2002 4:01:58 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The "right to travel" does not imply that a particular MODE of travel is guaranteed to you.

You have a right to walk, but you do not have a right to wear shoes.

25 posted on 02/08/2002 4:05:55 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
Cheese!

I just wanted to come onto a thread and say "cheese" :-)

26 posted on 02/08/2002 4:06:09 PM PST by Darth Sidious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The B Man
show me the law that says case law is law. You can't. It isnt.

Can you prove to me that reality is reality? You can't can you. Actually I think you're all just a figment of my imagination.

27 posted on 02/08/2002 4:07:18 PM PST by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
Do I have a (nonrevokable) right to use the public roads to walk or to cycle? Why?

You may not use controlled-access roads (i.e., those that do not have surface intersections with other roads, but use offramps and onramps, except on or in a motorized vehicle--this is established by statute. However, those roads are not all of the roads in America.

Do I have a (nonrevokable) right to use the public property in a reasonable manner? Why?

Ah, there is the rub: "A reasonable manner." That means that you may not travel in such a way as to impede traffic (all controlled access roads have MINIMUM speeds as well as MAXIMUM speeds).

PS 'nonrevokable' means: may not be arbritrarily revoked.

PPS: it's spelled "nonrevocable."

Are you conceding the the state may arbritrarily deny Drivers Licenses since driving is a privilege?

Ys, they may, and they do. For example, the state arbitrarily holds that one must be of a minimum age before one is allowed to have a driver's license. The state also arbitrarily holds that you may lose your license if you manifestly demonstrate an inability to "play well with others" on the road (DUI, reckless driving, etc).

28 posted on 02/08/2002 4:07:47 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The B Man
driving is a right not a privelage

Please cite the case law to back this up.

29 posted on 02/08/2002 4:08:40 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Actually Poobah, I think that B Man and Co. are on to something here. Through my research, I have discovered that the Law of Gravity was actually never passed by the Congress of the United States or any legislative body. I am therefore going to ignore it.

Be seeing you.

30 posted on 02/08/2002 4:18:45 PM PST by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr
A lot of folks with names suspiciously similar to banned tinfoilers have shown up in the past week.

Just a co-inky-dink, I guess.

31 posted on 02/08/2002 4:19:50 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Please cite the case law to back this up

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

32 posted on 02/08/2002 4:27:52 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
Not being able to operate one's own vehicle due to a lack of demonstrated minimal competence (or demonstrated incompetence) does not equal an abridgement of the right to travel. It merely makes you have to use an alternate method of travel.
33 posted on 02/08/2002 4:32:29 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
Err, the admiralty jurisdiction was extended by act of Congress to include all inland interstate navigable waterways, like the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes - note that inland navigable waterways that don't go interstate are not within the admiralty jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction for torts does not extend beyond the high water line. Admiralty jurisdiction applies to contracts to be performed on navigable water.

Admiralty/maritime law is a special set of rules which apply in very limited circumstances. The source you linked is, to put it as precisely as possible, garbage.

34 posted on 02/08/2002 4:33:12 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
The right to travel is not the right to drive. You can take the bus, or a train, just like everyone else without a license.;^)
35 posted on 02/08/2002 4:36:15 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The state also arbitrarily holds that you may lose your license if you manifestly demonstrate an inability to "play well with others" on the road (DUI, reckless driving, etc).

My argument is this:

The state HAS a compelling interest to insure safety of the roads, BUT this interest is not sufficient to use licensing as a means to do so.

In short, the state may license and such a license may be used to help prove competency, or to allow ease of administration of tickets. In an unlicenced individual the state MUST prove incompetence and they may require immediate payment of tickets.

I should have the right to CERTIFY MY DRIVING ABILITY *without* CERTIFYING MY IDENTITY:

A state should have a licence where I am required to give the print of my big toe to establish identity. NO OTHER INFORMATION IS NECCESSARY to satisfy the states interest in establishing safe roadways.

