the usa is still owned by the crown

reply to post by duality90


City State of the Vatican, as well as the City State of St. Louis MO. The Queen is a figure head, not a head of Government, and as such doesnt get to walk into everything just because she is the Queen.

Maritime Law is not used on land. It is specifically High Seas. The laws we use on land stem from English common law.

Military Tribunal? Not sure how you see that, as military is absolutely prohibited from Civilian Law Enforcement (Posse Commitatus - Exception to this is the National Gaurd IE State armies).

The military by the way is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They are seperate from civilian law (unless the comit a crime off base, and even then State/Feds will talk about who is gonna get to prosecute etc.

Maritime/Admiralty law are one in the same.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by duality90

 

City State of the Vatican, as well as the City State of St. Louis MO. The Queen is a figure head, not a head of Government, and as such doesnt get to walk into everything just because she is the Queen.

Maritime Law is not used on land. It is specifically High Seas. The laws we use on land stem from English common law.

Military Tribunal? Not sure how you see that, as military is absolutely prohibited from Civilian Law Enforcement (Posse Commitatus - Exception to this is the National Gaurd IE State armies).

The military by the way is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They are seperate from civilian law (unless the comit a crime off base, and even then State/Feds will talk about who is gonna get to prosecute etc.

Maritime/Admiralty law are one in the same.

I think you meant to quote the other poster.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by GhostR1der

 

that is the trillion dollar question answered
if you follow the money back through the banks you end up with the queens private banker he has direct controll through proxie banks and holding companys that own the fed on behalf of the queen or crown of england

this is the control over federal reserve and by proxie the govenment that the crown bears over america

xploder

Evidence of this? Although the material wealth of the Queen in terms of Royal holdings of land throughout the UK is considerable, they certainly don't seem to be flaunting that wealth, given that they have been making cutbacks in their expenditure. I am not even sure of what their amassed personal wealth in reserve is, as much of their spending is provided for by the taxpayer.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

ex link to location of city state of london
en.wikipedia.org...

im sorry but only speculation about the owners and laws about this place is avaliable

no proof

xp

edit to add the wikipedia photo is of the london city centre

when in fact the city state of london is fully fenced and not in the citys centre

its like the vatacan is its own country in a country
so is this city state

[edit on 17-8-2010 by XPLodER]

What the hell are you talking about? There is nothing like the Vatican inside London in the sense of a separate fenced off city you incompetent. There is the City of London, which is a name used to describe the area between Westminster and Canary Wharf, but no "fenced off" city like you describe. If you're going to make ridiculous claims, can they please be at least passably believable as opposed to downright lies?

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

no i do not charge that any judge or process is corrupt or criminal [xp]

Again, aside from making wild and insulting accusations against the judiciary, do you actually have any examples of this bias occuring? Your accusation is like saying that Doctors don't treat patients to the best of their ability so that insurance companies don't have to keep paying for them and let them die. That is blatantly not the case, but is a possibility (however incredibly remote it is).

in my country no judge has been found guilty of corruption or biasis in over 150 years of our history

we have a system of collection so well set up that its illegal to even insinuate corrupt judges or crime in the judicary

so no im not saying any crimes or bias is takin place

just that a well oiled machine takes lots of fines of our population every year on behalf of our govenment

and our politicians come up with new crimes to pay fines for at a rate of approx two thousand a year

xploder

And yes, you are insinuating crime is taking place, so please stop saying that you are not. What you are wantonly and blatantly insinuating is that Judges somehow fine people excessive amounts so the state can profit. Last time I checked, Judges received a fairly meagre salary in comparison to their partners in the private sector!

If you're going to continue feeding us this bull#, I would at last ask you provide a sensible argument and some evidence as opposed to wild, idiotic speculation. It is very annoying and becoming rapidly boring to dismiss.

reply to post by duality90


The closest I can think of regarding London is the actual city of "London" itself. When we hear london we think of the sprawling metropolis. However the City of London is actually like 1 square mile in the downtown area.

EDIT - Regarding the quote the other person statment. I jsut hit reply while reading the exchange. sorry about that.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Okedoke then.. First a few things to clear up. Not all 50 States are governed by English Common Law. Louisiana uses Napolianc Law (hence parishes instead of counties etc).

Also, people need to bare in mind that Americans hold dual citizenship. You are a citizen of the State you reside in, and you are a Citizen of the United States of America as a Country (This is easy to prove - Look at your passport - Issued by the Feds and not the State - State has no authority hear).

