Are we still under military rule? The war that never ended.

"" Where was the treaty signed? There was no treaty signed to end the Civil War. The surrender at Appomattox Court House was a military surrender of an army which was surrounded. The Confederate government never surrendered and even had it wanted to the United States government would likely not have accepted. To do so would have legally acknowledged the existence of the Confederate States
of America and would have legitimized it and given it certain legal status internationally. Treaties are between two nations and the U.S. would never concede the legal existence of the Confederacy - even though it had a government, armies, taxes and all the trappings of a modern government. ""

Source: http://www.nps.gov/apco/faqs.htm
Site last updated: May 12, 2011 at 22:08 MST

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

"" Where was the treaty signed? There was no treaty signed to end the Civil War. The surrender at Appomattox Court House was a military surrender of an army which was surrounded. The Confederate government never surrendered and even had it wanted to the United States government would likely not have accepted. To do so would have legally acknowledged the existence of the Confederate States
of America and would have legitimized it and given it certain legal status internationally. Treaties are between two nations and the U.S. would never concede the legal existence of the Confederacy - even though it had a government, armies, taxes and all the trappings of a modern government. ""

Source: http://www.nps.gov/apco/faqs.htm
Site last updated: May 12, 2011 at 22:08 MST

---

Depends on who/what the "we" is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Depends on who/what the "we" is?

---

This "We" as in conscience of what STS has determined.

I will not make any other determinations in here about that, seeing that it does not conform to how STS defines it as I do, but that is besides the point being made.

Yes, Reconstruction Acts.
How can resident (aliens) seat offices that only inhabitants of that political community can seat?

It can be complex. But it is possible to sit on the steps of the buuilding called the U.S. Capital and not be in the United States. The United States since 1862/1871 has formed districts called states and there are at least 50 of them. Its pretty simple in the regard that if a commander in chief of the United States forms a government then the government would be military in nature.

Quote:

---

Reconstruction Acts...

---

Enrollment Acts, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

It can be complex. But it is possible to sit on the steps of the buuilding called the U.S. Capital and not be in the United States. The United States since 1862/1871 has formed districts called states and there are at least 50 of them. Its pretty simple in the regard that if a commander in chief of the United States forms a government then the government would be military in nature.


Enrollment Acts, etc.

---

1Ki 16:16 And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp.

I wrote about this very thing - not having a treaty of peace nor a proclomation from the pres after the civil war .... I did upload my book here (Civil War With No Ending) and I'd like to hear what ya'll have to say with the "solution" offered in it.

Inititally I got a good response, however, the 'good responses' were from inactive/unactive people... Please know I'm not trying to promote anything, just would like some feed-back.
Thanks.

Perhaps the US Department of Justice was formed in 1871 for:

Quote:

---

'prosecution of war'

---

Quote:

---

715. The Prosecution Of War

The constitutional power given to the United States to declare and wage war, whether foreign or civil, carries with it the authority to use all means calculated to weaken the enemy and to bring the struggle to a successful conclusion. When dealing with the enemy all acts that are calculated to advance this end are legal. Indeed, the President in the exercise simply of his authority as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, may, unless prohibited by congressional statute, commit or authorize acts not warranted by commonly received principles of international law; and Congress may by law authorize measures which the courts must recognize as valid even though they provide penalties not supported by the general usage of nations in the conduct of war. Thus during the Civil War in certain cases the provision by congressional statute for the confiscation of certain enemy property or land was enforced, though such confiscation was not in accordance with the general usage of foreign States.

Even in dealing with its own loyal subjects, the power to wage war enables the government to override in many particulars private rights which in time of peace are inviolable.25

The power to wage war carries with it the authority not only to bring it to a full conclusion, but, after the cessation of active military operations, to take measures to provide against its renewal. As the court says in Stewart v. Kahn:26 "The measures to be taken in carrying on war and to suppress insurrection, are not defined. The decision of all such questions rests wholly in the discretion of those to whom the substantial powers involved are confided by the Constitution. In the latter case the power is not limited to victories in the field and to the dispersion of the insurgent forces. It carries with it inherently the power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils which have arisen from its rise and progress."

24 Upon this point see the very thoughtful paper of T. S. Woolsey entitled "The Beginnings of War," published in Vol. I, p. 54, of the Proceedings of the American Political Science Association.

25 For the limitations upon the war powers in this respect, see post. 2611 Wall. 493; 20 L. ed. 176.

(From: The Constitutional Law Of The United States by Westel Woodbury Willoughby)

---

I just took a look (more a listen - video is audio only) at the first few minutes of This.

Albeit you cannot find any treaty ending the hostilities of the War or Rebellion (Civil War), you do find that the conditions of Emergency were ended formally in 1973 - for most all aspects of the application of the Lieber Code except the current bank "run" on the US Dollar. I also played this video by Porter STANSBERRY - again - even though I know he never gives any solutions in it, just wants to sell his program.

The run that should incite the new Bankers' Holiday is already underway. This is the arena where the Lieber Code, if any can apply. The forum of endorsement of the Fed because the only remnants of the Emergency for the Lieber Code to operate still in effect is the Emergency of Saving the Fed - 1933.

Even listening to STANSBERRY though, it is a little dated and albeit we get the early draft of BRICS, he does not predict a retaliatory financial regime forming based in SDR's having nothing to do with the US Dollar - BRICS. (Also attached.)

He had a good basis but the prophecy is not the way he prophesied.

I disagree that the Lieber Code is in play for people who understand the redemption of lawful money. - US Notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, because the hostilities of the War ended by 1865. There is no actual theater of war any longer. There is still fiat currency - and FDR took advantage of the Lieber Code in 1933 to save the Fed; but it is people endorsing private credit from the Fed that keep saving it, and people are stopping that endorsement and that makes everybody's predictions quite skewed:

If a new bank holiday is on the way....

