Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Crazy Rep. Michele Bachmann Calls for Armed Revolution

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Common Law vs Maritime Law and the Constitution...
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

:snip:

New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. 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.

:snip:

We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution? And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing -- playing the wrong ball game.

We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce -- Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden 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.
Quite a mouthful eh???

[edit on 3/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]




posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
It is my feeling that this lady is not fooling around.

I think she is really trying to shake it up.

Her and her husband own a small buisness with 42 employees.

I believe under it all, she is calling to arms to really call to arms. Now in her position, she has to make it sound like figuritive angle.

When is the last time you heard someone in Congress use that quote from Jefferson?

She means buisness, period.

I also don't think she is with what the Republicans have done either, this lady knows the Constitution and has referred to it for years.

I think she is starting to push the buttons because Ron Paul has been very verbal.

Star and Flag for my friend the OP.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I'm personally fully backing Representative Bachmann, and her call to arms! The Obama administration and the Congress need to be reminded who they serve, and also who will string them up by their heels on lampposts if the situation calls for it.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Unfortunately, the source (Bachmann) is absolutely nuts.
Like when I say nuts, I mean nuts.

If you are not politically conservative, heterosexual, and with a literal interpretation of the Bible apparently you are anti-American.

If you haven't be subject to this woman before (and you kind of just picked her up here in this regard) I suggest taking a look at things she has said in the past before you go champion her as some kind of freedom fighter for the common good.

This woman, unless you fit into her specifications of an "ideal American", is not fighting for you by any means.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_awoke
 
What does it matter, her personal beliefs?

The Bill of Rights states we have the freedom to believe in almost anything, as long as we do no harm to our fellow mans life, liberty or Pursuit of happiness...

...And as far as the "Gay Marriage" thingy...this is another can of worms, but, being as the United States (not of america) Bill of Rights use Gods Inalienable Rights, it only seems fair that this should be the guiding hand on that subject...(flame on...
)

A "Civil Union" might be invoked, but, actual marriage by Religious Contract...Hmmm...

[edit on 3/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


Im sorry, Hx.....

But you are citing something from a source called 'biblebelievers'???

What's more, look at the last bit if theri URL...seems it is an Australian website?

Whilst I think that not only ATS should have a 'wordly' view of things but every rational thinking human being should be able to also, I find the 'source' of you last post questionable.

Many reasons, I think they are self-evident.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_awoke
 


When those voices first stood up in England and said they had enough, sought refuge in America then told the Queen where she could stick it were considered nuts as well............

But thank God those brave women and men did just that........

It is our duty and responsibility for the past and the future to honor their sacrifices.......



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Stress every where I go and for good reason. The world has become a very real nasty place to live. What happen to create this hellish mess of humanity. "When they call evil good and good evil" look out because the end is surely near. Insane insanity how could anyone not agree and not a thousand solutions will work to solve, correct this terminal hellish mess. The answer is the end will cure itself because it is "THE END". What concerns me is what comes next, another f**k-up humanity that looses its compassion and forgets (again) what is right and good. Better hope their is a God that does care for only a real "GOD" could turn this evil hellish mess into something "good". We could have had it all if only we were not human.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


Sorry, Hx....please don't hijack your own thread.

NOWHERE did I see anything in Ms. Bachman's comments about 'Gay Marriage'.

Seems you have another agenda here, and perhaps you're in the wrong forum.

As to (sorry awake, it was directed to you...) the 'Inalienable Rights' aspect....you, Hx, sorta contradicted yourself. You said something like....'as long as noone gets hurt'....but, Ms. Bachman is advocating sedition, which could lead to armed conflict.

It's almost as if she is suggesting another 'civil war'???

For what?!? She lives in Wisconsin!!! Does she wish to secede to Canada???

The woman is nuts. Wisconsin is NOT going to be a 'break-away' State. Perhaps she can get Minnesota and Michigan to join....

EDIT because.....I misspoke. Ms. Bachmann is from Minnesota, not Wisconsin....that was MY BAD. Still, I cannot fathom her brand of craziness being tolerated by the folk in that part of MY Country....unless she's part of a cult of some kind. Perhaps a direction worth investigating??

[edit on 3/28/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Star 4 U!

Disagreement is what the Country thrives on...

If I were you I'd look into it a little deeper, before casting it off, just on the assumption of whatever, because of a Web-Sites link name...

It makes perfect sense to me...ever notice how TPOTUS makes personal notes on the side of bills and resolutions?

Disregards sections he deems fit?

Does this not fit into the above scenerio?

Links can be provided to emphasize these actions being take by BOTH current/past leaders...

And as far as inciting a armed revolt..I believe (in duality) she wants her constitutents armed with information...and called for peaceful unrest...but it will lead to more drastic action if this to fails to get our "Masters of the Universe" to heed our will and wishes...she merely states what is already being discussed, in darkly lit choked whispers...

I could be completely off on this, as I can't read her mind, but...

And on the "Gay Marriage" thing...might of went to far...as in leading hetro-sexual right into that can of worms...


And on the "leaving the union"...last I heard 20+ states had crafted articles of sovereign rights...to attempt to cover this contingency...no need to leave the land of the union...

[edit on 3/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 

Notice how Barney Frank would not let Geithner answer the question she asked, even though she started to ask it, well before her time expired. The answer would have been interesting, because she asked him if the American taxpayer will get 90-95% of the returns regarding the new legislation introduced the day before the hearings.

