| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 11:04:56
|
Greetings,
I suggest one read George Mercier's explaination on the FRN use. There is no legal-lawful contract involved. "Using FRN's under protest" negates their accusations. By your own words you will be judged. Could the accuser of the brethern be among us? |
 |
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 18:14:41
|
Robert-James said: Greetings,
I suggest one read George Mercier's explaination on the FRN use. There is no legal-lawful contract involved. "Using FRN's under protest" negates their accusations.
BatKol: I never said there was a legal-lawful CONTRACT involved.
What is happening here is by using the FRN we are TRADING in it's REALM, fully regulated by the BEAST you claim to hate. You/we are trading on the VALUE of the CONTRACTS that back up the FRN. FRN'S under protest? LOL...Not much of a protest when we willfully choose to go out to WORK and sell our Labour by FRN, not much of a protest when we willfully choose to go to INGLES SUPERMARKET and eat CORP ENGINEERED FOOD. The FRN under protest is just a word game justification to take the sting off of our willfullness. I'd love to see you enter into discussion with a JUDGE and tell him you use FRNS under protest.. you would be one more added to the already long "failed arguments" list.
I notice you, Robert-James, keep avoiding explaning how a CONTRACT for the DOD INTERNET is "clean" and a CONTRACT for the DOT TAG is "not clean". Both contain your signature as a RESIDENT. Both say you agree to comply with all LAWS. Please explain this.
Robert-James: By your own words you will be judged. Could the accuser of the brethern be among us?
BatKol: Nice smoke-screen. There are many reading this who see you repeatedly refuse to answer the above question about the DOD INTERNET CONTRACT, yet have no problem publicly bragging that your "walk is unadultrated"... now, when you are being questioned as to the "hows and whys" you imply "accuser of the brethern". In a debate that would be called, fittingly, a 'strawman' tactic. |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 20:07:09
|
| You have alot to learn Batkol. My hands are clean regarding any use of a ss# and an ALL CAPITALIZED NAME...and any LICENSED privaledge. There is no brag in this at all. In fact some tribulations. Few there be that care to leave the boat, and walk on the waters. I care to be pleasing to my Father, and His grace is sufficient. In fact, when the old man is weak, the messiah in me, gets stronger. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 22:11:18
|
Robert-James you still have not adressed why a CONTRACT with a DEPT OF DEFENSE FRANCHISE for INTERNET, which states you agree to abide by all STATE and FEDERAL LAWS, is OK. It does not matter that you did not use a SS#, your signature is affixed to this current CONTRACT complete with an ADDRESS. This is an active CONTRACT which means your signature and payment on the SERVICE is proof enough that you are in agreement with what is written on the CONTRACT.
|
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 22:57:00
|
Does one have a DOD CONTRACT if one goes to a public forum to fellowship with the body over the INTERNET?
Peace. |
|
|
|
Servant of All
Regular Member
Israel
41 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 02:46:54
|
Brethren,
Greetings in the name of Yahshua Jesus the Christ.
I would like to respectfully echo DanielJacobs'question about contractual obligation regarding the internet and this forum.
Additionally, specifially explain how this would effect a bondservant of the Most High God while being about his Fathers'business?
I am eager to walk according to His Word and look forward to wise Godly counsel.
In His service,
Philip |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 07:49:02
|
DanielJacob said: Does one have a DOD CONTRACT if one goes to a public forum to fellowship with the body over the INTERNET?
BatKol: Here is where I am coming from:
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS are fully LICENCED and REGULATED to sell USAGE CONTRACTS for the WWW (ironically W in Hebrew is numerically 6). The WWW, as you already know, was created by the DofD, which is a DEPT of the US CORP.
The US CORP LICENSES the ISP CORPS (Your PROVIDER) to sell REGULATED ACCESS to this WWW via USER CONTRACTS. THOSE who sign or even electronicallly "agree" (THEY got your CREDITCARD at that point anyway) to these CONTRACTS are LEGALLY subject to all of the REGULATIONS (FCC, etc) of the www. If you have a copy of your CURRENT ISP CONTRACT read some of the language above the signature, or if you did it electronically, the WEBSITE of the ISP will have it. By CONTRACTING with this ISP you are agreeing to follow all FED, STATE, and LOCAL LAWS that GOVERN the INTERNET.