.... you want to make sure that you have nothing of value in a bank nor would I keep a great deal of cash in one's account.

Keep your assets close to the vest.

Its a little hard getting your stuff when the door is closed for x number of days.

I am not sure it will manifest that way. I find myself writing...

Quote:

---

Crosstalk:

I find myself in mitigation of the Lieber Code. I find myself challenging proponents that we are under it today to show us any examples more prominent in everyday life than endorsement of the national debt through the Fed? In 1973 Congress formally Ended hundreds of pages of Emergency - except of course, the Secretary and Presidents' ability to call another Bankers' Holiday when the "run" on the private credit gets so bad the Fed is in immenent danger of causing widespread bank failure in America. That's a big thing so I feel that mitigating the Lieber Code may be contradictory, especially to the proponents of it.

---

I remember that in this 1995 Article there is talk of the Great Register and Carpetbaggers with their post-War survey.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter1.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter2.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ROchapter3.pdf

Then this cash purchase specifying lawful money lifted a man out of the bondage of the fealty on property taxes.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7820/transferle1.jpg
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8195/transferle2.jpg
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5230/transferle3.jpg
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/6404/transferle4.jpg
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7144/transferle5.jpg

That escape from the fealty system escaped some folks because the fact of the Registry remains. - Leaving the question; Does the peaceful inhabitant have license plates at all? Without license plates you will be stopped by armed men inquiring about driver license and financial responsibility (insurance). Without insurance, the motor vehicle cannot be licensed or get the plates - so you can be paying an insurance policy but be jailed anyway, upon the cop's legal opinion that your insurance company will not cover you without a license...

That loop does not sound very peaceful next to being responsible, yet you do not pay the fee (fealty) as though you are a Son - the heir apparent to the original estate. All you need to do is buy your car with lawful money!


It is great to see Motla68 posting again! I really mean that. He brings things like this to light:

Quote:

---

This "We" as in conscience of what STS has determined.

I will not make any other determinations in here about that, seeing that it does not conform to how STS defines it as I do, but that is besides the point being made.

---

The conscience of StSC of course being David Merrill (myself) and maybe even the derogatory Planet Merrill. I built this place alright. It was funded by a brain trust, several of whom participate as members and a few more I believe like to follow links here to read occasionally. But make no mistake, when they donated to fund a new playground to replace www.suijurisclub.net they were looking at me to lay the foundation. This last week or so, as I clicked on What's New? and saw many conversations going on without me there, I felt a sense of accomplishment; that the foundation was providing the entertainment that to me, is an echo chamber that reverberates with the brain trust to provide a better understanding of remedy.

My point is how Motla68 likes to portray me, the Conscience around here, as dictatorial - how true but for that I provide the time and effort to provide this (click here) among many other examples of reality checks. We continue to invest in the website - as you may have noticed the additions of a Downloads and Links features. We continue to provide and encourage that you all become the Conscience too - by providing support of your perspective on any matter you care to express.

Let the Authority in "dictatorship" simply be the Record. Courts of record are by definition courts that keep an accurate record. Courts of no record are contract/equity forums. They have no authority except your signature bond - already granted consent. Traffic courts are courts of no record and the first thing a police officer brings into the record (testimony) is how the defendant identified himself to be there by signature consent (on the driver license).

Therefore this discussion is very important but the boundaries are somewhat fleeting. In contesting Motla68's constant assertions that the Lieber Code is in full force and effect today, I become contradictory and hipocritical - at least I sound that way. So I try to describe some parameters like:

Motla68;

Please describe, define and cite instances of the Lieber Code being in full force and effect outside the scope of Congress ending the Emergency in 1973.

P.S. Motla68 is by no means alone - click here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I disagree that the Lieber Code is in play for people who understand the redemption of lawful money. - US Notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, because the hostilities of the War ended by 1865. There is no actual theater of war any longer. There is still fiat currency - and FDR took advantage of the Lieber Code in 1933 to save the Fed; but it is people endorsing private credit from the Fed that keep saving it, and people are stopping that endorsement and that makes everybody's predictions quite skewed:

---

AFAIK, for the USA, the military-revenue districts could still be in place regardless of any emergency circumstances of 1933 through the Selective Service Acts and not to mention the many military bases throughout the United States of America geographic region--they are in the 'plenary zones' of the US Congress afaik. Soldiers in waiting (Selective-Service participants) are perhaps regarded as soldiers. Aren't Civil Service grades (college degree-levels) already matched up to military ranks?

So perhaps this gets to "Why do they push 'Selective Service' on high school students?" [Without it maybe there might be no connection to the U.S. military districts for the average Joe--but then the revenue district connections are perhaps through a relationship with the IRS. ]

The key being--if it is true that the original Congress of the United States of America was reconvened and reconstituted by Abraham Lincoln as Commander In Chief of the US Navy/Army --then the Congress convened would despite being a great look-alike it would be inferior in character to the original parliamentary body referred to in the Constitution for the United States of America although the very same Abe as CINC and President of the United States derived power. On that not: it is a well-established, 'blackletter law' that when a 'state' goes *poof* all power reverts to the creator of such state--as in -> the delegation ends. Now the notion of the original U.S.A Congress convening sine die, and the reconstruction of the United States of America being a military operation--you know 'military maintenance of government' while the sovereign is away..or something.

Perhaps its like this:

[1] Scrip is for on-base transactions (which are in military districts)
[2] Lawful money is for off-base transactions.

