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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Chorlton
reply to post by PPLwakeUP

No Im sorry but you are quite totally and utterly wrong.

The UK has Common law, as explained earlier and also Statute Law. There is also Canon law but that really has little to do with people outside of the church.

International Maritime Law has no legal status outside of the sea, or acts committed upon it.

You I'm afraid are wrong, Maritime Admiralty Law over rules the law of the land, its just on the quiet, do some research.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 03:49 AM
Hello ATS,

Ok here is the history of Admiralty/Marine Law:

Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war -- such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property -- both real and personal, etc.

Another way to understand admiralty law -- it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700's. As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments -- the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.

Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don't have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law -- and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.

Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal. Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc. In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction -- only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.

For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case -- the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination. There's no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways -- but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses. There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business -- only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain's regulations.

Having identified the symptoms of the problem, we must diagnose the cause to find a solution. We have been fighting the effects too long while the disease rages unabated. Since we have identified the cause, and understand its nature and characteristics, we [hopefully] can build a winning case.


posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 03:18 AM
Hell ATS,

Time for a small update.

I found this jewel on youtube.
Check the fringes on the flags and watch how the officers react. Admiralty LAW on it's BEST!

[edit on 11/19/2008 by PPLwakeUP]

[edit on 11/19/2008 by PPLwakeUP]

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer

WOW I have been studying this topic since 1993 and this thread has tied up many loose ends. I have found nothing I can disagree with. I have used a great deal of in the information that is available here. I personally didnt get it here but its the same info. I beat the Louisiana Department of Revenue with similar knowledge, its was bloody so bloody the Secreatary of the Deparmtnet of Revenue Resigned the next day. BTA docket 4440 from 1994

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:24 AM

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.

How is it evading, if you are not even the target? You don't need to pay taxes, only your "person" / "strawman" is obliged to do that. It's not evading, it's truthful and lawful living. If I am not going parachuting tomorrow, I am not "evading" parachuting. I am simply living my life.

Common law and law of the land are one and the same thing.

Who cares about 'legally', when lawful is all that matters? Legal System only concerns those who have consented to being governed by it. Others don't have to care what's legal and what isn't. So why would it matter that you can travel 'legally'?

Traveling without passport might be a tad tricky in the airports.. I doubt the security would let you through, if you want to travel, let's say from USA to Japan, or from Europe to Hawaii.

I'd like to know how that's arranged as a freeman though.. Menard suggested that you should give the recipient country 10000 USD/EUR/Whatever, or worth that in gold, as ensurance that you will be lawful and will not stay too long in their country, or something. And arranging this beforehand would assure it. But I don't know - it sounds a bit difficult and too theoretical to me - how can that really be done? If you have any info about people having travelled BY AIRPLANE as freemen on the land, I'd really like to know about it.

I mean, sure, if you travel inside Europe by trains and such, it's relatively easy. But if you travel from one country to another, it can be a problem. And I do realize you mentioned 'western world', but what if you want to also travel to the 'eastern world' as well, like Japan?

I don't have a lot of answers, but I sure have a heckuva lot of questions..

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
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.

I'd like to add, that if you remain SILENT... that constitutes as a "YES", so they win again.

I think the only way out would be to CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT, and ask questions before answering theirs, like "Does my answering create a liability/contract?" or something like that. But this is just my theory, don't go blaming me if something goes wrong ... just pondering how it works.

Another way might be to question whether the court is in session yet, and so on - they can't form a contract, if the whole court session can't even get started. You can ask if the judge is under his oath, and ask him all kinds of things of similar nature. Also, if you remain sitting, you are not "standing under their authority", and so on.

But it's a terrible and complex situation - I know I would probably slip up if I tried something like that.

The real question is; WHY GO to a court? Summons is only an invitation (but if you fail to respond, you are in dishonor, and they win), that doesn't have to be obeyed. Why play their game? Why step into "their jurisdiction" in the first place? (especially since there are so many steps between receiving a 'summons' and actually standing there, that you can use to diminish and dismiss the whole thing before it even starts)

edit on 29-7-2012 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in