Results 1 to 10 of 258

Thread: Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #10
    Can anyone help me find evidence of Coast Guard Geodetic Survey Marks/Monuments being placed on mountain tops to justify bringing Admiralty/Maritime Law onto the Land?

    http://www.peakbagging.com/Benchmark.htm

    Benchmark Placement on Mountain Tops

    Most of you reading this have probably been to a lot of summits which have had a benchmark in a prominent location that was easy to see. There may be a large rock at the summit and the benchmark will be cemented in place at the very highest point. Surveyors are concerned with visibility to other survey monuments and thus may place the benchmark near, but not actually on the highest point. The elevation of the benchmark will in these cases be lower than that of the true summit and the position as measured in latitude and longitude will not be that of the highest point.

    ........................................
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_marker
    Survey markers, also called survey marks, survey monuments, or geodetic marks, are objects placed to mark key survey points on the Earth's surface. They are used in geodetic and land surveying. Informally, such marks are referred to as benchmarks,[1] although strictly speaking the term "benchmark" is reserved for marks that indicate elevation.
    ........................................

    See: http://freedom-school.com/admiralty-...me-exposed.pdf
    Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction Exposed.pdf (excerpt from page 7 below):

    "As long ago as 1851 the Supreme Court recognized that the Congress has the power to extend the
    jurisdictions of admiralty and maritime causes to the land under the commerce clause
    and deprive the
    people of the right of a trial by jury. The following holding by the high court pretty much says it all.

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

    .....................................


    The below links are offline during the government shutdown:

    https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datasheets/

    https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datums/vertical/

    https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/
    Last edited by doug555; 01-22-18 at 10:57 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •