Common law, admiralty law, rights, priveleges, and your status

.......DANG......
Just read this well most of it.. and wow makes sense.
Thanks for posting your thoughts (jesus) i hope some more active members respond to this.

As a matter of fact, no it wouldn't.  The Constitution does not explicitly state that admiralty law cannot be equated with Federal law.  Wordplay and slight of hand in the interpretation more or less allowed them to do this (see Law of the Flag).  I encourage you to check a law dictionary, particularly Black's, on Federal/Maritime law. I didn't include this in the post, but the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited only to Washington D.C.  The founding fathers did not forsee the use of the Law of the Flag to extend it's jurisdiction beyond those borders to all the district courts across the country.  I should also mention that the constitution has apparently been suspended since the war of independence.

Your arguement does not exclude mine.  In fact, yes the judge must make a ruling based on the Bill of Rights/Constitution AND prior jurisprudence.  The judge can not make a ruling that violates someone's rights.  That is how common law works in America.  No law (jurisprudence) can violate the Constitution, if it does it becomes null and void.  From California Civil Code, Section 22.2, "common law of England [meaning the common law adopted by America from England], so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State."  I said the Bill of Rights because the document is an extension of the rights which are already in the Constitution. Constitutionally, a person can only be tried under common law. See the post for the write-up on the Law of the Flag (extremely important) as to why cases can also be tried under admiralty/statutory/federal law.  Yes, what you called statutory law is also known as admiralty law, which can not Constitutionally be a viable form of trial  (again, the Law of the Flag allows them to get around this).

Ah, yes you're right... I knew that I believe I mixed the two up, so thanks for pointing that out.  It's not central to the issue though, so I encourage you to point out some errors that are.  You'd be able to call in the validity of my argument then, rather than by your inductive speculation:

Find out for yourself.  Why would you take anyone's word on a subject as important as this?

Right you are, I stumbled across bits and pieces of this argument on a rather large number of sites and sought to document the facts and correct the errors that have been made.  So if you'd kindly point out the mistakes...  Getting this message out is important, and making it ever more coherent is equally as important. I assume no lofty position of teacher, and I am in fact researching this all the time.  No place has got it all yet.  Your assertion that you can't be a teacher unless you've done primary research (of which I have done quite alot. It's simple, read the constitution, the declaration of independence [oh man is that one revealing] read various example cases used at universities, study the law dictionaries) is ridiculous.

Let what go?  My honest and open admission that this is an area I am about to speculate on? Give it a rest, I'm allowed to espouse pure opinion.  What's honorable about it is the fact that I am clearly drawing a line on what I consider opinion and interpretation or fact.  I'd appreciate it if you got off your high horse.  I've seen your attitude many times and I'm tired of it (anonymity in the forums making you feel tough?).  I was asked to come here and I'll gladly leave if you or others act that way.

That theory is mine. Purely mine, end of story. I read King George III's letter on the dictation of terms after the war was fought and came to my own conclusions.  I've since seen it in other places.  It's been a curious trip, seeing it elsewhere but slightly different.

I thank you for the luck morningsun76, I'll take it.  I appreciate you taking the time to read this.

With regards to an earlier point of yours about the Judiciary Act being unconstitutional, etc.:

"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

"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.

This poor case describes the situation about 112 years too late:

"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)

By jurisdiction I was referring to law, in terms of what the federal government could legislate for the people.  Any person with a moderate level of knowledge of American history would know that it was the intention of the founding fathers to make the colonies into (almost) separate states (i.e. countries) unto themselves, but united.   The powers you speak of refer to this:

"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.

As for the jurisdiction of the Federal government in D.C.:

Section 8 Clause 1 (the first clause designates what the Section is about) of the Constitution reads:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Section 8 Clause 17: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession 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;"

This is referring to the venue of Congress, (thus the Federal government [the Seat of the Government of the United States]), being a District of 10 miles square.  Washington D.C. is 10 miles square.   

Ah, no, actually I didn't review that part of my post and forgot to say Bill of Rights AND the Constitution.  Stating that judgements must be made based on the Bill of Rights is not false in itself, since it is a factor taken into consideration by the judges.  Refer to my second post.

As an aside:
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 changed things dramatically when it created a corporation called the United States, the venue of which would be D.C.:
http://www.liferepatterning.com/Distric … f_1871.htm

I just thought I'd add that for more proof of the existence of a corporation called the United States.  I'll add it to the main post as well.

