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.


Proof we're under martime admiralty law. You are chattel. They own you

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:04 AM
I found a website refuting the various sovereign person/admirality law stuff.

I have no reason to believe that this site is less valid than any of the sites that posit the conspiracy theory, which sounds a lot like cherry picking of evidence.

There's a good reason that most lawyers consider this bunk - and it's not because they're all magically less informed than amateur law buffs educated mainly by the internet.

It's because there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

This is also a tremendous waste of time, and making such arguments in a court room place you at high risk of a severe thrashing by the system.


some quotes from the link:

XI. Common Law Court:

These courts have been declared non-existent.

1. Kimmel v. Burnet County Appraisal Dist., 835 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.App. 1992).


XVI. The US is "foreign" to the states:

A popular belief promoted in the freedom movement is the concept or idea that the United States is a foreign sovereign as regards the states. How this idea got started is beyond me because the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have concluded otherwise; see Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876)("The United States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States"); Severson v. Home Owners Loan Corp., 88 P.2d 344, 347 (Ok. 1939)(quoting Claflin); Bowles v. Heckman, 64 N.E.2d 660, 662 (Ind. 1946)(quoting Claflin); Kersting v. Hardgrove, 48 A.2d 309, 310 (N.J. 946)(summarizes Claflin); Harrison v. Herzig Bldg. & Supply Co., 290 Ky. 445, 161 S.W.2d 908, 910 (1942)(quoting Claflin); Robinson v. Norato, 71 R.I. 256, 43 A.2d 467, 471 (1945)(quoting Claflin and further stating "the several States of the Union are neither foreign to the United States nor are they foreign to each other").


XVII. Citizenship:

In Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892), the U.S. Supreme Court stated as follows:

"Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 'Every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' Section 1693. And this is the view expressed by Mr. Rawle in his work on the Constitution. Chapter 9, pp. 85, 86. Mr. Justice Curtis, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States 'every free person, born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And Mr. Justice Swayne, in The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 126, declared that 'a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.' "


We can all post links to various court decisions supporting both sides.

It doesn't get us anywhere.

As a means of change, it is an exercise in futility.

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:51 AM
I think threads like this are important and the more threads like this appear the better.

They sure do bring out a lot of skeptics, no ifs, ands, or buts about that!

It's amazing how many people feel this insane control grid we are seemingly locked into is actually both a good and all powerful thing that one should never challenge.

Even if none of what's posted in these threads is true (this is not the case though in my opinion and experience) it would behove us all and the system itself for more people to challenge it's power. After all if the people never do challenge the system's power it will just continue to grow beyond all reason like it has, with nary a second thought of the system's own if that's a good thing for the system let alone the people.

Knock on wood I rarely get in any controversies with the authorities and thankfully when I have most recently they have been of a very minor kind.

Yet I have challenged the state using some of these methods in part because I once had great success with the Federal Government doing something similiar out of accidental and ignorant desperation.

Unbeknownst to me at the time I had stumbled upon a hidden truth and evoked it innocently more out of a desperate sense that the novelty of it would be considered entertaining to the court.

It did turn out to be highly entertaining for the court, but it also turned out to cause them in a very binding way to set aside the minimum mandatory guidelines in sentencing that the government claims it is bound to use.

I knew nothing about Maritime Law at the time, but took a crash course through encyclopedias regarding something very similar.

In fact Maritime Law is nothing but an extension of ROMAN LAW.

In fact the gold fringed flags denoting a ship happen to be Roman Ships!

Roman Citizens had the greatest rights when it came to trials against them than any other person living in the Republic or Empire.

Just stating one was a Roman Citizen totally changed how you would be dealt with when you were accused of a crime.

Classic Rome loved to be entertained not just in the Colloseums and Hypodromes, and not just in the Theatres but in the Court Room as well.

So with a seemingly sealed fate I struck upon the idea of attempting to appear a pseudo intellectual by evoking some well known Ancient Roman Defense Ploys including the Latin Words which were used to declare and desribe the ploys.

When I say ploys they aren't meant to challenge one's guilt but in fact to have one's guilt excused for various extenuating circumstances from the hardship it would cause to your family to the fact that the State itself benefited from the crime committed and a few others in between.

I thought in doing this I might be able to demonstrate to the Court the style of justice it literally was based upon when the United States developed it's Court System, I thought I could demonstrate that the law can and should be an adjustible instrument that can and should always include a human ellement of flexibility.