In Star Trek scrip was used in the Federation (the Admiralty-Maritime, Military-Revenue Zone of the Federation). Gold-pressed Latinum (as in gold shells encasing a substance called "latinum") was for 'off base' transactions. Was Gene RODDENBERRY privy to some knowledge?

Major point..end of war..vs. prosecution of war. US's relationship to Germany since WWII might be an exemplary example of long-term prosecution of war even after the barrels are not only cold but the hands of most of the those who held the instruments of combat are long, long dead.

'Funny thing' the Eurodollar is nothing but the US dollar in Europe or at least the term 'eurodollar' since World War II was used to refer to U.S. dollar denominated accounts in European banks.

Quote:

---

Eurodollars are time deposits denominated in U.S. dollars at banks outside the United States, and thus are not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve. Consequently, such deposits are subject to much less regulation than similar deposits within the U.S., allowing for higher margins. The term was originally coined for U.S. dollars in European banks, but it expanded over the years to its present definition: a U.S. dollar-denominated deposit in Tokyo or Beijing would be likewise deemed a Eurodollar deposit. There is no connection with the euro currency or the euro zone.

---

Though Wikipedia puts forth the above-quoted--I learned such years ago from the US Department of Justice directly. So begs the question what is really-really-really going on?

There are those that suggest that the occupation of Germany is closely tied to the very existence of the United Nations. And it makes sense in view of the Declaration by the United Nations--which itself is very telling in that it IMHO reveals that the United Nations was originally formed as a military alliance against Germany and other so-called "Axis Powers". And of course..the connection between the UN and the IMF is obvious.

Quote:

---

U.N. Charter - Article 53
1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

---

Quote:

---

U.N. Charter - Article 107
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

---

IMHO and based on arduous research: United Nations came into existence in 1942 vis-a-vis Declaration by the United Nations, January 1, 1942 (A Joint Declaration by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia).

[GERMANY IS NOT ON THE LIST!]

From the 1942 Declaration by the United Nations:

Quote:

---

...(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact :and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.

---

You might find pledge or pledges of a similar spirit in the Declaration of Independence. But what is glaring here is an military and economic pledge (can you say MERGER?)--not just an economic one--was made which rather than preceding United Nations -> formed it!

The difference between the UN and NATO is what? :)

Quote:

---

2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

---

There are quite a few that suggest that Germany (Japan too!) is still under U.S. occupation to this very day. Would it be true that the "Confederacy" "has been" an enemy of the United States?

[ Perhaps see also "Trading With the Enemy Act"]

Quote:

---

From a hour or so of research this morning, I will type that in my opinion, the patch worn by your uncle in Berlin, 1947, was the S.H.A.E.F. Patch. However, some sources provide a date in 1947 when the name of the patch was changed from S.H.A.E.F. to S.H.A.P.E. (Source)

---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...st%C3%BCck.jpg

Thank you Allodial;


It shows that you understood my post. I am mitigating the Lieber Code in its original form being in express play, except through the money system. There are many Executive Branch-driven plans and plays that require federal participation (endorsement) to have effects upon people in the states. It is through the currency endorsement that these things do not seem voluntary.

A suitor pointed out:

Quote:

---

P.S. I believe the Pres is still writing executive orders. Long after 1973.

---

To which I replied:

Quote:

---

Very true. These EO's are published and may be Refused for Cause I believe, within 30 days albeit I have never done so. I don't feel they are any of my business. I might look into that further - I beleive there is a special division of the Federal Register for this function though.

---

I took a quick look and broadcast a couple links:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...011.html#13572

Quote:

---

Perhaps its like this:

[1] Scrip is for on-base transactions (which are in military districts)
[2] Lawful money is for off-base transactions.

---

That may be the more useful mental model. My point being that if I felt adversely affected by an Executive Order, which is to say if I kept track of the on-base activities that might boil over, I have an opportunity to get my objection on the record - Refuse for Cause. Well; now that I know where to find them and read them, maybe I can start getting around to it.

I am thinking that the Treasury probably published the January 21, 1971 decision in the Federal Register - I don't know. The decision to stop putting more US Notes into circulation because FRNs function just as well. This matter of Title 31 §5115 - placing United States notes into a new nomenclature, United States currency notes being an Act of Congress did not go through the Federal Register as I understand Public Law (page 1, page 2). But that slick sophistry is really where the boundary line of the base was breached. Defiling parity between lawful money and elastic currency with a little word, currency!

That however was requisite for Title 31 to become Positive Law - meaning that it affected the peaceful inhabitants outside the districts (base).

Quote:

---

In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

---

I am pretty certain that means it was published in the Federal Register and received no proper R4C.

I believe understanding that disconnect might make one pretty fluent about describing the survey.

Quote:

---

There are quite a few that suggest that Germany (Japan too!) is still under U.S. occupation to this very day. Would it be true that the "Confederacy" "has been" an enemy of the United States?

---

Something uncanny comes to mind here. Japan has a major nuclear disaster dumping radioactive iodine into the Pacific Ocean*. Germany announced its ten-year plan to completely disable its nuclear power program and was immediately hit by a nasty E-Coli outbreak that threatens the entire food supply. Well, I know that is a stretch but as easy as it would be to generate a load of infected bean sprouts, I wonder what kind of war some people think we are fighting.



Thanks for the thought and research that went into your post!




* I have made a minor investment $1/box of Pacific sea salt from before the nuclear disaster. With an lengthy half life, I can easily imagine that sea salt is a thing of the past in the world. Except maybe the Dead Sea but if you have ever tasted that you would believe me - that is no competition for high-end restaurants. I anticipate selling my boxes in two years for upwards of $50/box.

Crosstalk on §5114(b) (click here) the IN GOD WE TRUST trust linked above:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

DM, wrote: God can make good on any agreement he goes into. Christians, in my mind identify with Israel and Judaism and that means the Laws of Moses are monetizing of sin - the animal sacrifice was an atonement process brought about by wrapping gold foil around a wooden calf and revering it for its beauty. The other component to contemplate is that Paul created the Roman Welfare State by running to Felix and accepting protective custody in Rome, where he wrote the Epistles. Romans 13 describes what Paul and I both mean to a "T".

---

DM what you wrote about monetizing sin caught my attention here is my take on that:

I have been reading the chronicle project http://thechronicleproject.org/pages/exo20.html and particularly like their version of the 10 commandments. The 'In God We Trust' Trust appears to be a problem in terms that God would not support such a thing and clearly states that in the new translation. From the Chronicle Project Exodus V7 (this is their interpretation of the translation): Do not exhaust the value of the name of the Ruler of all, your supreme one, to puff up your statements you are not allowed to speak my name to your statements or vows to try and advance their validity and in doing so make my name worthless.

[I interject - click here.]

Oh boy, I guess in some weird way they really did monitized sin basing money on a Trust in God that God has said "you are not allowed to speak my name to your statements or vows". Every printed FRN is an abomination to God, not only that I would think as far as the Lord is concerned their is NO trust. So we turn our SIN (breaking of GOD's commandments) into our money. Kinda twisted.

BTW, Great thread. I have been glued to it.

Be well,

True Name.

---

I owe a debt of gratitude for that broadcast (the brain trust echo chamber). That connected up the power of attorney God grants us as servants to fractional lending. A false weight is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight. Proverbs 11:1. In much the same fashion, the overuse of the Name of God depreciates it too!

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6872/nameinagent.jpg

P.S. Within hours of my publishing my $20M lien, chief judge Kirk Stewart SAMELSON withdrew his oath. Before, After. The AG on the lien John William SUTHERS did so from the beginning of his vacant office. Does this sort of thing reflect in the monetary system? Decide for yourself.

Good points allodial .

Lets include the 17th Amendment , adopted April 8, 1913 . Direct election of representative Senators by popular vote , rather than selection by the individual State legislatures .

The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3 , Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected to represent each State . It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate , to be consistent with the method of election .

On the Trust side , the individual Estates in Union no longer have equal representation in the central ( Federal ) governing body . Estate Trustees have no rights to recall a Senator who is not acting in the best interest of their individual Bodies Politic or boundary land use , leaving any semblance of that power to the arduous process of Recall .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

when a 'state' goes *poof* all power reverts to the creator of such state--as in -> the delegation ends.

---

One may also view the War and Reconstruction Act as implementation of a hostile takeover. The United States of America went *poof* when the Confederate Estates , part of the creators of the Union , withdrew and reformed . The US of A could have continued more peacefully, but rather took the war course in eventually seizing the Trust Res of the Confederate States and Converted them to another Use .

All in all Breach of Trust .

In conversation with the Constitutional Law Professor of my acquaintance , he conceded the States COULD reform the Federal Government by asserting their Trust authority and reassigning Trustees for the Central Government .

Andrew Johnson - Veto of the First Reconstruction Act - March 2, 1867


I have examined the bill "to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States" with the care and the anxiety which its transcendent importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give it my assent for reasons so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influence on the minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision must ultimately rest.

The bill places all the people of the ten States therein named under the absolute domination of military rulers; and the preamble undertakes to give the reason upon which the measure is based and the ground upon which it is justified. It declares that there exists in those States no legal governments and no adequate protection for life or property, and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their limits. Is this true as matter of fact?

It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government, with all the powers- executive, judicial, and legislative-which properly belong to a free state. They are organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make, administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs. An existing de facto government, exercising such functions as these, is itself the law of the state upon all matters within its jurisdiction. To pronounce the supreme law-making power of an established state illegal is to say that law itself is unlawful.

The provisions which these governments have made for the preservation of order, the suppression of crime, and the redress of private injuries are in substance and principle the same as those which prevail in the Northern States and in other civilized countries. .

The bill, however, would seem to show upon its face that the establishment of peace and good order is not its real object. The fifth section declares that the preceding sections shall cease to operate in any State where certain events shall have happened. . . . All these conditions must be fulfilled before the people of any of these States can be relieved from the bondage of military domination; but when they are fulfilled, then immediately the pains and penalties of the bill are to cease, no matter whether there be peace and order or not, and without any reference to the security of life or property. The excuse given for the bill in the preamble is admitted by the bill itself not to be real. The military rule which it establishes is plainly to be used, not for any purpose of order or for the prevention of crime, but solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment.

More at link above .

Additional Resource : First Reconstruction Act - March 2, 1867 - An Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States

[Passed over President Johnson’s veto March 2, 1867]

The “On Base / Off Base” discussion sparked a remembrance of dealing with Indians “Off the Reservation” , pursuant to The Buck Act , 4 USC § 110 .

Bun once applied for a Sales Tax Permit in California . She based the application on definitions of “in this State” and that she “might” unknowingly deal with some “Indians off the Reservation” . The Permit was issued , with her land legals as location ( NW corner of the SW , etc ) . Even the receiving envelope from the Franchise Tax Board was addressed this way .

As it turned out , the Permit ID coding was for a sales tax exempt operation . I don’t recall that the application was specific to this tax status . Don’t think it was .

“In this State” was also at issue when the Department of Motor Vehicles pulled her Pickup and Sedan VINs out of the computer system .

Here’s a few supposed tax cases I might look into one day .