Hi morningsun76,
I don't have time to make a full response right now, but I want to ask you to provide evidence for your claim that incorporating a municipality/state/etc. does not make it a corporation.  I hadn't planned on going into this yet, however I did provide a link in my original post that shows that the United States is indeed a (Federal) corporation.  Black's law dictionary has no definition for what a Federal corporation is (doesn't mean a definition doesn't exist, but for now we'll have to deal with inference) so for examples I'll define corporation and municipal corporation using excerpts (the definitions are really long), notice the dual nature:

Black's Law Dictionary (1979)
Excerpt 1:
Corporation: Public and private
  "A public corporation is one created by the state for political purposes and to act as an agency in the administration of civil government..."
  "Private corporations are those founded by and composed of private individuals, for private purposes, as distinguished from governmental purposes, and having no political or governmental franchises or duties.
  "The true distinction between public and private corporations is that the former are organized for governmental purposes, the latter not."

Excerpt 2:
Municipal corporation: "A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises correspondingly twofold functions and duties--one class consisting of those acts performed by it in exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people gnerally, as arm of state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality." Associated Enterprises, Inc. V. Toltec Watershed Imp. Dist., Wyo., 490 P.2d 1069, 1070.  [The court case Black's cites]

I have to go, but for now that's something for you to chew on.  If you have evidence that shows that a federal corporation is solely public I'd like to see it.  Even if it is, we still have to deal with the fact that Washington D.C. is a municipal corporation, both public and private.  The idea being that the private corporation (legal entity) is able to enter into contracts with your legal entity (JOHN DOE) through your straw man (your birth certificate, driver's license, bills, social security card/number, etc).  I'll respond to the rest of your post when I find time.

Sorry to see you go, thanks for helping to make this a leaner steak.  Although you said you won't respond again, I've decided to address your comments for the other readers.  My friend, you are just missing the whole point of my posts.  Maybe that explains why you missed the connection between the quotes.  The overall goal of each post is to try to describe exactly how 'they' use their 'word magic' game against us, using examples. This is all about them deceiving us into believing something is one way, when it is the opposite, or more likely, both ways.  The evidence supports this, and you are sitting there saying "well it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that." Well of course it doesn't, it's designed that way.  It's difficult or impossible to prove anything, and so one has to formulate a theory that fits the evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny.

I realised something yesterday.  Whether a municipality or federal jurisdiction is a private corporation or not is unimportant.  The fact is, it IS a corporation (a Non-stock corporation, where ownership is simply not recognized by stock. e.g. municipal corporations [Black's Law Dictionary, 1979]), and that still completes the circle of contractual possibilities.  That is to say, the government (i.e. federal, municipal) corporation (legal entity) can interact with a person's corporation (legal entity) and a private corporation (also a legal entity) and likewise vice versa. 

As an aside, yes, I'm aware of the highways being military roads.

Edit: Matter of fact, I was only referring to the jurisdiction of federal LAW (NOT where they could build highways, etc.).  The federal government's jurisdiction at law applies to Washington D.C. and the Supreme Courts.  I'm talking original intentions by the Constitution here.  By this I mean that the federal government cannot legislate for the state of Virginia, for example, but they have federal law and the supreme courts so that people/corporations from a state like Virginia can take their trials to the supreme courts if necessary.  To reiterate, the key point here is that the federal gov't was not supposed to be able to legislate for a state, but with the Judiciary Act of 1789 they snuck in the back door by making all district courts into maritime/admiralty courts (admiralty law falls under federal law - see Black's Law Dictionary) and effectively extended their reach that way. What does it mean? To be frank, this allowed for the federal government to legislate for the whole country, and since admiralty law (commerce law/statutory law/federal law) is such a boon to corporations (in terms of insurance), this allowed corporations to safely be born from virtually limitless charters (which was not in the character of the Constitution - corporations were originally intended to be used for national interest [i.e. ACME Co.'s charter grants it two years of incorporation to construct a bridge and at the end of that time the corporation's charter would end and it would be disbanded/dismantled]).  Corporations were not intended to be a part of the free market, which originally had no protection by admiralty law.  Admiralty law and corporations do not a free market make.  Because of the insurance admiralty law affords them, corporations can grow to immense sizes without taking as much risk as they would if the market were completely free.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" - Samuel Adams