All word games and "justifications" aside it is easy to show that the WWW is BEAST JURISDICTION. One can easily test this JURISDICTION if they are foolish enough to. Try breaching a serious FCC INTERNET STATUTE and see what happens. The ISP who we CONTRACTED with, is in turn CONTRACTED with the US CORP. The ISP agrees to strict guidelines set forth by the US CORP and we, by CONTRACTING and USING the WWW via the ISP, agree also with these REGULATIONS.
We are literally PLUGGED into this JURISDICTION via our ISP CONTRACT and our physical USAGE of the www.
The question still remains: Why is this kind of CONTRACT to operate on a CORP REGULATED CONSTRUCT called the WWW (666?) "clean"?
** NOTICE: This post generated via US CORP APPROVED ISP ** |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 08:12:30
|
Philip the least said: I agree with you about FRN liability. What would be your best solution to "usury ticket" use?
BatKol: The only way to beat it would be to dispise the FRN and it's DISCHARING DEBT funcion so much as to actually do the work of finding all of the Righteous solutions. Word games and bogus "use under protest" nonsense aside, I have not met anybody who is willing to do this, much less a community. I put my ego/mind/body in this catagory as well. The FRN will always be the TOOL of choice as long as one thinks there is no UNCLEANLINESS in it and as long as the CONSUMER CORPS accept them. Unfortuately the last catagory applies to 'me' (so good thing "I Am" not that 'me'). It baffels me why someone can hate a SS# but think that a FRN DEBT DISCHARGER is OK. This whole THING goes deeper than TAGS, SS#,,, it's all INTERCONNECTED.. a little bit of LEAVEN.
|
|
|
|
Owenbrittont
Advanced Member
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 13:20:53
|
| in forma pauperus in Pa. Rules of court (Federal) is only usable by seamen or prisoners |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 13:40:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Owenbrittont
in forma pauperus in Pa. Rules of court (Federal) is only usable by seamen or prisoners
It seems that the federal rules for Pennsylvania would be the same as they are for Montana.
We know of a man in Montana who was charged with federal crimes but was not a prisoner. He was able to file a related action (we think it was a USC Title 42 action) informa pauperus. The filing fee was waived.
He was not a "prisoner" or a "seaman" at the time he was recognized by the federal agents as elibile for informa pauperus status.
Could it be that this is an indication that the federal jurisdiction is in fact an admiralty jurisdiction and the federal personnel therefore presume that anyone they are charging with a crime is a "seaman"? |
|
|
|
Owenbrittont
Advanced Member
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 11:09:05
|
Could be...our bodies are registered as vessels.
You wouldn't happen to know where in title 42 ???? |
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 12:38:33
|
Just a thought, but the original uses of hypothecation was concerning "seamen", now it would appear that concept has been expanded above the high water mark. See my post about Admiralty and Hypothecation on the "Court now using My Christian name in courtwork" thread.
Peace. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 13:34:21
|
Reminds me of that saying:
"DEAD MEN tell no tales."
Manuel |
Edited by - Manuel on 10 Feb 2004 13:40:10 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2004 : 19:00:04
|
Greetings,
I have an old Merchant Marine's card from 1972, which I never used...and for some reason, I kept over all the changes.
The name on the card is written; Robert James BLACKMAN.
I once was DEAD, and now am alive, for evermore! Oh yes, HE was classified as an Ordinary seaman.
The principal of saving to suitors is that since a man can be resurrected, so will a nation. Is the idea of being American's worth saving? A Land of the Free {redeemed} and the Home of the Brave.
Yahushuah taught Us to pray for Heaven to come to earth. {have we had enough of this, "die and go to heaven BUSINESS"}? Please remember that the U.S. corporation is defacto, not dejure. When the BRITISH surrendered to Washington, a band played the song, "When the World was Turned Upside down". The last time this phrase was used was when the disciples were described by their actions in Acts 17:6...these that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.
Now 17:6 is missing a 7-seven. Read verse seven of Acts 17.
1776 was the great seven times {2520} since the ten tribes of the house of Israel, {not Judah/Benyamin} went into captivity.
Father works in three's.
[upside down is Rome-Babylon's way of describing things} More likely is, turning the world order...Right side up. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2004 : 20:38:06
|
Something fun concerning "turning the world upside down" in case there is any doubt about what the followers of the Messiah were about.