Johnson v. City and County of Denver, 186 Colo. 398, 527 P.2d 883 (1974):
Federal employees prosecuted for failure to pay occupational tax. U.S. had jurisdiction at place where these employees worked. Court held tax was not income tax for Buck Act purposes, and ruled Denver had no jurisdiction to levy tax in question.

Rountree v. City and County of Denver, 197 Colo. 497, 596 P.2d 739 (1979):
Denver occupational tax challenged by USPS employees. Court reversed its position in Johnson and overruled it; Court held that the Denver occupational tax was an income tax which could via the Buck Act be imposed on federal employees.

State v. Pearson Construction Company, 236 Ind. 602, 141 N.E.2d 448 (1957):
Court held state income tax was applicable to federal enclaves via the Buck Act.

Davis v. Howard, 306 Ky.149, 206 S.W.2d 467 (1947):
Challenge to collection of gasoline tax within Camp Campbell on grounds that the enclave was not within state’s jurisdiction. However, Court held that Buck Act permitted the collection of the tax, and was, in essence, a recession of taxing jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

There are quite a few that suggest that Germany (Japan too!) is still under U.S. occupation to this very day. Would it be true that the "Confederacy" "has been" an enemy of the United States?

[ Perhaps see also "Trading With the Enemy Act"]



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...st%C3%BCck.jpg

---

I was born and raised in Germany and I was always under the impression that Germany was under US occupation.
Learning English was and is still mandatory for all German school children, even though England is not a popular travel destination. The languages of the countries directly adjoining Germany are not mandatory learning. Even though French is mostly taught as a third language, it is an elective and can be substituted for something else, e.g. Latin. At least that was the case in the schools which I experienced.

The US military bases were the authority of the land, and they played a prominent role in the economy when I was a child in the late '60s and '70s.
Culturally, Germany was like the little side-kick of the USA. We got every fashion, music and technology that the US had, but 5 years later in the cities and up to 10 years later in the country, where I grew up.
My post-baby boomer generation and the younger ones have no genuine German culture. We were completely Anglicized in everything from language to fashion, science, philosophy, entertainment, and even politics.
This influence did mainly not come from England; with the exception of things like Pink Floyd of course:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treefarmer

I was born and raised in Germany and I was always under the impression that Germany was under US occupation.
Learning English was and is still mandatory for all German school children, even though England is not a popular travel destination. The languages of the countries directly adjoining Germany are not mandatory learning. Even though French is mostly taught as a third language, it is an elective and can be substituted for something else, e.g. Latin. At least that was the case in the schools which I experienced.

The US military bases were the authority of the land, and they played a prominent role in the economy when I was a child in the late '60s and '70s.
Culturally, Germany was like the little side-kick of the USA. We got every fashion, music and technology that the US had, but 5 years later in the cities and up to 10 years later in the country, where I grew up.
My post-baby boomer generation and the younger ones have no genuine German culture. We were completely Anglicized in everything from language to fashion, science, philosophy, entertainment, and even politics.
This influence did mainly not come from England; with the exception of things like Pink Floyd of course:D

---

I loved going to Germany. Taxi cab drivers are a hoot - making at that time upwards of 100k and all driving Mercedes Benz. but the best is being able to go to any vending machine, put in the appropriate coinage, and getting a cold beer. Now that's living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

I loved going to Germany. Taxi cab drivers are a hoot - making at that time upwards of 100k and all driving Mercedes Benz. but the best is being able to go to any vending machine, put in the appropriate coinage, and getting a cold beer. Now that's living.

---

Yeah, when I came over here I was surprised to see candy bars in vending machines instead of cigarettes.

When I was 18 I drank some beer at a party in Alabama and walked back to my apartment with my bottle of Moosehead in hand. In the parking lot next to the police station I got arrested and those vandal cops poured out my beer!
I had no idea why they were doing this to me, because I was only doing what I had been taught in German school: if you drink, don't drive 'cause that's dangerous; be a good citizen and walk home.
I was in total culture shock:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That escape from the fealty system escaped some folks because the fact of the Registry remains. - Leaving the question;

---

Perhaps not domestic = off-base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Does the peaceful inhabitant have license plates at all? Without license plates you will be stopped by armed men inquiring about driver license and financial responsibility (insurance). Without insurance, the motor vehicle cannot be licensed or get the plates - so you can be paying an insurance policy but be jailed anyway, upon the cop's legal opinion that your insurance company will not cover you without a license...

---

Does the peaceful inhabitant fly the flags of a belligerent during wartime? This is where contract law and notice comes into play. If you are not a belligerent and you're being forced to wear enemy indicia--making the intent known might be quite a good thing to do.

But then, this is where utilization of a USDOT # or signs like "NOT FOR HIRE" can come handy. However when its to the repugnant extreme that the armed agents of a State arent even competent to tell the difference between belligerents and neutrals--you might have a conspiracy against rights or even sedition on your hands...

dereliction of duty...
slavery..
peonage..

there are laws against such aint there?

You might find that the trustee's agent offers Charges?

We do not find peaceful inhabitants left in peace without proper license plates. I know a fellow who lived in peace many years with Kingdom of Israel license plates but then one icy morning two cars slid into his and the Charges began to accrue. [I should inquire how that turned out.]

On the example offered though;

One should pay a reasonable amount to the State for the vehicle to be registered as a motor vehicle so that law enforcement officials can determine the name of the man responsible for it upon sighting of the vehicle. That's the nature of the vehicle. It can be used to avoid a conversation/interview and that license plate is the only thing in many cases said by way of an interview.

I will try to make my point more clearly.

It logically follows that when one's vehicle is in the registry, one might stop paying the yearly fealty of the property tax. - Just pay to update the information should it change. [Paying in lawful money.]

