It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Choosing Freedom Admiralty/Marine Law jurisdiction

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 01:53 PM
About all I can say here is wow.Stared,flaged and wow again this is some pretty heavy stuff it may take me weeks to get through this thank you and keepup the great work.

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 04:17 AM
Hello ATS,

After a long time I see this thread got a few replies, stars and flags thank you all for that.
That way more people will find this important information.

Here is another example of IMAL :

Notice some rather strange writing (painted in bold letter as a notice) there on the pavement facing the Courthouse. The notice read “Customer Parking Only”. See inset below:

The meaning of ‘customer’ has the following definitions:

customer definition

1. One that buys goods or services.

2. Informal An individual with whom one must deal: a tough customer.

customer synonyms

1. One who buys goods or services: buyer, client, patron, purchaser. See transactions

2. One who consumes goods and services: consumer, user. See give, used

‘justice’ can be bought, or that ‘we have the best judicial system that money can buy’. I always thought these were simply someone expressing, in a cynical manner, their personal displeasure with the Florida Judicial system. Never would I have imagined that the County Officials would blatantly and with prideful, arrogant boasting, make such a declaration for the whole world to see, with their own eyes, the TRUTH of these ‘old sayings’.

The Desoto County officials have openly declared that when you enter into these “halls of Justice”, make sure that you possess a notable amount of cash on hand, that will enable you to purchase or buy the services that they offer. Well what services do they offer? They offer you the opportunity to pay fines and penalties imposed on you by other members of their corporation/business/enterprise; they offer you the opportunity to purchase marriage licenses; they offer you the opportunity to purchase a space within their recordings (Public Records) that will enable you to ‘put on public record’ matters that have legal significance to you and or your family; and Oh Yes!; they allow you the opportunity to purchase the decision of the judge in a matter wherein you have been named as ‘defendant’ or ‘plaintiff’. Is the ‘customer always right’? No! All too often, we have seen what has been said to be a ‘travesty of Justice’. But then again, that would be dependent upon who entered the courtroom with the greater amount of cash on hand.

All of the above points my mind toward another thought. With the Judicial system openly admitting that they are operating a business where ‘Justice’ (the primary purpose of the Judiciary) is sold on the open market, then it would stand to reason that the Judiciary system is also conducting what is known as a ‘Commercial’ operation.

Now we must ask ourselves; “What is Commerce?” To answer this question, let me again reference the dictionary found at . In this definition we find another amazing concept which is also advanced and promoted with the Bouviers’ 1856 Legal dictionary.

commerce definition

1. The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations. See Synonyms at business.

2. Intellectual exchange or social interaction.

3. Sexual intercourse.

commerce synonyms

1. Commercial, industrial, or professional activity in general: business, industry, trade, trading, traffic. See action

This modern day definition, seems to be a bit broad, in that it encompasses anything and everything that a man or woman could be seemingly engaged in while inhabiting any particular station in this society. When viewing this definition, we find it includes anything from a casual conversation with a friend (social interaction) to going to church (another social interaction) to sexual intercourse or the buying and selling of goods. Comparing this modern day definition, to that of the Bouviers’ 1856 Legal definition of ‘commerce’ we find that they are not so dissimilar

COMMERCE, trade, contracts. The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. 2. Congress have power by the constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. 1 Kent. 431; Story on Corst. 1052, et seq. The sense in which the word commerce is used in the constitution seems not only to include traffic, but intercourse and navigation. Story, 1057; 9 Wheat. 190, 191, 215, 229; 1 Tuck. Bl. App. 249 to 252. Vide 17 John. R. 488; 4 John. Ch. R. 150; 6 John. Ch. R. 300; 1 Halst. R. 285; Id. 236; 3 Cowen R. 713; 12 Wheat. R. 419; 1 Brock. R. 423; 11 Pet. R. 102; 6 Cowen, R. 169; 3 Dana, R. 274; 6 Pet. R. 515; 13 S. & R. 205.

These Judicial companies as shown in the inserted photo above, seem to be operating under a presumption, that they have a ‘reciprocal agreement’ with anyone that ventures into their premises.

Another interesting find, regarding such entities as government, doing business is found in a decision of the Untied States Supreme Court, in the case of Clearfield Trust Co. v the United States: A paraphrase of what was said follows:

[align=center]Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." – Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371[/align]

[edit on 8/7/2008 by PPLwakeUP]

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:52 AM

Continue from above post.
The actual language used is :

“The fact that the drawee is the United States and the laches those of its employees are not material. Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 , 398.

The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee. As stated in United States v. National Exchange Bank, 270 U.S. 527, 534 , 46 S.Ct. 388, 389, 'The United States does business on business terms.' It is not excepted from the general rules governing the rights and duties of drawees 'by the largeness of its dealings and its having to employ agents to do what if done by a principal in person would leave no room for doubt.' Id., 270 U.S. at page 535, 46 S.Ct. at page 389.”

The inference to be drawn from either source (the actual language or the paraphrased language) is the same, to wit. ‘If the government engages in business and utilizes ‘commercial paper’, that government is bound by the same rules and subject to the same penalties, as any other business entity.