Here are the three Strong’s numbers that are attached to that phrase, “turn the world upside down” from Act 17:6:
anastatoo
an-as-tat-o'-o
From a derivative of G450 (in the sense of removal); properly to drive out of home, that is, (by implication) to disturb (literally or figuratively)
ho he to
ho, hay, to
The masculine, feminine (second) and neuter (third) forms, in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom)
oikoumene
oy-kou-men'-ay
Feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093); land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire
Drive out...the...Roman empire!!
That's pretty clear, eh? 
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2004 : 10:18:31
|
Brother Lewis,
How did your trip to the district court go? Where you able to obtain the Certificate of Search? Did you have any other conversation with the clerk?
Anticipating your reply... |
Edited by - DanielJacob on 15 Feb 2004 10:19:10 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2004 : 13:15:31
|
Brother Daniel,
I haven't been to the court yet. I am trying to make as few trips as possible, since it is an hour there and an hour back, plus all the hassle of trying to find some place to park.
One of my friends did a search on his name, and a search of the VIN of his vehicle, and now carries a copy of each in the car.
Lewis |
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2004 : 14:49:08
|
Brother Lewis
Understood, I am in the exact same position.
Daniel |
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2004 : 17:23:42
|
Brothers Lewis, Walter, et. al,
I thought if you haven't seen the below that you might find it edifying. This comes from the U.S. Attorney's Manual, Title 9, Criminal Resource Manual 1997. (most recent edition I believe)
664 Territorial Jurisdiction
Of the several categories listed in 18 U.S.C. § 7, Section 7(3) is the most significant, and provides:
The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," as used in this title, includes: . . .
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
As is readily apparent, this subsection, and particularly its second clause, bears a striking resemblance to the 17th Clause of Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. This clause provides:
The Congress shall have power. . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, be Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
(Emphasis added.) The constitutional phrase "exclusive legislation" is the equivalent of the statutory expression "exclusive jurisdiction." See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937), citing, Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652 (1930).
Until the decision in Dravo, it had been generally accepted that when the United States acquired property with the consent of the state for any of the enumerated purposes, it acquired exclusive jurisdiction by operation of law, and any reservation of authority by the state, other than the right to serve civil and criminal process, was inoperable. See Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 652-56. When Dravo held that a state might reserve legislative authority, e.g., the right to levy certain taxes, so long as that did not interfere with the United States' governmental functions, it became necessary for Congress to amend 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), by adding the words "so as," to restore criminal jurisdiction over those places previously believed to be under exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction. See H.R. Rep. No. 1623, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940); S. Rep. No. 1788, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940).
Dravo also settled that the phrase "other needful building" was not to be strictly construed to include only military and naval structures, but was to be construed as "embracing whatever structures are found to be necessary in the performance of the function of the Federal Government." See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 142-43. It therefore properly embraces courthouses, customs houses, post offices and locks and dams for navigation purposes.
The "structures" limitation does not, however, prevent the United States from holding or acquiring and having jurisdiction over land acquired for other valid purposes, such as parks and irrigation projects since Clause 17 is not the exclusive method of obtaining jurisdiction. The United States may also obtain jurisdiction by reserving it when sovereign title is transferred to the state upon its entry into the Union or by cession of jurisdiction after the United States has otherwise acquired the property. See Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 142; Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 650-52; Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 526-27, 538, 539 (1885).
The United States may hold or acquire property within the borders of a state without acquiring jurisdiction. It may acquire title to land necessary for the performance of its functions by purchase or eminent domain without the state's consent. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372 (1976). But it does not thereby acquire legislative jurisdiction by virtue of its proprietorship. The acquisition of jurisdiction is dependent on the consent of or cession of jurisdiction by the state. See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 97 (1937); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 141-42.
State consent to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction may be evidenced by a specific enactment or by general constitutional or statutory provision. Cession of jurisdiction by the state also requires acceptance by the United States. See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943); Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 651-52. Whether or not the United States has jurisdiction is a Federal question. See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. at 197.
