Remedy - lawful money solution

[BLBereans]

Eminent Domain:

"... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property."

"When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership."

Extreme necessity warrants right over property, however, that phrase must be specifically defined as a real and existential threat of harm or death against a man, woman or child.

Any other "seizure" of property falls under 'war powers' over a conquered nation whereby the end of hostilities or peace has not been officially declared. The continuance of "Presidential Executive Orders" is evidence that the "emergency" or war has not yet ended; said war beginning during the "Lincoln Administration".

[allodial]

Any other "seizure" of property falls under 'war powers' over a conquered nation whereby the end of hostilities or peace has not been officially declared. The continuance of "Presidential Executive Orders" is evidence that the "emergency" or war has not yet ended; said war beginning during the "Lincoln Administration".

I had also in mind to put out there the idea of HJR 192 affecting the Lieber Code or being as an addenda or modifications on the conduct of the soldier in the field.

[pumpkin]

Just wanted to say this about eminent domain. The people are entitled to a trial by jury concerning their property and the states ability to take it. I have read the code of my state concerning eminent domain and it conflicts with the rules of court, and by state law, are therefore without force or effect (this is part of Indiana code itself, the rules of court control the courts, not the legislature). These preceedings are in equity, as it would take equity, not law to force the sale of a property. Equity jurisdiction is pathetically weak. The code on eminent domain even specifically employs the use of 'an appearance notice' (same as a traffic ticket). Appearance tickets DO NOT ESTABLISH IN PERSONAM JURISDICITON. That is only accomplished (per the rules of court) by a summons. The code also narrows the allowable pleadings (just as a traffic ticket does) against the rules of court, which I have already stated, is by code, therefore without force or effect.

[allodial]

Pumpkin:

It might be important to consider the distinction of being lost at sea vs. being on land. The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have one "underwater". The typical traffic court is most likely not a court of criminal court jurisdiction just might be enforcing contracts in Admiralty (maybe even Navy Regulations on land--think: roads as rivers of tar, VINs as vessel numbers). The right to trial by jury and etc. might not apply in a military tribunal to members of the "Land Merchant Marine".

[pumpkin]

"The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have you "underwater"."

Maybe. But Prima Facie only. I agree, it most certainly must be considered and rebutted. The driver license makes absolutely no difference concerning a traffic ticket (I know this for a fact-- I did rebut those presumptions however).

[BLBereans]

Just wanted to say this about eminent domain. The people are entitled to a trial by jury concerning their property and the states ability to take it. I have read the code of my state concerning eminent domain and it conflicts with the rules of court, and by state law, are therefore without force or effect (this is part of Indiana code itself, the rules of court control the courts, not the legislature). These preceedings are in equity, as it would take equity, not law to force the sale of a property. Equity jurisdiction is pathetically weak. The code on eminent domain even specifically employs the use of 'an appearance notice' (same as a traffic ticket). Appearance tickets DO NOT ESTABLISH IN PERSONAM JURISDICITON. That is only accomplished (per the rules of court) by a summons. The code also narrows the allowable pleadings (just as a traffic ticket does) against the rules of court, which I have already stated, is by code, therefore without force or effect.

People (man) have a right to trial by jury, however, that must be clearly evoked when one chooses to hold court by witness in the public arena.

U.S. Citizens are entitled to Jury Trials whereby the Jurors are instructed as to the "Law" by the Court Administrator (Judge).

Material possession of physical property by people is quite different than legal possession or Title Interest in property. "The State's ability to take property" should be defined as to whether or not one is referring to Legal Title and its conversion value in commerce or physical/material possession and enjoyment.

If the "war" is still extant by virtue of the continuance of Presidential Executive Orders, then Legal Title has already been "taken"; the Jury Trial is a mere formality, an internal administrative event in order to reveal hostiles on conquered land who refuse to cease making claims against "seized" booty.

[pumpkin]

"People (man) have a right to trial by jury, however, that must be clearly evoked when one chooses to hold court by witness in the public arena.

U.S. Citizens are entitled to Jury Trials whereby the Jurors are instructed as to the "Law" by the Court Administrator (Judge)."

I agree. Best to escape jurisdiction if you are the defendant. That is not too difficult if you have not caused an injury. Everyone should know that in nearly every state, the rules of court rule the court. Do not search for any answers in code, if the answer is in the rules of court. You will only get confused.

And if you do go to court, you had better claim to be one of the people (important to reserve all rights). Juries for equitable causes (nearly all causes can be equitable now) are only advisory. If you go to court and want a jury, you have better demand a common law jury. If you're the plaintiff, sue in dollars in lawful money. Not $. Peaceful possession is a very important component concerning property. Anyone who has a better claim should have made the better claim. When they do, ask for title. They won't have it either. Your possession without title wins over non possession without title. This is also an equitable win, as equity will keep that status quo of you having possession.

[allodial]

Rebutting presumptions especially as pertains to status as an accommodation party.

"The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have you "underwater"."

Maybe. But Prima Facie only. I agree, it most certainly must be considered and rebutted. The driver license makes absolutely no difference concerning a traffic ticket (I know this for a fact-- I did rebut those presumptions however).

The application for the license might be the contract that ties into the State revenue stream. If the Plaintiff's presumptions remain unrebutted, the driver license might make a big difference. "prima facie" as in gives rise to presumptions based on appearances or on extant defendants' or intervenors' exercise of rights or failure to do so. It might help seeing attorneys as 'evidence police'. That said, HJR 192 might be restatement of the evidence of the intent of the original grantors, et. al. under the Declaration of Independence, etc. -- reducing of their Posterity to chattel/peonage wasn't part of the deal. Also AFAIK, it is against the duties of a conservator of the peace to undermine the prosperity of those he serves--kings, sheriffs and attorneys general have the duty to promote and/or to safeguard prosperity of the posterity it is outside their official duties to do otherwise. Laws against treason, embezzlement, etc. seem to echo such notions.

[allodial]

The legal positivists maintain that eminent domain is “a peculiarly American branch of law” because of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, but the roots of this law go back, as does much of American law, to England (Stoebuck 1977, 4, 7–9).2 Indeed, eminent domain reflects the feudal underpinnings of English property law (Paul 1988, 8–9).

Before I forget, eminent domain is to knowledge feudal in nature. Aristotelian, atheists oligarchs might have wet dreams over eminent domain. The relation of lawful money to property rights...deep stuff, eh?

Related:
The Evolution of Eminent Domain by Bruce L. Benson;
Standing on the Land (John Joseph, Randy Lee, and Richard Anthony)

P.S. Seems "legal positivists" like to make s.... things up.

[pumpkin]

If the Plaintiff's presumptions remain unrebutted, the driver license might make a big difference.

This is true, but IMO, the presumption is employment by the state, not a 'contract'. The state can tell its employees what they can and cannot do.

Presumptions are a dangerous thing. They can remain hidden and still control a case. It is best to eliminate any and all possible presumptions that could effect the case. 'No contract' is certainly at the top of the list. Not acting in a representative or within a fiduciary capacity is another. I would also add, not being a debtor. Any of those things could mean equity, and that usually doesn't end well.