My Goodness! This would mean that, because this State of Florida Judiciary system is accepting ‘checks’ and ’securities’ and other ‘commercial paper (Federal Reserve Notes and Bonds) in return for their services, that they have descended to the “Level of a mere private corporation” or “The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee” .

Having committed this act of descending (using the various forms of commercial paper), they have also admitted to being a ‘mere private corporation’ and are using ‘private corporate’ law as opposed to Constitutional LAW. The Judiciary in consort with other State officials, such as the Senate and House of Representatives, have blatantly converted the organic Constitution of the Florida Republic into a Corporate Charter, and the Florida Statues are nothing more than the By-Laws of the Corporate State and are applicable only to those that choose to be in reciprocity to the terms set forth by the corporation.

Being in reciprocity simply means that you have consented, either by a written document, or through what the corporation refers to as ‘usage’.
In other words, if you ‘use’ their private corporate law, then you are bound by those private corporate laws; if you have signed any paper that can be construed by the corporation as a ‘consent’, then you are also bound by your consent to abide by those private corporate laws. If you desire to not be bound by those 'private corporate laws', then it is necessary that you 'revoke' those previous agreements and assure yourself that you will not enter into those agreements ever again. Thus, the real problem! According to the definition of 'commerce' it is impossible for us to exist within this society without being in commerce on a daily basis unless we all become hermits and live off the fat of the land, with absolutely no interaction occurring with one another. Therefore, seeing the unlikelihood of that scenario, it becomes necessary for us to advance our intellect to be able to work within the commercial realm, at the same or greater level of knowledge than what they possess.

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:58 AM
There are 10 primary rules of Commerce;

1. A workman is worthy of his hire;

2. All are equal under the law (both moral and natural law);

3. In commerce truth is sovereign;

4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit;

5. An un-rebutted affidavit stands as the truth in commerce;

6. An un-rebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce;

7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved;

8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default;

9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (if one has neither been damaged nor incurred a risk, and is unwilling to swear an affidavit -- i.e., "true, correct, and complete," the commercial equivalent of, " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" -- on his unlimited commercial liability for the veracity of his statements and the legitimacy of his action, he has no credibility, and therefore no basis for asserting claims/charges or claiming authority);

10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment.

Because of the above information, it is clear that :

1: we are all engaged in commerce due merely to the simple fact that we are exchanging through intellect, various pieces of information, and also because we are engaged in social interaction;

2: because we are all engaged in commerce, then the 10 laws of commerce touch and affect each and everyone of us;

3: in order for us to not be engaged in commerce, it is necessary that we not communicate with one another; that we not engage in the sharing of intellectual processes; that we not engage in sexual intercourse, even with our wives…

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 07:45 AM

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP
But I guess there are no replies because there isn'a lot to debunk it's so deep incorporated in all our lives that you cannot evade this LAW except by becoming a freeman and stepping out of the system.

There's also another thread here at ATS that addresses pretty much the same topics here & even helps provide avenues of research for "opting out," legally & lawfully. The info is good both here & there, so I would still suggest reading both of these threads thoroughly...Even though I got to this thread a bit too late to make it a "short read."

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP
But if handled properly and if you have the balls to use the knowledge and your right of common law law of the land.
You can evade all taxes, you can even legally travel all around the western world with a self made passport no need for ID cards SS number etc.
And your copy person the one with your name in CAPS is as rich as you want him to be you can let that copy person pay everything.

This also includes being able to exercise your Right to Travel Freely (in the USA at least) by issuing your own Driver's License...You must be specific to note (especially in a courtroom) that you are a Traveler, with or without Guests, using your privately-owned Automobile to Travel and/or Transport your Personal Belongings on Public Roads. Anytime you refer to a Motor Vehicle, Driver/Operator, Passengers or even refer to your Belongings as a Shipment---You're nailed!

Originally posted by 1011010110
Please post more. I've encountered this information before, but it is so complex. Reading it again, I understand a lot more. Please show me how to renounce my slavery and become a free man, and how do I use my strawman to become filthy rich.

And your "copy person/strawman" cannot actually pay debt...It can only discharge debt. Here's a link to a 96-page PDF document that better specifies this better than I can here, called Remembering Who You Are.

Originally posted by srsen
Anyway this article -

The Most Powerful Man In The World?
The “Black” Pope
Count Hans Kolvenbach—The Jesuit’s General
4/15/2000 BY RICK MARTIN

Have you read it? I will be going through it shirtly, hopefully it will get me up to speed.

Some of PPLWakeUp's early quotes (back on page 1 in this thread), referring to the "Black Venetian Nobility" & similar references also corroborates to some info about the Black Pope, Superior General of the Jesuits. This is the actual link to which you probably refer? It's not actuall an "article," but more of an interview with the author of a book.

In this post, PPLwakeUp gave some info about the Federal Reserve...There's a lot more info on various threads here at ATS. Rather than list them all here, it's probably best to suggest using the ATS Search, using the keywords "Federal Reserve" & " Fed Res" to browse at your convenience.

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP
The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. FAITHLESS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS WHO HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OATHS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND BROUGHT TO TRIAL.

Actually, JFK tried to "wean us off" the Federal Reserve...Google "Executive Order 11110" to get some info & history on why JFK was assassinated.

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer soon understand that bankers will ALWAYS end up with most wealth - because they can create it out of nothing. The Church didn't; the Church owned real wealth and land. Owning real live wealth will not ever compete with the power to create money out of thin air - and to charge interest on it!

How do you think the banks obtain real wealth? When the banks charge an interest rate on loans & don't actually issue enough FRN's into circulation, this means that this is the amount of people who will be forced to default those loans, simply because the FRN's are not in circulation for people to earn them. For example, for everybody who gets a car loan at 7% interest, 7% of them are expected to default. Then the bank steps in & "re-possesses" the car...This is the technique of using a valueless, unbacked, fake currency to confiscate tangible goods of real value! Money issued by the Federal Reserve is created out of thin air & have no inherent value, but they use it to obtain goods with tangible value! So, if the Church has controlling interest in the bank, guess where all of that tangible wealth eventually goes?

Originally posted by sollie
i will follow up on that IMAL stuff. what is a "registered Notice" as Irene calls it? how do you register a notice? i assume it makes it 'official' or something?

In the USA, it would take the form of an Affidavit, in most cases. In the other ATS thread I've linked up above, there's mention of using these as a "notice of intent." A bit later in the same thread, I posted a link on how people can get their hands on all sorts of legal documents & how to use them. Prepared by lawyers & modified according to the State Laws...At a fraction of the cost that hiring a lawyer would charge!

Originally posted by ViolatoR
I was wondering if you knew about how court trials at sea would work back in the day when it comes to having a jury? I assume the captain was the judge, but was there a jury or no jury? And of there was one, did it have to have a certain number of people serve on it?

No, it was usually just the Captain & maybe the First Mate involved in prosecutions...But courts today make extensive use of "summary judgement" with no jury present, don't they?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
To my limited knowlege of history this pattern goes back to pre roman times but began to take in its form known today with the broadness of the Roman Empire and the merchants which plied their trade under Rome.

Yep, you may find that the Civil Law/Statutory Law enforced in the US is primarily based upon Roman Law & makes extensive use of the Roman law structure & terminology. That is not a coincidence.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Lawful pertaining to the substance of law...what he law was intended to accomplish...
Legal...the form of law..appearences ..while solidifying the power of the state.

You may also see them referred to as Common Law or the Supreme Law (real law), compared to Statutory/Commercial Law or Color of Law (everything else that may violate real law).

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Is it not these same politicians who finance public education?? They will never teach us enough to put Light on thier efforts. The obviously prefer to keep the pubic in the dark through a controlled regimen of public education.

Yes. Perhaps this (maybe fictional, maybe not fictional: think of this similar to an "Aesop's Fable") account in the life of Socrates:
A man approached Socrates & asked him to teach wisdom. Socrates responded by grabbing the man's head & shoving his face into a well. After a few moments, Socrates let him loose & said, "When you desire to learn as much as you just desired air, you will not need me to teach you."
In this, it can be surmised that the only teacher you can really trust is yourself. Believe me when I say that I never learned jack-squat in school...The vast majority I've learned only came after school.

--------Continued Below-------

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 07:46 AM
-------Concluded From Above---------

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP

All of the above points my mind toward another thought. With the Judicial system openly admitting that they are operating a business where ‘Justice’ (the primary purpose of the Judiciary) is sold on the open market, then it would stand to reason that the Judiciary system is also conducting what is known as a ‘Commercial’ operation.

So it's really surprising how many people don't even think to ask, "Wait a minute! If this courtroom is a part of the government I pay my taxes for, why do they charge me for simple "court fees?""
Well, it's like this...The individual income taxes on your paycheck aren't getting deposited into the National Treasury. Notice on the tax forms that it instructs you to fill out the "Pay to the Order of" blank to the IRS. All lawful taxes must be paid to the Secretary of the Treasury, but the money collected by the IRS doesn't go there! The reason for this is that the IRS is not a part of the Treasury Department! Your taxes actually go to pay on only the interest on the national debt to the Fed Res!
Witness this Source: Supreme Law Firm: 31 Questions & Answers About the IRS

1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).
At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.

2. If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?
Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.

In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.

When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.

4. Can IRS legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing mail?
Answer: No. It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent purposes. Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address, is one count of mail fraud. See also 31 U.S.C. 333.

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by PPLwakeUP

While engaged in this cat and mouse game with the judge,what was the outcome?Did the judge drop the charges? Or did he find you in contempt of his court?
I looked up flag law and found that the gold fringe was disallowed for outside use as it tatters easily.Otherwise it is the same flag as old glory.

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by daddyroo45


I guess you missunderstood the post.
No personally I have never tried it.
Reason is because I have real simple life. But would I come in a situation that I would need teh help I have a few local contacts in The Netherlandsthat can advise,write support me in court in the situation arrises.

This is not only of importance in the USA but also in Europe and most of the world.
All European Kings made deals with the Queen of England. That's why they are still in power nowadays.