I tried doing this - calling for a probable cause hearing when my motorscooter was taken into impound (forfeiture) for allowing the date stickers to expire. Part of that is renewal of registration, I know, but if the Information (Indictment) is unchanged, there is no cost to update nothing... Just leave the Information on me unchanged.

They took my motorscooter, sold it with the other forfeited vessels at Impound Lot auction and jailed me about not having insurance (bottomry). The results were financial alright. It became a cause for true judgment that instantly closed down the Stock Market for three days.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/992/beijing2.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2369/beijing3.jpg

This is what I am talking about. I am not denying that War and Emergency Powers exist in America. Fiat is against the Constitution except for LINCOLN's July 4, 1861 convention of Congress under the Extraordinary Occasion clause and we still have fiat today. My point is more that the difference between Martial Law and Martial Rule in America is that the sanctions of the war are commercial/financial, that infractions result in Charges.

The Bill of Exchange calls in every debt-note in existence world-wide. It still does. It is the backing for authority for every Libel of Review Default Judgment. Well, the Truth reflected in lawful money anyway. The War is the basis for the current cestui que trust.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9...uiquetrust.jpg

Meaning that my claims, mostly based in my mind at the time about that Ruling, the county judge would only hear my Probable Cause Hearing after I had been fully arraigned were that since I had intentionally quit the property tax payments on the vehicle, that I was the highest holder of any title, outside the State. I was the beneficiary of the trust. I still had the motorscooter in the registry and could be located through that information. The day that I filed the local CAFR into the case with a subpoena for the City Bookkeeper to break-out the Impound Lot as a profit center, they dogged me around with the Police Helicopter!

This boundary line, the surveyed border of the belligerent, or more accurately the actual theater of war, where the constitutional protections cease; that is what I am speaking about. I was helping my pal across the border just the other day. He needed a certified copy of a case where he finally settled the charges ten years ago. But the border guards wanted a certified copy. So I was putting my recording equipment back in my pockets etc. at the courthouse security checkpoint and they attacked - bracketed - by insisting on a last name. (Attached audio snippet). I do not know, with a $20M lien going - the Security Supervisor made sure to slam my things on the table especially hard. Which actually came off very childish in front of his men. [Some of you may already know that they assign a guard to dog me around whenever I am in the courthouse and on a Monday morning, the Super can hardly afford that kind of waste of manpower.] So they attacked, as you hear, and I countered with the truth - My name is David Merrill. I deleted the part a moment later, you could just barely hear them discussing that I said my name was David Merrill, but it seemed to thwart the attack. I strongly suspect that if I would have said, I do not have a last name, things would have gone differently. I would have been identified an enemy belligerent. Even if I would have issued a legal or full name by giving my family name for a last name, that would have identified me differently.

It may not be evident on the audio snippet but my sensibilities, and I may be paranoid to some extent, tell me that demanding my last name was an attack, from a para-military officer informed by intelligence that I was among them in what they consider the theater of war, without being among them in spirit of belligerent. I don't have Schroedinger's Cat about to tell me the other timeline, when I bit my tongue on submitting myself by issuing a legal or full name against myself. But as it turned out, I am sure glad I resisted my conditioning. You may not hear it in the guard's voice, but he definitely asked the question with hostility tag-teamed by the Super smacking my bucket of stuff, camera and audio recorder included on the table with abrupt violence.

The warfare is reflected in this friction between Motla68 and myself too. In every example of a success story he has shown graphically, the success can be attributed to the redemption of lawful money. When compelled to divulge, after a week of prodding, what the verbiage on the coupon redemptions read, he even excluded that clause; and I reacted to that omission by banishing him for ten days. I am glad he still comes around and stirs this issue up because I think there is a lot to learn from this issue - My point being you can redact the entire Lieber Code, in full force and effect today, into commercial terms and anything beyond that will be utilized to label you a patriot nutjob Sovrun Citizen.

The essence of the BoE that perfected (30 days) judgment on September 11, 2001 is to call in all the debt-based currency in the world. Every bill floating around in circulation, anywhere in the world now was created by a loan - upon usury and fractional lending of the local central bank, based on the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency. The US Note though, Title 31 U.S.C. §5115 cannot be used for a reserve currency. That is something to think about if you want to get my point. We suitors handle US Notes in the form of FRNs. We look, for all intents and purposes like belligerents but our intent - peaceful inhabitant - resides in the Demand for Lawful Money.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

We do not find peaceful inhabitants left in peace without proper license plates. I know a fellow who lived in peace many years with Kingdom of Israel license plates but then one icy morning two cars slid into his and the Charges began to accrue. [I should inquire how that turned out.]

---

Bonding...risk management. What is 'funny' is that I came across an old "Insurance Agreement"..and it was worded similarly to an indemnity bond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

One should pay a reasonable amount to the State for the vehicle to be registered as a motor vehicle so that law enforcement officials can determine the name of the man responsible for it upon sighting of the vehicle. That's the nature of the vehicle. It can be used to avoid a conversation/interview and that license plate is the only thing in many cases said by way of an interview.

---

Or...USDOT #..preferably not from a 'residential address'.

Quote:

---

This is what I am talking about. I am not denying that War and Emergency Powers exist in America. Fiat is against the Constitution except for LINCOLN's July 4, 1861 convention of Congress under the Extraordinary Occasion clause and we still have fiat today. My point is more that the difference between Martial Law and Martial Rule in America is that the sanctions of the war are commercial/financial, that infractions result in Charges.

I strongly suspect that if I would have said, I do not have a last name, things would have gone differently. I would have been identified an enemy belligerent. Even if I would have issued a legal or full name by giving my family name for a last name, that would have identified me differently.

---

Some would suggest there is more goodness in "I'm unaware of having a last name" vs "I don't have a last name." However when you have armed folks who lack competence to tell the difference between fiction and truth...what good is their testimony? I've seen replies to questions for a last name:

"Do you need a last name? {OFFICER: YES} OK 'Jones'"

or

"Just put down 'Jones'. My name is Paul."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I am glad he still comes around and stirs this issue up because I think there is a lot to learn from this issue - My point being you can redact the entire Lieber Code, in full force and effect today, into commercial terms and anything beyond that will be utilized to label you a patriot nutjob Sovrun Citizen.

---

Revenue agents <- prosecution of war (USDOJ--IRS/ATF/DEA/U.S. Navy drug interdiction--all $$$$$$$ related). I suppose one could even denominate a payment in United States notes rather than just $ or "U.S. Dollars". :)

If you somehow lawful money should always be rendered as being 'principal' and scrip/FRNs/"Federation credits" likewise as interest--if there isn't interest involved--how can there be profit, commerce, tax or revenue-collecting?

***

If it pertains to interest/revenue/commerce then...well there are some pretty clearly defined principles or concepts of "international law" relating to belligerents and commerce. However, it might be that private creditors are not regarded as belligerents in any case. :)

***

And on that note... Laws of Land Warfare / "Hague Regulations" prohibit forced allegiance. By forcing you into a position suretyship for a legal entity that is intrinsically allegiant ...its a treaty violation..and likely punishable by court martial.

Quote:

---

Art. 45.

It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.

---

[ See also 18 USC 241 ]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Bonding...risk management. What is 'funny' is that I came across an old "Insurance Agreement"..and it was worded similarly to an indemnity bond.



Or...USDOT #..preferably not from a 'residential address'.



Some would suggest there is more goodness in "I'm unaware of having a last name" vs "I don't have a last name." However when you have armed folks who lack competence to tell the difference between fiction and truth...what good is their testimony? I've seen replies to questions for a last name:

"Do you need a last name? {OFFICER: YES} OK 'Jones'"

or

"Just put down 'Jones'. My name is Paul."



Revenue agents <- prosecution of war (USDOJ--IRS/ATF/DEA/U.S. Navy drug interdiction--all $$$$$$$ related). I suppose one could even denominate a payment in United States notes rather than just $ or "U.S. Dollars". :)

If you somehow lawful money should always be rendered as being 'principal' and scrip/FRNs/"Federation credits" likewise as interest--if there isn't interest involved--how can there be profit, commerce, tax or revenue-collecting?

***

If it pertains to interest/revenue/commerce then...well there are some pretty clearly defined principles or concepts of "international law" relating to belligerents and commerce. However, it might be that private creditors are not regarded as belligerents in any case. :)

***

And on that note... Laws of Land Warfare / "Hague Regulations" prohibit forced allegiance. By forcing you into a position suretyship for a legal entity that is intrinsically allegiant ...its a treaty violation..and likely punishable by court martial.



[ See also 18 USC 241 ]

---

Yes. Forgery.

You may have brought up the interest though - afresh. That may be new here at StSC.

Look at Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and at 23:20 both using nakar, from Noach (Noah).

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/4397/foreignere.jpg

Under full acceptance of the Lieber Code then, (Motla68's apparent posture) the mailman is a field scout for the Navy serving - US Postal Service - process and noting proof of service; empty mailbox the next day (through the little enclave) for the President as Executive Commander-in-Chief.

Ergo the Libel of Review; see the instructions at the end. Most of the lesson plan is to teach the new suitors how to run court on that mailbox rather than the other way around. Looking at the whole thing, it is challenging the federal judge to admit it - we become resident Noachides through that little federal enclave out front. There is no accusation that they did not file in the USDC - they have been doing it all our lives - the USDC is right there in that little enclave - the mailbox!

Being presumed Noachides, we are the foreigner and stranger in the Bible subject to that kind of usury - interest. Of course we can make our demand for lawful money known on the record and defeat the presumption.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trust Guy

Lets include the 17th Amendment , adopted April 8, 1913 . Direct election of representative Senators by popular vote , rather than selection by the individual State legislatures .

---

And speculatively, that style of voting *might* be for the residents of the post-1862, military-created or defacto "State" of the United States.

Quote:

---

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, to be consistent with the method of election. It was adopted on April 8, 1913.(Source: Wikipedia)

---

Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Quote:

---

Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, [U]during the Recess of the Legislature of any State the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

---

Why was there a need to have the people of a State elect rather than the legislature of a State choose? Was it because the U.S. Senate wanted to pull something off related to MONEY that it could not otherwise without the sovereign's DIRECT depute? Relevantly was it because they knew they were dealing with defacto, post-Civil-War States that lacked power they NEEDED and they KNEW it?

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Quote:

---

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. {Why must the electors be 'in' each State. Were electors previously presumed to be without a State...as in ..private? Or as in outside of a land strange to them?}

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

---

How does the executive of a State issue writs on the people? Or is this a different kind of 'people'? Like residents or public citizens as opposed to sovereigns?

Quote:

---

One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.

The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).

---

:) Could there have been be a relationship between U.S. citizenship (-> the House or Representatives) and State nationality (-> the Senate) that is obviated by analysis of related history? :) Were U.S. (federal) citizens (14th amendment ) ever considered to be eligible for voting in the organic states of America? Is there a connection between the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act?

• February 3 – The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is ratified, authorizing the Federal government to impose and collect income taxes.
  
• The {17th} Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).
  
• October 3 – The United States Revenue Act of 1913 re-imposes the federal income tax and lowers basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%.
  
• The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3)

What's the relationship between interest, the Federal Reserve, military scrip, the 17th amendment and taxes? :)

Quote:

---

... And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another....

---

What was 'wrong' with the State legislatures electing/selecting/choosing U.S. Senators? Did they need a more direct kind of endorsement of the people of a State? And still was it an organic state or a U.S. district-state? Did it depend on whether it was one of the first 13 or the first 33 (pre-Civil War) or not? There are perhaps at least two speculative extremes: (i) come 1917 the only U.S. States cognizable by the U.S. Congress were the post-Civil-war district-states rather than U.S. State legislatures--as in only 'seen' were the U.S.'s plenary zones and only U.S. citizens (not State Nationals) so therefore direct election was the ONLY way; or (ii) the U.S. still saw the sovereigns out there ..separate from the U.S. but then happily 'invited' them into direct election/endorsement through the 17th amendment?

As in for the Federal Reserve Act to really have teeth and for the coming Buck Act and Social Security Acts to have validity the US had to get the adequate approval-in-trusteeship for funding WWI, WWII, creating the FRB (needed approval to use the assets held in trust)--thus the 17th Amendment? Perhaps a stretch........perhaps not.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9...uiquetrust.jpg

While the gold confiscation in the U.S. is widely discussed, how much gold and silver was already being held by the U.S. already during the year 1913 and by the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed? (See attached PDF.)

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xparte

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

---

Perhaps a story about an attempt to escape from or avoid the presumptions (or presumptuousness?) of Roman Civil Law (and perhaps British Manorialism) might be insightful? [Right of avoidance?]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

We do not find peaceful inhabitants left in peace without proper license plates. I know a fellow who lived in peace many years with Kingdom of Israel license plates but then one icy morning two cars slid into his and the Charges began to accrue. [I should inquire how that turned out.].

---

Winston Shrout rather succinctly has caused against going into 'the public' without a bond. 'Notice ahead of time' seeming to be a significant and key factor. And so the reminder of the nature of the Flood called Admiralty on land...

Quote:

---

Among the many things that were important to our fore-fathers, the one thing that stood out was to establish a government free of any relationship or influence of the private Roman civil law operating in and controlling public policy. It was the oppression of the Roman civil law, as the king and parliament dictated, that was at the foundation for seeking expatriation from England under the king's assumed divine right. The Roman civil law (also referred to as "admiralty-maritime law"/15 or the "law of the sea" as well as "private international law") was the result of private church law operating for commercial purposes in the public sector. The amalgamation of church law and civil government was derived from three ingredients; Greece, Rome and Christianity. The political theory derived from the first two of these ingredients was tempered to accommodate the third. Its originators and apologists were the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, and the first historian of the Christian Church, Eusebius of Caesarea. Through his writings, Eusebius had once and for all established the new way to interpret history, and his followers applied the same political philosophy for over 1000 years.

---

Quote:

---

In simple terms, Roman civil law is a perversion of private law. That is, the conscience of private law was never meant to operate in forming public policy of government. Private law was always a part of establishing bilateral contracts and could be used in government only for setting up private commercial relations between government and corporations called "licenses." But the conscience of private law could never operate without bilateral contracts unless it was through a trust.

---

Quote:

---

It was this Roman civil law that had taken over all Europe and England and our founding fathers wanted nothing of it in the "commercial law system of the American states." It represented to them the most insidious form of slavery of both body and mind, that is, slavery by entrapment through one-sided or implied contracts the individual never was aware he was getting into until he was hit with compelled performance.

Thomas Jefferson expressed this disdain of Roman civil law being introduced into English common law in 1760 by Lord Mansfield. In fact, it was this decision that sparked the American revolution. After this date, Jefferson wanted nothing to do with the common law of England because of the way it had been polluted with Roman civil (ecclesiastical) law by Mansfield.

---

Note: many Bible-believers might not give too much weight to Constantine's sincerity. There those who suggest that Rome was out to wipe out true believers and with other means not working turning to used the strategy of 'incorporation' ("Let's be friends I'm one of you and your ruler too.")

And so the importance of libel of review.

Related:

U.S.A. The Republic Is the House That No One Lives In
Invisible Contracts (by George Mercier)

If a DL expires what has been expunged ITS date ITS driver ITS privilege ITS person ITS NAME ITS COMMERCE what has expired has passed, dead in law bringing a living Man to re-venue re-new your D-L OR BEGGING ANEW DEAD AND LOVING IT MEL BROOKS WORK WORK WORK CONTRACTS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xparte

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

---

Some interesting things I have found researching traffic law. Traffic law and the rules and processes used to enforce them, are applicable to an agency. That of course is an agency of government. Indiana code specially states that these processes NEED NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH THINGS SUCH AS THE COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE AS WITH THE COURTS. Traffic laws are internal rules for government (and commerce). They enforce them using the courts, but the courts act administratively. The judical rules of court even specifically states that evidence of failure to have insurance is not admissible as to prove wrong doing, but only admissible concerning questions of agency (someone acting of the behalf of another). The entire point system for drivers license only exists within the administrave code. IMO, when you get pulled over and show the license with the seal of the state on it, you are presumed to be an employee of an agency. Not that the cop knows this, but it begins the presumption. License are a personal effect, and are not subject to unreasonable searches without warrant. Most 'laws' including traffic that are applied against the people are administrative only. Administrative is of course executive. The rights of the people are not directly subject to the executive, and true controversies of rights require judicial proceedures to resolve. Controversies between the people and government are not controversies of rights, as only the people have rights. Governments only have limited authority and limited powers. When government come against the people or one of the people, the situation can best be explained as a 'faithless servant'.