I thought at best this would make me appear a semi-worldy, psuedo-intellectual and might help or at least couldn't hurt.

I thought at worst it would result in the Judge telling me to sit down and shut up after She had her fill of such frivolity.

What I hadn't anticipated was that the Court Room would be riveted to my every word for a forty minute presentation that ran the gauntlet of six classic Roman Republic Defense Ploys.

When the Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the crimes in question began to wince every time I uttered a series in Latin at first I thought perhaps my prenonciation of the words was off. It really was as if every time I spoke some, someone was twisting an invisible knife in his side.

Yet by the time I got through the next to the last ploy he and his assistant were actually in tears, as was the Judge, as was every other person in the Court Room except my Lawyer who I had benched to make my direct appeal to the court.

When I finished the Court Room remained silent save the odd sniffle and reaching for a kleenex or hankercheif for the next 15 minutes as the Judge tore through one book after another on shelves beside her bench.

She kept frowning until finally she found one that made her smile!

She gave me something to smile about too! What was meant to have been a cut and dry procedure with a certain perscribed penalty already certain had radically changed.

I didn't know how it had changed precisely but as the Judge announced her determination before declaring it final she stopped to ask the prosecutor if he intended to appeal.

When he said no, he opened the door for me to walk out of the Courtroom a free man.

What I didn't know at the time, is that by some blind luck through my strategy I had actually for all intents and purposes declared myself to be a 'Free Roman Citizen'.

I thought I was in a Federal District Courthouse in Greenbelt MD just outside of Washington D.C.

In reality though I was on a Roman Flagged Ship and through my novel ploy identified myself as a Roman Citizen that as a Roman Citizen is due every possible privelage and exception to the Laws when and where at all possible and the State and it's property truly does not suffer.

This radically changed the playing field. This radically changed the outcome.

There of course was still a contract to be signed. There is always a contract. As so many people point out there is a reason for that.

It is all based on fanciful contract law that allows the State to exist as an enterprise which is what a real Ship is. Ship's sail for profit not just to get a person from point A to point B.

It is all about maximizing that profit (Through prison labor if need be) and keeping the entire crew functioning at maximum productivity for profit.

It is for the most part a decision based on how the State can profit most off of you. How the Ship can profit most.

Yet when the State has actually suffered no real loss and no real damage to property has occured the State in fact has wide latitude to decide based on your own attitude towards the State and your belief or lack of belief in who you are, how to profit off of your misfortune as an enterprise.

This is what most people don't understand. A dollar loss in fact is not a real loss since our currency is paper and is not attached to anything of value. That is a hypothetical loss and a fictional loss, the State can print as much paper currency as it desires for it's needs and it has demonstrated this well through the Bailouts. The State doesn't even have to be responsible for how it uses this paper currency it prints and it has demonstrated that through the Bailouts and our huge defecits.

Though it would be many years until I understood why my fortunes changed so dramatically through my actions and words that day there was no denying at the time something extraoidanary had taken place.

So much so that as the U.S. Marshall responsible for taking me to another room to sign the Contract walked up to greet me he stuck out his hand to shake mine and said "Thank you, that was a rare treat to see, I have been guarding these court rooms for 22 years and in that whole time I have seen maybe 2 or 3 attorneys put on a show like you did, that was an amazing thing to see".

So in reality I made no enemies doing what I did but turned some very advesarial people into supporters as they agreed to the Judge's leinancy in disposing of the matter.

I truly had no idea that what I was doing could have the potential to change the outcome at all, let alone radically change the outcome.

Seeing is believing and I saw something that day that years later when I first started reading information in some of these threads like this one made me start to say 'Ah now I get it!'

So now when I get some silly ticket I question them on the Contract, on the Code and take care not to let them trick me into a Contract based on an unconstitutional code, based on a departure from common law.

They challenge it only to the extent that they want to see if you are really under that impression and are prepared to stick to it.

Then they just want you to go away, so you don't upset the other passengers on the ship that know no better.

The bottom line is we do live in Rome, and Roman Law exists through Contract and Maritime Law. There are a million common reasons for the common person to dismiss this who has never had the misfortune of coming into contact with the system and respects the system as something that must be protecting them in part because they never come in contact with it to be persecuted by it. Such people feel that is primarily due to their own clean living and that those who do run afoul of the system deserve what ever the system decides as a result.

The reality is good clean living is living as an obedient unquestioning economic free range slave who is forced to give up over 55% of their income to the State in taxes, fees, and inusrances. The remaining 45% much of which goes to the State's principal business and Corporate Interests in rent, mortgages, other loans, other fees, and the basic commodiities needed for life.