I'll later post some actual succes stories in the USA

The USA, land of the slave home of the fee !


posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 10:27 AM

Originally posted by daddyroo45
While engaged in this cat and mouse game with the judge,what was the outcome?Did the judge drop the charges? Or did he find you in contempt of his court?

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP
I guess you missunderstood the post.
No personally I have never tried it.

Hmmm...I seem to remember that ATS Member jackinthebox indicates that he's a first-hand eye witness to someone who has done so...Apparently with some success: Man declares sovereignty, challenges jurisdiction of court.
By reading that thread & from similar cases I've come across in my researches of Law, I'm convinced that the whole thing goes like this:
The court system is a commercial business that has jurisdiction only by creating implied contractual obligations from those people who use their courts' "services." After all, we're talking about a corporation, not a Constitutionally valid authority.

Therefore, once you physically step into their "jurisdiction," comply with any of their "requests" or answer any of their questions (even going so far as to refuse to confirm your name!), you are agreeing to enter into contract with them.

Therefore, in order to be protected by Constitutional/Common Law, you must always maintain that you are a flesh-n-blood Sovereign & must consistently challenge them to prove their jurisdiction & steadfastly refuse to accept their "offers" to contract.

After all, as a Sovereign holding political power by the Constitutional Republic, you are immune to prosecution under Statute Law as long as you refuse to "enter into contract" with them...Once you enter into contract with them, you limit yourself to the terms & conditions of that contract. Sovereigns have the Right to unlimited contract, but just as equally have the Right to NOT enter into contracts.

You can find some more info here.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 06:58 PM
Many thanks PPLwakeUP,this is very interesting stuff.
I wonder if the Internet will do the same to the Legal Profession as it has done to the Music Industry?
IMO its got to be a good thing!

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by PPLwakeUP

I didn't see this video in your links. It's an excellent video one of the first jaw dropping videos I watched on this subject. Human Rights and the Illusion It's long (over 3 hours) Excellent information on the Canadian system but the US system is basically the same scam.

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:36 PM

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP
If anyone want to try it infront of a judge:

Well, it may not be quite as simple as you describe if, for example, the IRS files Notice of Lien against your property...

I've found out a bit more about Admiralty Jurisdiction...It seems to be almost a complete turnabout from how other jurisdictions work in court...And for good reason. First the IRS will try to get you to petition the Tax Court to contend against the lien...But don't do anything an agent tells you to do, because it's a well-oiled trap!

What happens is that the IRS files Notice of Lien against the Right to Property, not you as the person or strawman that owns the property...To contest the Notice of Lien, the IRS is shifting you into the position of plaintiff, which means the burden of proof lies with you. In Tax Court & Admiralty jurisdiction, you're not allowed to present any evidence against them!

Instead, either appeal to a District Court or just request a move directly there before appearing in Tax Court. You have a better chance there, because you can turn the IRS trap around again & turn them into the plaintiff & make them adhere to the burden of proof for the validity of the Notice to Lien!

I found some info here, but it's a long read. Just a few key excerpts (which is kinda long in itself) to provide some better detail:

It is recommended, before undertaking any legal action, you consult a QUALIFIED person to review and advise you (and your attorney) In International Law/Admiralty-Maritime Process.
The supreme court of the united States has declared:

"To the extent that admiralty procedure differs from civil procedure. It is a mystery to most trial and appellate Judges, and to the non-specialist lawyer who finds himself, sometimes to his surprise, involved in a case cognizable only on the admiralty "side" of the court. “Admiralty practice”, said Mr. Justice Jackson, “is a unique system of substantive laws and procedures with which members of the Court are singularly deficient in experience." Black Diamond S.S. Corp. v. Stewart & Sons, 336 U.S. 386, 403, 69 S. Ct 622.93L Ed. 754 (1949) (dissenting opinion).

Is it any wonder that the State Courts do not have any concept of Admiralty process, when they rule against you in favor of the purchaser of the IRS tax lien, in a Quiet Title action? Note, more on this later.

"The Federal District courts are the accustomed forum in which actions in admiralty are tried and in the absence of some special reason therefore, no effort should be made to divert this type of litigation to judges less experienced in the field.” Calmar S.S. Corp. v. United States. 345 US 446, 97 L ed 1140 73 S Ct. 733.

NOW, before we start looking at every action as an Admiralty action, we need to consider the following:
2 Am Jur. Vol 2. ADMIRALTY section 15 - Limited
Admiralty is a limited jurisdiction, depending for its existence on whether or not the cause involved is an admiralty or maritime matter. There is no statutory definition of admiralty jurisdiction, and difficulties attend every attempt to define its exact limits. The extent of the admiralty jurisdiction, as conferred by the Constitution, is not limited by the scope of admiralty Jurisdiction as it existed under English law, nor was it extended_as far as_the admiralty jurisdiction then; reached in the civil law countries.

The scope of admiralty jurisdiction in this country is to be determined In the light of the Constitution, the laws of Congress, and the decisions of the Supreme court.
At this point, you maybe asking yourself, what does this have to do with the IRS and tax laws? Keep in mind that, when an action has been filed in the courts, it is 'necessary to file in the proper jurisdiction, venue.

The Huntress, 12 Fed. case 984@992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D. ME. 1840):
"In this country revenue causes had so long been the subject of!Admiralty cognizance, that congress Considered them as CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, ‘including,’ etc. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England.

The Act gives exclusive admiralty maritime Jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of nations, … But in cases wher the courts of common law have always exercised concurrent jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is not, and was never intended by the constitution to be, exclusive, though the subject matter be maritime…. The common law, and of course the sense in which the technical words of that law are used, WAS NEVER IN FORCE IN THIS COUNTRY, any further than as it was adopted by common consent, or the legislature. BEYOND THIS, IT WAS AS MUCH A FOREIGN LAW AS THAT OF FRANCE OR HOLLAND.”

Although this case is from .1'840,it is still_in operation today. Reread that opening line again -revenue causes … the subject of Admiralty…

Let us move ahead to this century, for those readers who are concerned about old law, and take note of a case from the recent past, United States of America v. $3,976.62 in Currency, One 1960 Ford Station wagon Serial No. OC66W145329:

“Although presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under internal Revenue Laws is commenced as PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character, of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedures control.”
Let us now examine the NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS. Turn the document over and what do you see. "United States v. __________” If you do not find this on the notice which you have, keep in mind that in some countries, the recorders do not record the back side of the document. The IRS usually will not send-the complete document to you. It is very important that you find such a document because on the back side we find that the lien has been filed pursuant to 26 USC 6321. What does this mean?

"…(I)t is now generally held that government tax claims under 26 USC§ 6321 'upon all property and rights of property whether real or personal rank below all other maritime liens….”
Benedicts's “admiralty." 7th ed., Vol2 Cehapter IV § 51 footnote

Open a copy of Black's Law Dictionary to IN REM and we see something that may shed some light on the above quotation from Benedict's Admiralty:
In rem – A technical term used to designate proceedings or actions instituted against a thing,........... It is true that, in a strict sense, a proceeding In rem is one taken_directly;against property, and has fori itsobject the disposition of property, without reference to the title of individual claimants;........... (See: Quasi In rem)

Is it possible that the NOTICE OF TAX LIEN[S] is an In rem action? Unless someone can come up with a better idea or another reading of the Notice, it clearly states “rights to property”.
The District court is divided into three separate sections. The first section is devoted to criminal law. The second section is devoted to civil law. The third section and the one least understood by the judges and attorneys, as noted in Chapter One. is the Admiralty division.

The Admiralty section of the curt has its own distinct set of court rules. It would be wise to check with the District court in your area or local law library to acquire the rules that govern the actions of the court. It is a must to have a copy of the supplemental rules of admiralty. These are numbered A-F, instead of the numeric system familiar to most people. We will discuss some of these supplemental rules later on.
One of the researchers on this project had an interesting conversation a couple of years ago with a nationally known attorney. This attorney had been a government employee for nearly thirty years. The attorney made this observation about the rules of court. It was his opinion that the rules of court were designed to quickly dispense with the novice, "pro se attorney”, thereby cutting down on the work load that the courts were under. As the attorney explained, whenever a complaint/answer was presented to his department and had been placed on his desk, the things he wuld check wer the Rules of Court. As he explained, the work load is so great that we look for any way to disqualify a Plaintiff-Defendant.

It is extremely important that you read and understand the rules of court. Unfortunately, many people are never heard in our court system because they do not know or understand the rules. It is quite possible to win your case based solely on rules and never have the merits of the case heard. It is because of these rules that the admiralty process becomes viable.
In order to understand the admiralty court we need to look at some of the other courts and the position the ‘taxpayer’ is placed in when he enters their jurisdiction.

The first court is an Administrative Court. It is known as the United States Tax Court. This court operates under the authority of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. (the President). The Secretary of Treasury (the Governor of the International Monetary Fund) provides the regulations that govern the operation of the tax court and this court does not operate under the same set of rules as the District, Circuit or Supreme Court.

---------Continued Below-------

[edit on 30-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:38 PM
---------Continued From Above------------

The IRS uses a type of trickery (Modus Operandi) in order to move their victim into the tax court This is done by sending the victim a Notice of Deficiency also known as a ninety day letter. In this Notice of Deficiency letter the target is informed that he has 90 days to petition the tax court if he disagrees with the amount that they have decided the target is going to pay. Note: the term “target” is a term used in the United States Attorney’s Manual in referring to the “taxpayer”.

By the way, in the Notice of Deficiency, it is common to see penalties and interest attached to the taxpayer for the manufacture, sale or distribution machine gun parts pursuant to 26 USC § 6651(a) and of course one of their favorites, civil fraud 26 USC § 6662.
By the way, in the Notice of Deficiency, it is common to see penalties and interest attached to the taxpayer for the manufacture, sale or distribution machine gun parts pursuant to 26 USC § 6651(a) and of course one of their favorites, civil fraud 26 USC § 6662. In Cramer v The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case # 11718.94, the petitioner, Mr. Cramer, pointed out to the court that the claim of civil fraud by the IRS reversed the burden of proof. The Court agreed. The Attorney for the government (currently under investigation by the inspector General's Office for criminal misconduct in this case, and the court was notified of this on the record before the hearing began) said, that upon review of the record, no fraud was present. However, the government did not remove the fine imposed under 26 USC § 6662. This ­is a fun case and one that Congress decided to review, not by choice, but just because Mr. Cramer pushed his way in through letter writing, thereby placing it on the record. Judge Powell was so unprepared for Mr. Cramer that several times the Judge claimed that the internal Revenue code is found in Title 28. Please find this case and study it. Review Mr. Cramer’s opening statement.

If we look at 26 U.S.C. § 7401, we will find that before any penalty, civil or criminal, can be applied, it requires the sanction (O-Kay) of the Attorney General or his/her delegate and the Secretary of the Treasury. Many a patriot has wasted their time going into tax court and arguing that 6651 (a) and 6662 could not and did not apply to them because they were a non-taxpayer, non- resident alien, did not deal in alcohol tobacco or firearms, etc. Remember, this is an Administrative Court and the Judge will remind you that this is a court of limited Jurisdiction. The court will not allow the “taxpayer” to go behind the Notice of Deficiency to determine if there is any basis in faCt for the deficiency.

What is meant by “go behind the deficiency”? When you petitioned the Tax Court to hear your complaint, you took on the position of the Plaintiff. The burden of proof became your responsibility. The government on the other hand, was the innocent Defendant. Yes, I said innocent. Under our form of (in)justice, the Defendant Is Innocent until proven guilty. The Defendant is not required to testify against himself. Also, the court is eager to grant a protective order denying the Petitioner any access to any records that would support his position and be embarrassing to the government. If you find yourself as the Plaintiff (petitioner), the burden of proof always falls on your shoulders. It is impossible to prove a negative. For those of you who have had the sad experience of going to Tax court, you realize what a mistake it was to take the bait and petition the Tax court. By doing so, you merely rubber stamped the IRS lie.

Some of you may have appealed the Tax Court decision to the Federal District Court. You also could have gone to this court in the first place by paying the tax first and then suing for a recovery. Fat chance! Just like our illustration, in the Tax court you are the Plaintiff. The burden of proof is on you. Again they played their trick and you took the bait. The government trots out the Anti-injunction Act 26 USC § 7421 and you are barred from stopping the collection process while you attempt to have your day in court. Again court rules play an important part. Pursuant to Rule 64 of the Civil Rules they may continue their collection process and you can do nothing more than watch your car, bank account, job, home and family go away. The American that brings a suit against the government in the Federal District Court only stands about a 12% chance of winning.

Well, you see everything leaving and you are trying to hold on to what little you have left, so you file bankruptcy. Congratulations, you just took the bait and are in their trap again. When you filed bankruptcy, you were able to by­pass the Anti-injunction Act for a short time. However, depending upon how aggressive the U. S. Attorney is, the automatic stay can be lifted in a matter of a few weeks. Again, the property can be seized and sold off. If the judge has a small understanding of the law he will require the IRS to supply the court with an inventory list of the property taken and any monies to be deposited with the registrar of the court.

Remember 28 U.S.C. § 2463? Along with doing battle with the U. S. Attorney, you will also find his helper, the Trustee for the Bankruptcy Court. By the way, the Trustee is the de facto owner of all your property. Again, because you petitioned the Bankruptcy Court, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders and the government can play hide and seek while they destroy you.

In Chapter One, our little lamb received a Notice of Lien. If he had taken the time to look at the signature line, it is quite likely that he would have found that it was never signed. In most cases the IRS uses a stamp for another party. For example: rubber stamp Jim Jones for James Doe Question: Is it possible for another person to testify for you as to your personal first hand knowledge? See FRCP Rule 56(e)(g). .

In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty jurisdiction, [see the HUNTRESS, Benedict on Admiralty, and 26 U.S.C. § 6321 as noted above.], and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract to which you are supposedly a party and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence. However it is the practice (Modus Operandi) of the IRS to bypass the court altogether and trick you into becoming the moving party. The IRS never ever admits on the record that they are moving in Admiralty.

No court has Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract that has been breached. And generally speaking only the parties of REAL INTEREST may bring an action.
Sometimes it is helpful if we take the time to draw a diagram of the steps taken in the process.

At the left hand top of the page you will note that a box containing the USA appears. Then, across from that box to the right a box containing The Governor of The International Monetary Fund AKA Secretary of the Treasury. These two boxes are not linked at this point Inasmuch as the Governor is not an agent for the USA and is therefore intra government as opposed to inter government.

The United States is a part owner of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and holds about 19 to 20% of the stock in this private corporation. (See: 22 USCA 286 et seq.) The Governor of the Fund can not be paid by the United States. Question: from where does the pay for the Judges of the Federal District Court come? BATF?

Below the box containing the Governor of the IMF we find the IRS. The Secretary makes the rules that the IRS must follow and Delegates authority to the Commissioner on down the line to the agents in the field. The Secretary, as the Governor of the IMF, is then in charge of the IRS. It follows that the agents in the field must be under his direct command if we have read the statues correctly.

Under his direction, some of the functions of the IRS are to send letters, make demands, visit and victimize their victims. This is done under the color of law. The phrase "color of law", means “something that appears to be genuine, but is not. These IRS agents are in fact, agents for the Governor of the IMF not the USA. Question: Why are there two separate sections in the Internal Revenue Code dealing with misconduct? (See: 26 USC §§ 7214 & 7433). Why are the Noticeso Lien "under Revenue Laws" not signed, but stamped for a third party? MODUS OPERANDI!'

Just to the left of the box containing the IRS we see a box around (DOJ) Department of Justice and arrows connecting these two entities. In the United States Attorney’s Manual (USAM), we find that the IRS and DOJ must work in harmony.

--------Continued Below---------

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:38 PM
--------Concluded From Above---------

USAM 6 - 4.010 reads in pertinent part - The Federal Tax Enforcement Program is designed to protect the public interest in preserving the integrity of this nation's self-assessment tax system...the Federal Tax Enforcement Program is designed to have the broadest possible impact on compliance attitudes by emphasizing balanced enforcement not only with respect to the types of violations prosecuted but also the geographic location and economic and vocational status…However, the tax enforcement program can only work effectively If the IRS, Department of Justice, and U.S. Attorneys work in harmony.

Below the IRS, is the beginning of the pattern or MO that the service follows, i.e., the Notice of Deficiency or 90 day letter. From this point, the arrows show the path between the various courts. If we follow this pattern, the United States becomes a party to the Action[s] and this allows the DOJ/U.S. Attorneys to come to the aid of their buddies. At this time, the government will spend any amount of money it needs, or if need be, threaten harm to you or someone or something close to you, outside of the hearing of the court. Yes, just like the NAZI party in Germany, these agents, misguided as they are, believe they are protecting our country. It was reported that an 84 year old woman was forced out of a rest home for a tax due from 1975 in 1994. (see: 26 U.S.C. § 650l(a)). It makes me feel sick every time this happens. One person can change this and it may be you! Remember commandments: 1&2.

There is another set of boxes connected to the IRS on our diagram. One box shows the Notice of Lien filed with the county recorder.

Then, follows the Notice of Seizure, Tax Sale and finally the Quiet Title Action in the State Court. This is the path we want to follow.

First of all, the Notice of Lien was a Libel on the public record. This Libel was not filed with the District court for the United States where the “res” is located. (You should go to the Court and request a Certificate of Search to use as proof of no claim filed.)

Next to follow in the Modus Operandi is the Seizure. (See: 28 U.S.C. §§ 2463 - ­2465). If the Court has not been notified of the seizure, how can it have control over any property taken under any revenue law, unless it was not for the benefit of the United States of America. It must have been for the use and benefit of another.

What happens at the tax sale? (Sale of home). The Special Procedures Function Officer is the agent that represents the governor of the International Monetary Fund, AKA Secretary of the Treasury. He is the grantor on a deed to the United States Internal Revenue Service. Question: why was it necessary for the IMF to transfer the lien to the United States Revenue Service? Answer: until this transaction took place the United States was not a party to the action. Finally, a Quit Claim Deed is given to the 'purchaser of the lien (private Party).

Just a note on Quit Claim Deeds: A Quit Claim Deed does not transfer any property rights. In point of fact, a Quit Claim Deed declares that the grantor of the deed holds no interest or equity in the property. For example, the reader of this book could issue a Quit Claim Deed for the State Capitol and this deed would be just as valid as the deed issued by the IRS for the home sold at the tax sale.

Finally, we arrive at the last segment of our diagram: Quiet Title action in the State court. The next thing that happens after the tax sale is that the purchaser of the lien realizes he does not have title to the property he supposedly purchased. Therefore, in order for him to perfect his title, it requires a Court Order. Now, from our studies, does the State Court have jurisdiction to hear this Quiet Title Action? Can the purchaser of the lien produce the court Order that authorized the sale? Is the purchaser the real party in interest? Can the real party in interest transfer said interest? If you have followed the Information so far, you can easily answer each one of these questions.

So basically, you have to go through searches of records in the right places...If they're not all filed properly, then you can present these facts & turn them into the plaintiff (shift the burden of proof) that has to provide evidence that they went through all the proper steps. And they won't because it's illegal if there's no "International Maritime contract" with your signature! If you weren't a party to any such contract, they don't have the evidence to prove any "violation" on your part!

The case falls apart & you can then turn around & file for counter-suit in Civil or Common Law Court for violating your Rights!

[edit on 30-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:08 PM
The international maritime contract is the income tax return. Is it not? The IRS / CCRA brings you before a tax court which is an administrative tribunal reguarding your income tax return claiming a breach of fiduciary duty on your part for holding the benefit & priviledge of citizenship and official title (officer's title) on that called the 'taxpayer'. Your zip code / postal code is the officers address. (Addressing an officer on a ship of state) also known as a military post (postal code? post office).