Prior to February 1,1940, it was presumed that the United States accepted jurisdiction whenever the state offered it because the donation was deemed a benefit. See Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. at 528. This presumption was reversed by enactment of the Act of February 1, 1940, codified at 40 U.S.C. § 255. This statute requires the head or authorized officer of the agency acquiring or holding property to file with the state a formal acceptance of such "jurisdiction, exclusive or partial as he may deem desirable," and further provides that in the absence of such filing "it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been acquired." See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (district court is without jurisdiction to prosecute soldiers for rape committed on an army base prior to filing of acceptance prescribed by statute). The requirement of 40 U.S.C. § 255 can also be fulfilled by any filing satisfying state law. United States v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 980, 984-86 (2d Cir. 1993). The enactment of 40 U.S.C. § 255 did not retroactively affect jurisdiction previously acquired. See Markham v. United States, 215 F.2d 56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 939 (1954); United States v. Heard, 270 F. Supp. 198, 200 (W.D. Mo. 1967).
COMMENT: In summary, the United States may exercise plenary criminal jurisdiction over lands within state borders:
A. Where it reserved such jurisdiction upon entry of the state into the union;
B. Where, prior to February 1, 1940, it acquired property for a purpose enumerated in the Constitution with the consent of the state;
C. Where it acquired property whether by purchase, gift or eminent domain, and thereafter, but prior to February 1, 1940, received a cession of jurisdiction from the state; and
D. Where it acquired the property, and/or received the state's consent or cession of jurisdiction after February 1, 1940, and has filed the requisite acceptance.
665 Determining Federal Jurisdiction
When instances are reported to the United States Attorney of offenses committed on land or in buildings occupied by agencies of the Federal government -- unless the crime reported is a Federal offense regardless of where committed, such as assault on a Federal officer or possession of narcotics -- the United States has jurisdiction only if the land or building is within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
PRACTICE TIP: A convenient method of determining the jurisdictional status is to contact an appropriate attorney with the agency having custody of the land. If the land is other than a military base, the regional counsel's office of the General Services Administration usually has the complete roster of all Federal lands and buildings in its region and can frequently provide a definitive answer to jurisdiction. If the land in question is part of a military base, contact with the post Staff Judge Advocate may be helpful. If the military personnel in the field or the field attorneys of the agency having responsibility for the land are unable to render assistance, the Office of Enforcement Operations of the Criminal Division should be called. Each United States Attorney would be well advised to request from each agency within the district a report on the jurisdictional status claimed for each of its facilities and assurance that documentation is available.
666 Proof of Territorial Jurisdiction
There has been a trend to treat certain "jurisdictional facts" that do not bear on guilt (mens rea or actus reus) as non-elements of the offense, and therefore as issues for the court rather than the jury, and to require proof by only a preponderance that the offense was committed in the territorial jurisdiction of the court to establish that venue has been properly laid. See United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d 527, 531 (5th Cir. 1981); Government of Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Black Cloud, 590 F.2d 270 (8th Cir. 1979) (jury question); United States v. Powell, 498 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1974). The court in Government of Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d at 694-95, applied the preponderance test to determinations of whether or not the offenses took place within the Canal Zone which established not merely proper venue but subject matter jurisdiction as well. Other cases, however, hold that the issue of whether the United States has jurisdiction over the site of a crime is a judicial question, see United States v. Jones, 480 F.2d 1135, 1138 (2d Cir. 1973), but that the issue of whether the act was committed within the borders of the Federal enclave is for the jury and must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Parker, 622 F.2d 298 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Jones, 480 F.2d at 1138. The law of your Circuit must be consulted to determine which approach is followed in your district.
The decision in Burjan should be viewed with caution. The analogy between territorial jurisdiction and venue has much to recommend it. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the two are not of equal importance. As the Burjan court noted, citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 12, subject matter jurisdiction is so important that it cannot be waived and may be noticed at any stage of the proceeding, see Government of the Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d at 693, whereas the Ninth Circuit in Powell rested its ruling that venue need be proved by only a preponderance on the relative unimportance of venue as evidenced by its waivability. There is a clear distinction between the question of which court of a sovereign may try an accused for a violation of its laws and whether the sovereign's law has been violated at all.
Proof of territorial jurisdiction may be by direct or circumstantial evidence, and at least at the trial level may be aided by judicial notice. See United States v. Bowers, 660 F.2d at 530-31; Government of Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d at 694. Compare Government of Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d 690 with United States v. Jones, 480 F.2d 1135, concerning the role judicial notice may play on appeal.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 21:32:08
|
It has been so long I had to try a password or two to get logged on.
I want to try to express this in advanced-resonance over on the mathematics worth pondering forum. First I should check if Lewis is still furnishing graphics.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 11 Apr 2004 17:04:25 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"saving to suitors" clause of 1789
Topic Locked