You are only as free as the amount of money in your pocket allows you to be. If you have no money you are not going far and you sure aren't staying long, and you sure aren't doing much when you are!

People have nothing to loose and everything to gain by seeking out a greater understanding of the law and the world and to challenge the system.

It is after all the true Roman way and we do truly live in Rome.

For those curious the crime in question was not slight, it involved 7 figures, and the victims of it were banks and clearing houses.

Those same banks that when they run out of money just get the government to print and give them more and charge it to you!

Think people!

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

"It's amazing how many people feel this insane control grid we are seemingly locked into is actually both a good and all powerful thing that one should never challenge."

This is simply false It's a fabrication. I never said it.

It's illogical and untrue to assume that just because I reject this arrangement of tenuous conclusions, drawn from a highly selective set of facts, I must therefore want a 'control grid', or enjoy being in one.

Challenging facts is fine - but not every hypothesis is necessarily true just because a researcher is able to generate a little data in its favor. There may be other data our there that argues a different conclusion.

If putting words in my mouth makes you feel better about shutting out all possibility of doubt, no one's gonna stop you.

I looked at the evidence just as I have in the past, and I don't find it convincing.

What I DO believe, you simply don't know, because I never talked about it.

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:12 AM
I'm sorry to revive an aging thread, but I don't have enough posts yet to start my own! So I'm adding my $0.02 worth.

I just recently blogged about this @

And I completely disagree with this, but did agree with the reasoning at first.

There seems to be a growing controversy over the flags displayed by the government and financial institutions alike. The controversy you ask? The inclusion of gold fringe on the bottom border of the United States flag.

Proponents for the fringe seem to have a very sound, logical reasoning for the gold fringe. Page 14 of a CRS Report for Congress entitled, The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to the Display and Associated Questions states as follows,

"The placing of a fringe on the flag is optional with the person or organization, and no Act of Congress or Executive Order either requires or prohibits the practice. Fringe is used on indoor flags only, as fringe on flags used outdoors would deteriorate rapidly. The fringe on a flag is considered an “honorable enrichment only” and its official use by the Army dates from 1895. A 1925 Attorney General’s Opinion states:

The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under the law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe."


It is the authors opinion that this confusion stems from the divergence of admiralty law into a new entity of contract law evolving later into the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). While the UCC may share lineage to admiralty, they are not one in the same.

In addition to this confusion, people are associating the the UCC with federal statutes. This is again, two seperate things we are dealing with. Federal statutes contend with jurisdiction, whereas the UCC is a means to contract. We will discuss jurisdiction, the UCC, the difference between legal/lawful, and what a statute is later.

For now I leave you with this. I hope I have helped to inform some of you that admiralty law is in fact not in effect, and that the constitution is not suspended by fringe on the flag. Nor is military law in effect...

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by keeb333
reply to post by Donny 4 million

No, the state does not "own" my children any more than I do. People cannot be owned (see the 13th Amendment). Slavery is illegal in the United States.

At one time, slaves would have been considered chattel, but this no longer applies.

Interesting nick you have there - with three three's and all ...

On the surface, it looks as if you are right. People can't really be owned - at least, living human beings can't be owned.

But "persons" can.

A "person" is created, when you register your child. BOTH parents then sign the child's registration, which then provides the JOINDER between the living human being, and the paper-"person", making the child effectively owned by the government - they can do anything they want to the child, because it's now joined with the "person" that THEY created (and thus own).

They own the "allodial title" to the child's "person". And you provide the joinder between the living human being and the paper-"person" they created - you have simply the lesser title (you don't own the "person", but you are the designated guardian - as long as it fits the government, that is).

Do you have the freedom to choose when your child goes to school, or IF he/she goes to school, or does government decide it? Which of you really then owns the child?

Do you have the freedom to take your child away from a government school for a holiday, any time YOU want - or do you have to wait until the "government-designated time" comes, when all the kids have holiday?

If the government doesn't own your child (at least in effect), then WHY do you think they can dictate ANYTHING concerning supposedly "your child"?

It's not just semantics or talk about slavery - this is a very real thing, manifesting in the everyday life of almost all of us.

Can the government take your child away, if it sees fit? (For example, if someone complains to the social services that you are "abusing" (that's an easy word to define, isn't it?) your child - regardless of whether you actually do or not)

I know you probably think you are rational and you probably mean well, but you simply lack the knowledge of how deep this goes, and how this all works. You have been DUPED, but that doesn't mean that your children can't be owned - they can, and they are, and you willingly HELPED it happen!

Don't sign any forms from the government - don't sign registrations, applications or submissions! Regis = King.

Registration = Property of the king = Property of the government. You transfer the allodial title of your car when your register it, and you only have the 'right to use' it. If the government wants, it can take your car away. How can that be, if it's YOUR car?

Submission = well, we all know what it means to SUBMIT UNDER SOMEONE ELSE'S AUTHORITY, and that's what every single government submission does that you sign.

Application = to apply means "to beg". So you are basically BEGGING that your rights will be taken away, and that you can get some privileges instead. You are begging to be allowed to consent to being governed by acts and statutes, although as a human being, you only have to obey the LAW. And not the admiralty law either, but the law of the land, or common law.

I can see myself writing that you wrote, just a few years ago. But since, I bumped into knowledge about how the system works, and it scared the # out of me. And I started researching, and came to the inevitable conclusion... yep, we have all been duped. ALL my cards have supposedly "my name", in CAPITALS, and surname first. That was the first proof... since then, I have acquired many, many more. And I can now see this thing working the way it does in everything.. now all those puzzling quirks about the system that I always used to wonder make PERFECT SENSE.

I don't blame you for not knowing this, because it's not taught in schools, or the mainstream media. Most important truths never are. Trust me on this - they never are. Anyone who wants to know the truth about anything signifigant, has to use other means to obtain it than mainstream media or government schools.

So, while it's TECHNICALLY true that living human beings can't be owned, in practice, because of what people have signed, it has become much less true - only if you break the joinder, it becomes true again - but otherwise, you'd be wrong.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:50 AM
Yeah, the whole thing is cleverly based on one of the human rights we ALL have (at least when we reach the age of consent).

The right to unlimited contracting.

There are no limits to what kind of contracts human beings can enter into - SO we have been duped into the kind of contracts no human being in their right mind would ever voluntarily sign, if they had full disclosure of it.

The thing is, we don't have full disclosure, and "everyone else is doing it", so it seems and has become 'normal'. People don't question it, they don't think about it, and if someone tries to tell them the truth, they simply say "humans can't be owned, look at 13th amendment", while not realizing that the whole constitution is meaningless, if you sign contracts that make it ineffective as far as you are concerned!

That's what it's based on .. research the rest for yourself.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:55 AM
Read the criticism of these "Freeman of the land" crackpot ideas here

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:01 AM

originally posted by: Shoujikina
Yeah, the whole thing is cleverly based on one of the human rights we ALL have (at least when we reach the age of consent).

The right to unlimited contracting.

There are no limits to what kind of contracts human beings can enter into - SO we have been duped into the kind of contracts no human being in their right mind would ever voluntarily sign, if they had full disclosure of it.

The thing is, we don't have full disclosure, and "everyone else is doing it", so it seems and has become 'normal'. People don't question it, they don't think about it, and if someone tries to tell them the truth, they simply say "humans can't be owned, look at 13th amendment", while not realizing that the whole constitution is meaningless, if you sign contracts that make it ineffective as far as you are concerned!

That's what it's based on .. research the rest for yourself.

We do not have rights, the bill of rights was created to limit the power of government. Huge, HUGE difference in the court of law.

John Adams talking about his state's Constitution, said:

"Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty." -- Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

"These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States." -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

"...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution..." "In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ...And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable." -- Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

"The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise."

"I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism."

"It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution." -- Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

I met someone that showed me this card, and I asked him WTF is that? He then pointed to his car and showed me had no plates. He had no SSN, no driver license ... nothing. Only this card he was showing me. He said any time he gets pulled over he shows the officer this card and nothing happens. I asked him repeatedly how he did this and the only thing he'd tell me was to study the constitution and that it requires serious money to put up with ignorant judges quick to anger.

There's a very precise reason why law is written so the average cannot understand it. Language is and always has been the most effective weapon in existence.
edit on 23-4-2016 by Flesh699 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 08:02 AM
I believe a lot of information can be gained from reading and understanding the origins of the Uniform Commercial Codes.

Admiralty law is real, but be careful how you present the fact you know it to those who are part of the workings of it.

They make cages for rebellious slaves, and they are not afraid to fill them.
edit on 23-4-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: Ty-Po

posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 08:04 PM
Donald Trump just hugged a flag with gold fringe!

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in