This is a tactic that Frank uses very frequently, but only when he doesn't like the person speaking. I've seen times when someone has gone over 30 seconds, and he lets them finish.

Of course, Barney and friends are responsible for this entire financial mess, because of their legislation which forced lenders to give mortgages to people that they knew would never be able to pay them back. Rather ironic, especially since Geithner could have taken less time to give his answer, than Blarney spent yelling at Bachman about the time. Yea, he really wants answers!!NOT!



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Maybe you should hit the light switch yourself.The congresswoman is right.The time for action is now. How can you possibly defend the actions of theese crooks and criminals that have been elected or appointed to positions of power in our goverment? Theese people trample our rights and totally disregard the constitution. It is our duty as citizens to protect the constitution from all comers whether we elected them or not, foreign or domestic! It is time for the sheeple people to take a seat.The true patriots of this nation understand what must be done.We are taking our country back and the time is now.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
This rep seems a little over the top. Perhaps she just can't stand being relatively unimportant and needs a little limelight and PR to boost her ego and get voters to notice.

She should be counseled on the sedition law before her big mouth gets her into big trouble.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


Thnx for the star, Hx....but I just connot see the connection between Maritime Law as cited (which, face it, is British in its nature) and the American template for a Constitutional Representational Democracy.

True, that in ancient Sea Traditions, the Captain was the 'dictator' of sorts.
However, even in British Maritime traditions, there was a 'chain of command'. It's just that, as President Harry S. Truman once famously noted, 'The Buck Stops Here'.

The Captain of a sea-going vessel, just as the Captain of an airliner, is ultimately responsible for the actions of his/her crew. It is the responsiblity of the Captain to utilize his/her crew, and their talents, in the utmost way, for the good of the 'ship'.

This analogy doesn't really translate to an elected-official scenario. Because, a Captain is not 'elected', he/she is 'promoted' by a hierarchy.

The POTUS can be removed from office....not in a 'mutiny' per se, but through very-well establish Constitutionally mandated procedures. Not willy-nilly, but steeped in law.

In a Parliamentary government, such as Great Britain, the PM can be replaced rather easily, by comparison. BUT, it seems, GB has moved more toward the side of a 'democratically voted' decision in these matters.

(For our friends across the Pond, please correct as necessary)

What is most disturbing about Ms. Bachman (or is it 'Bachmann'?) is her impolitic 'rantings'.....and the deafening silence....the 'crickets in the background' from any Repulicant official of any note to call upon her to recant her comments.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The cool thing about violent action by the people "creating another civil war" is that it is 100% preventable. The only reason violent resistance is even starting to become an option is because the non-violent methods are clearly ineffective. If the government would adhere to the calls, cries and screams of the People, then there would be absolutely no need for violence. Don't criticize American Citizens that are doing their duty to try to keep control of their country. The root cause of this posed violent revolution is not the far-right wacko's or some mentally crazed republican representative from Wisconsin, it is purely the effect caused by an oppressive Government.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


In response to your previous post in reply to my own:

Does it matter? Do her views, as inflammatory as they may be, have anything to do with her "armed revolution" diatribe?

Yes, in this context it does. Context is very important I believe. It heightens our understanding, and the possible credibility, of the matter in question.





[edit on 28-3-2009 by awake_awoke]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


ProfE.....are you familiar with a bill championed by Phil Gramm (R) some 10 years ago?

It was a signed on to by two others....names escape me...but essentially it stripped the laws implemented after the CRASH of 1929 in the Banking Industry....provided legislative walls between Banking, Insurance and Speculative Investing.

THESE were Republicants who tore down those walls.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D, SD) predicted at the time a catastrophe in 1999...he said in about ten years, by 2010 at the latest, we'd see a meltdown similar to the 'crash'......

Do some 'googling' if you don't believe me.

Or, just keep parroting the 'Faux News' 'talking points'....more BS for the 'sheeple'.....

EDIT because.....for some reason we have gone astray....this is supposed to be about 'crazy' Michelle Bachmann....and suddenly Barney Frank gets blamed for something on Wall Street?!?

Ms. Bachmann is NOT advocating a viable solution to the economic crisis....she's just a raving lunatic, IMO. Yes, even lunatics can have moments of clarity, as she did when questioning Secretary Geihtner. But, her presence of mind didn't seem to last very long.......





[edit on 3/28/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Wake up .Protecting our constitution and our duty as citizens to do so is not sedition.Just because we elected theese crooks does not mean we should blindly follow.We need to correct our misguided votes.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
To hear a political figure talk about armed conflict is at the least,scary but I think she is saying what a lot of people think is comeing.

For you to deny all the evidence of a real problem with America right now is just plain lame.You go to Bush and you don't like the source and you think the only buisnessies the fed will take are those on there way out and toxic,I have to ask a question,do you really trust this administration this much,you don't seem to be a fool,but what do I know.

You know when (and if)the martial law head busters come to bring us all to order,we will all be the same to them,no left,right,libertarian,or socialist,they will treat us all the same,unless your one of them.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
She represents Minnesota, not Wisconsin.

But she's right. I like to see people in positions of power saying this kind of thing. It's just what is needed to get all those millions who are on the fence to move.

If more of them start to speak out then even more who were afraid will begin to step up.

The people will be less afraid to stand up.





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join