This is based on the principle of minimum infringement.

If you may have a gun without license, I may use an automobile without license - BECAUSE A GUNS BULLET IS CAPABLE OF LEAVING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PRESENTS A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.

36 posted on 02/08/2002 4:39:10 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
The state HAS a compelling interest to insure safety of the roads, BUT this interest is not sufficient to use licensing as a means to do so.

Sorry, the courts disagree with you.

37 posted on 02/08/2002 4:44:25 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
The right to travel is not the right to drive.

Your right to breathe is not being infringed, you just have to have someone jump on your chest or give you mouth-to-mouth, OR ask the state for permission to take in air under your own power.

You are admitting that you do not have the right to PILOT ANY means of transport then. How do I know I have the right to walk? After all, I could be incompetant and walk into traffic and cause accidents.

In short, licensing falls short in functionality in certifying safe drivers and infringes my right to privacy by being an ID.

The balance of these two interests has changed, privacy concerns now override the states need to certify competence ALONG WITH identity.

See #36.

38 posted on 02/08/2002 4:47:06 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Sorry, the courts disagree with you.

No kidding! Wow, I guess you are right then, after all the courts, as we all know, are infallible and divine.

BTW, the cases in #32 show the courts have disregarded the judicial principle of upholding precedent.

39 posted on 02/08/2002 4:52:16 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: mindprism.com
reality it is trying to illuminate is indeed insane

The reality is that we have created our legal world through case law. If this is stirred up a Mao Tse Tung will come along sooner or later and pull up all the property markers. Best to leave this one alone.

41 posted on 02/08/2002 4:55:16 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: RightWhale
Some people think they're BAD enough to survive anarchy.
43 posted on 02/08/2002 4:57:58 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Someone unable to understand that little factoid should be an incompetent ward of the state.

I understand it perfectly. What is important is not the energies behind the two pieces of metal relative to each other, it is the balace of personal and public interests and the effectiveness of the means that the public employs to guard thier safety versus the infringement on individual liberty.

Which is more inherently dangerous, a gun or an automobile?

By what justification may a state deny my automobile safety certification because I will not ID myself? (Hint: I am ALWAYS the guy behind the wheel, all the state needs to know is that I am the individual that it has certified)

My toeprint satisfies that.

44 posted on 02/08/2002 5:06:24 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: Poohbah
According to your interpretation of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court acted improperly.

No, in your example there is proper justification for doing so (Amendment 8) and reasoning that is fairly self-evident.

Since you bring it up, what corresponding justifications are given to override these traffic cases?

Even so, I want you to address my privacy rights concerns, if the situation (balance of interests) can change due to increased use and speed of vehicles, then it needs to be reviewed in light of the states selling and attempting to sell DMV info, as well as allowing private companies to compile nationwide mugshot databases from DMV records. This latter had to be stopped a lawsuit.

By providing personal information to the state I am risking such things being (suprise!) allowed in the future. There is no means for me to force the state to destroy my DMV info after my license has expired (AFAIK).

The US congress has required federal databasing of our medical records against the will of a substancial majority. This, along with the cases above, show a malice on part of the government with regard to privacy rights and justify my reassertion of them.

Government does not protect rights, that is not its function, rights must be asserted by the belligerent.

The individual Rights gnaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in US. vs.Johnson (76 Fed Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted npon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

48 posted on 02/08/2002 5:25:58 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com
Check this out:

http://taor.yvo.dynip.com/on_law.htm

49 posted on 02/08/2002 5:31:36 PM PST by agitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mindprism.com; billybudd
Its a lot to digest. Personally I downloaded the entire thing to my hard drive (minus the comments) so I can print and study it further point by point. I'm already familiar with most of the information, but thought this was especially well 'put together' and even includes some stuff that's 'new' to me. Thanks.
50 posted on 02/08/2002 5:33:10 PM PST by Ridin' Shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson