| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 04:30:35
|
Is that relating specifically to admiralty terms? Gold fringes and all that? I just got an email today...
Crosstalk:quote:
quote:
I was there. The Notice and Grace have been given a decade ago. I was on the jury.
Mark regretted having given out all the Press Releases and apologized for giving me this last rough draft. That still amuses me.
Let Freedom Ring (framed press release)
I picked up P.L. 94-412 just the other day. It unfortunately reads just as the article below says:
Photo of last page of P.L. 94-412
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: David Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 5:59 PM
Subject: In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act:
I am sure you have read this, but this brings some light on things, especially how the courts are acting.
"No contract is considered as valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of law of either government, and they have, in the language of civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio."
We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national emergency itself must be canceled. Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13:
"This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended."
Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation issued on March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress has already delegated all of that authority, and therefore was in no position to take it back.
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress:
"Furthermore, it would be a largely futile task unless we have the President's active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to the President in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the power without the President's acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President's signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation."
It appears that no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, and if, they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to, and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not terminated for over 60 years.
Now, that's no definite indication that a President from George W. Bush on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 years of experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself. But the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that we have been in this perpetual national emergency situation? And, without the knowledge contained in this report being disseminated freely on the internet, how long do you think the blindness of the American peoples to this situation would have continued?
Now, a quote from an exclusive reply written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of termination of the standing national emergency:
"As a consequence, a 'national emergency' is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What we intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most limited duration's, have become every day powers, and a state of 'emergency' has become a permanent condition."
So we see that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in a sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent capacity governed not by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.
In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act:
"That the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act."
Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty and jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental United States. And at the time of the original unamended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts was appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the enemy. We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.
What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were not the booty jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress. It would no longer be necessary, or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution of the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty jurisdiction. Take a look at the American flag in American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag designates Admiralty jurisdiction.
Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 states:
"Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a), and in view of the continued existence of the national emergencies . . ."
Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In Public Law 94-412, September 14, 1976, we find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies. We should be able to heave a sign of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, won't it. But yet we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are still in the national emergency and that power, once grasped, is difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502, the following words:
"(a): The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a; 50 U.S.c. App. 5b)"
The bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all.
I immediately regretted telling the suitors it was "unfortunate" that we have never released the War Powers. Notice the opening sentence. One can easily convince the U.S. Provost Marshal to execute arrest of a district court clerk for diversion of cargo - for diverting an admiralty (revenue) cause out of admiralty into the civil forum. At least in theory. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Feb 2005 04:44:16 |
 |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 22:40:35
|
Greeings to all,
Did I ever tell you this joke? Well... here it is for peace sakes:
A man went to a psychiatrist and as he layed on the couch, he constantly smacked his imaginary critters off his clothes. The psychiatrist got so disturbed by the mans actions that he alerted 'his patient' to not throw the critters his way:).
You know... during these times where the SPY-ders are constantly weaving their webs to arachnatose us unto their SUB-MISSIONS, the following article sounds pretty good:
From the January 2006 Idaho Observer
Who/what is a slave?
When the subject of slavery comes up between people born and raised in the U.S., an image of cotton-picking negro slaves comes immediately to mind. To the public school-educated and mass-media-conditioned American mind, if your skin is not black and you don’t live in pre-14th Amendment America, you cannot be a slave. The logical obverse, in the minds of properly indoctrinated Americans, is the automatic presumption of personal freedom. As we can see in millions of examples among our countrymen, none are so capable of being progressively enslaved as those whose presumption of freedom can be maintained—from birth to death.
But the slave model etched in the American mind is only a stereotype—it’s only one definition. Slavery has many definitions, a few of which are cited below. All of them, excluding word usage variations like, "He’s a slave to his habits," infer sets of circumstances where people’s physical bodies, political expressions and spiritual beliefs are controlled by others.
Americans living under the laws of the U.S. are, by definition, slaves. Artful legislative machinations have transformed the inalienable rights to pursue life and liberty and acquire property into statutory privileges that can be granted by government or taken away without recourse.
Are you a slave?
Under the definitions provided above, just about all of us are slaves. Under the Black’s definition, all prisoners who were unduly convicted or "denied due process of law" are slaves per 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
Per the second half of Black’s definition, everyone is a slave because, at any time and without just cause, government agents may "dispose of our person (Vickie Weaver, for instance), dispose of our industry and labor (ask thousands of small business owners who have been unjustly ruined by the IRS) and anything that we acquire may be seized at any time—and the seizures will stand in court because ownership is proved by the highest claim of possession and disposal.
The previous paragraph proves the Bouvier’s definition: Another has unlimited control over our lives—whenever it decides to exercise that control.
Both Black’s and Bouvier’s describe people held in bondage, enthralled; enslaved per Webster’s.
Though we may not be "purchased," we are born free and then "captured" by statutory (14th Amendment) snares that completely divest us of our personal rights and; we submit to these fictitious bonds in a "servile manner" making us slaves under the Oxford Universal Dictionary definition.
Per our American Heritage dictionary definition, we are bound in servitude as instruments to pay an infinite array of taxes to specified influences in a condition that has been easily likened to slavery.