This is why your job is called an 'occupation' as in military occupation in service and why the gov't is always in a state of war such as the war on terror, on cancer, on poverty, on drugs etc.............

All titles are military in nature, even Doctor, P. Geol, Professor. Mr. or Mrs.

Ever wonder why war is called theatre? Why does the word person come from old english personhood or in greek persona meaning to wear a mask.

Why did Shakespear say all the worlds a stage.

Are you a man acting in the capacity of a person who holds a title?

When you hold a position on a ship the old term was to mann the lifeboats, mann the sails, etc.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:48 PM
This is all spot-on! I have been studying this for years and agree with most of what is being stated in this thread. I am at work now and cannot contribute materially at this point.

However, one thought that someone may want to investigate in the interim... Has anyone ever wondered why attorneys have the title ESQUIRE? Look into that for an even deeper understanding of the agents of Maritime/Admiralty Law.

I'll check back later and have much to add to this discussion. My hat off to the OP for starting this thread!

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by kozmo
Has anyone ever wondered why attorneys have the title ESQUIRE?

Well, according to Merriam-Webster's:

Main Entry: es·quire
Pronunciation: \ˈes-ˌkwī(-ə)r, is-ˈ\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French esquier squire, from Late Latin scutarius, from Latin scutum shield; akin to Old Irish sciath shield
Date: 15th century

1: a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight
2: a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight
3—used as a title of courtesy usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname
4archaic : a landed proprietor

I also tried looking it up in a Law Dictionary, but came up empty-handed...I'm already well aware that Law Dictionaries will have differing, but precise text compared to "common-usage" definitions.
However, I believe that it's a title granted by the English Crown for passing the (International) BAR exam...It's literally a title of nobility.

Which, in theory & practice, designates the title-holder as having given an Oath of Loyalty to England. Which also is Unconstitutional to hold any such foreign titles while in a USA government office (without the expressed consent of Congress). The precise clauses in the Constitution is Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 (forbidding the Feds) & Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 (forbidding the States):

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

(all bold emphasis is mine)
Yep...As many lawyers that have gone on to political jobs (and I've yet to find any Congressional documentation that allows such widespread "blanket permission"), each & every one of them denotes yet another violation of their Oaths of Office.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Congrats Midnight, you are 100% correct in every assertion!
Star for you buddy!

Yes, the Bar association is a FOREIGN corporation whose allegience is sworn to the Crown of England. In order to practice law in the United States you must a.) Complete law school, b.) Pass the BAR exam and c.) accept the title and oath of Esquire. Judges are not permitted to take the bench unless they are a member of the BAR. In short, our entire judicial system is foreign owned corporation whose allegience is to the Crown of England. Kind of scary isn't it?

There is so much I'd like to contribute to this thread. I will begin as soon as able. I have been following this for years!

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:01 AM

Here an update from my part.
Thanks for all of you that contribute to this subject.
I appreciate all the info as it's already hard to find info on this subject.
I want to write about the history of this Admiralty/Marine law but first this.

The Constitution
The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is, therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law 'operating orders' or 'ship's orders'; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system.

The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a 'body politic' - both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire. All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are 'ship's orders' of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause. (In the US Constitution, it is the 'general welfare' clause). This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion. 'The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY 'rules or regulations' when he DEEMS it necessary 'for the GOOD of the ship.' That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the 'common sense' realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land.

Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.


posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:03 AM
Hello ATS,

I continue with an example on how we are tricked into believing to admiralty law is the only law...

If one understand Maritime Admiralty Law and how it applys on the land now, then one can see a possible reason for this if staged. One would also have to monitor the words and language spoken to see if theres a real connection. Remember the words which you think you know, you do not. Words like Vehicle, traffic, road/roadway etc are all corporate terms for business.
Same as if a corporate police officer asks:

Were you driving the vehicle sir?

No but I was travelling in my carriage.

I ask you again sir was you driving on this road?

No I was travelling in my carriage upon this common way

I have to also speak with your passenger sir

No you may speak to my guest but I have no passenger

But is he not with you sir whilst your driving?

No whilst I've been travelling my guest has been with me.

Same thing sir

No far from it, my guest has not paid me any currency
to travel with myself. Therefore he is merely a guest

So do did you drive this vehicle again sir?

No I was in control of my carriage merely travelling.
So also my friend when on hears the word Traffic this is a corporate term. The real definition is commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like. That was lifted straight out of a dictionary from 1914 called Bouvier's Law. So quite frankly this may simply be another signal of some sorts based upon the disruption or possible disruption of corporate traffic haha. Interesting isn't it when you know occult teachings on the bird cage system we're within haha. You'll never think like you once did, you never did think you just responded with a flight action programmed into you by the system previously. Now you will think with that powerful brain independantly for once. Now when we consider this was being broadcasted by British Intelligence well we can only wonder at what devious occult signals their trying again. One thing with my scenario above is that you then have to watch what corporate contracts you've signed. Remember when the carriage was registered as a corporate vehicle against a number plate? Well they can start nawing at you from this angle then


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in