Slave. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. ~Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition
SLAVE. One over whose life, liberty and property another has unlimited control.
~Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1870
slave: 1. A person held in bondage; a thrall.
~Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1947
thrall: a A slave; bondman. b One in moral or mental bondage. c Thralldom - To enslave; enthrall.
~Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1947
Slave: 1. One who is the property of, and entirely subject to, another person, whether by capture, purchase, or birth; a servant completely divested of freedom and personal rights. 2. One who submits in a servile manner to the authority or dictation of another or others; a submissive or devoted servant. ~Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955
slave: 1. One who is bound in servitude to a person or household as an instrument of labor. 2. One who is submissive or subject to a specified person or influence. 3. One whose condition is likened to that of slavery.
~The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1969
Conclusive evidence of live, non-fiction, flesh and blood status
It all seems to start when we witness or experience the lawless power of government: We begin to realize that ours really isn’t the land of the free. As we progress in our understanding and the depths and breadths of the betrayal become apparent, we discover that governments are fictions and that, through constructive fraud, they transform our flesh and blood into paper fictions because this trick somehow authorizes governments to treat us like property. The process is a lot like the movies when "real" people are suddenly thrust into cartoonland where the only laws in effect are those imagined into existence by the cartoonist. Though it may seem hard for most to conceive, one of the cornerstones of being abused as government property is our inability to overcome government’s presumption that we are paper fictions over which it has the rights of ownership. Patriots have gone to great lengths to"break the presumption" (many of which are expensive, complicated and covered in previous editions of The IO)—and still government throws them around like paper dolls. Aren’t these strange times: The government will tax and imprison, even murder us at its pleasure and convenience because we are forever failing to provide it with conclusive proof that we are flesh and blood men and women. The following is an interesting, simple and inexpensive tactic one may employ to finally break that presumption—provided all our other sovereignty ducks are in a nice, neat row.
by Augustus Blackstone
An interesting question was put to me recently during a discussion about making a legal distinction from an idem sonans (sounds the same when spoken) ens legis (corporate fiction) "strawman" (all capital letter spelled name) entity, that the courts and existing (political) systems would have little choice but to recognize and acknowledge. The question was, "What kind of conclusive evidence would best prove that one is in fact a living, breathing, flesh and blood (wo)man?"
Legal fiction entities, being fictions, cannot bleed because they have no blood. Only living entities have blood, which can be quantified and qualified through immunological compatibility testing and classification (blood typing). In answer to the question, I suggested obtaining a Red Cross blood donor’s card, making sure that it shows one’s name properly spelled in upper/lower case lettering. This would be an "acceptable" form of conclusive evidence that can be carried in one’s wallet and that can be used in conjunction with evidence of one’s live birth.
Unlike other, more local blood collection agencies, the Red Cross Society is an internationally recognized body that enjoys near absolute neutrality and political immunity in all nations participant in or adherent to the Geneva Convention, even during active military hostilities between those nations.
To what extent that international political immunity reaches into other zones of application within this country remains to be explored. But anyone can obtain a blood donor’s card, even if they do not intend thereafter to donate blood (or anything else). The Red Cross Society is an international philanthropic organization, formed in 1864. And, as such, there is no obligation to donate. It’s all voluntary.
This is not a promotional plug for the Red Cross Society. It is an answer to the question pertaining to obtaining conclusive evidence of being a living (wo)man which is or can be recognized by existing political systems (and their courts), that has international neutrality/immunity implications and that can be used to establish entitlement to declared God-given Rights. It is the life within the blood that establishes one’s connection to the divine tutelary authority. Make the most of it.
Note: Several of our readers have engaged correspondence with Augustus Blackstone, author of The Errant Sovereign’s Handbook. In case you are one of those, "Uncle Gus’" address has changed to:
Augustus Blackstone
c/o postal service address:
South 921 Monroe Street #5
Spokane, Washington CF 99204 CF
United States of America |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2006 : 12:58:08
|
Greetings Brothers and Sisters,
Manual wrote:
quote:
The question was, "What kind of conclusive evidence would best prove that one is in fact a living, breathing, flesh and blood (wo)man?"
The answer is a document called an "Archetype". To be able to have such and have it be true, you must:
1. Declare your Citizenship first and foremost to the Kingdom of God, and all other loyalty secondarily to a body politic on the Land,
2. Revoke the trust relationship,
3. Sever all other legal relationships.
Once you have done steps 1 thru 3, you can openly and honestly create an Archetype for the living Man. The front is a Common Law document, which is signed and then sealed with a print of the great toe of the right foot. See Exodus Chpt 29 for the reason. The back of the document at the top is for the witnesses. The separated portion at the bottom is for the Apostille.
Once the document has been Apostilled, it can then be "lodged" in the Hague. When you receive the pink slip back, you can then use the Archetype in place of a passport for international travel. One fellow has been using his for over 7 years. It even allows you to go to countries that normally require getting a visa in advance without that restriction.
Because it was filed into a State case, and the State judge refused to accept it, the State judge was sued in federal court. The federal judge ordered the State judge to abide by it, and to expunge the State case.
Very powerful Document.
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Birth CERTIFICATES for Fictional Slaves