By extension the same is said of the United Kingdom. You can be a citizen of Wales, Scotland, Britain etc, yet you are a subject of the Crown, or National Government.

I cannot vouch for the American part, although I must say, that I don't believe 'Citizen' is a correct title to apply, but rather resident, as the only rights one can derive from the state are by virtue of being a resident rather than by virtue of one's birth or naturalisation within a state.

You are also not a dual citizen in the United Kingdom. You cannot be a citizen of Any of the 4 countries that make up the UK - there is no such thing as dual citizenship of Wales and the UK. You are a UK citizen and a Resident of Wales, even if you are Welsh, your parents are Welsh, and you were born in Wales. Passports and citizenship are derived from the Crown and the Home Office (which issues passports). I do not believe "Dual citizenship" is the appropriate term for what you are describing.

I otherwise applaud your in depth response! Sorry to be a douche and pick on certain aspects of your post

reply to post by Xcathdra


That was an excellent post. Very informative. I enjoyed reading it thoroughly, particularly encouraging people not to take random sections of statute at face-value without looking to the context in which they are placed.

reply to post by duality90


No worries man.. I rather enjoyed looking back into that stuff. As far as the comment about Americans and dual citizenship I ask you this:

If you kill someone in Wales, can you be arrested for that in Scotland, and sent back to wales without ever seeing a judge in between custody and transfer back?

We are citizens of the states we reside in, and are subject to those laws. If I live in Minnesota, Michigan has no legal authority to deal with me. Even if I killed someone in michigan, they can issue an arrest warrant, and I can be arrested in Minnesota, however I can fight extradition back to Michigan.

We have whats called Govenor warrants that are supposed to be upheld between states (14th amendment, full faith and credit clause) however this has been ignored in the past if the accused made their argument why being extradited is a miscarriage of Justice.

As far as the British Issue.. You can be a citizen of Austrailia, or Britain, or Wales, and yet at the same time you are all subjects of the Crown.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

no matter the decition unless criminal action is involved the court passes costs onto the loser of the case

Actually under criminal law you can be ordered to pay a fine, restitution etc. Same is true for civil law as well. The reason behind making the looser pay is intended to discourage frivelous law suits. I dont think its working lol.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

how can a judge decide a case when the state is involved when they are payed by the state?

Its called Seperation of Powers or checks and balances. A judge is supposed to act impartially, deciding the lawful acts in the case. If a judge is close to the case they can recuse themselves. If they dont do this, Prosecution or Defense can make the motion to have the judge recuse himself, or removed from the case by the Senior Judge (Circuit, associate circuit etc)

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

how can justice be servered when the whole court is deciding between you pay or they do?

You can request a tiral by jury or by judge. Depending on whats going on, dollar amount etc it is handeled by the judge. If you dont like the ruling, you have a right to appeal it up the line.

We use an adversarial Judicial system for a reason.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

why are some courts registered with dunn and brad street as corperations?

Can you provide more info on this. I am not sure what you are referring to.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

in common law there has to be two living partys and an adudicator
not connected with the case

While our legal system is based off of English common law, its be refined over the years and removed entirely in some states (Missouri does not recognize common law marriage etc, where Iowa does if I remeber right). Assuming that we solely use English common law as it was 300 years ago would be incorrect in this case. It evolves, just like our Bill of rights, Laws etc.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

in maritime law there is no such protection and thus the court costs are charged to the loser of the case in this way someone always pays unless the court finds against the state (their employers)

why piss the boss off right?

xploder

Maritime Law is Federal, and as such different standards apply. As far as the comment about the State (employers), Federal Government is appointed by our Constitution to adjudicate issues between the States. The courts themselves cant bring a law suit, as that is the responsibility of the Executive (To enfore the laws) and the Judicial (P.A. office) to review the charges and decide if they will pursue the charges.

If you are bringing a cause against the State / Feds you have to have standing. In other words you have to be affected first hand before you can bring a suit.

As a side note, when you sue the state, you are technically suing yourself. This goes back to the Government setup and where the different branches get their legitimacy from.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

reply to post by Xcathdra

It evolves, just like our Bill of rights, Laws etc.

The Bill of Rights has not evolved and remains precisely the same first ten Amendments that were written in 1789, and ratified in 1791. The only Amendments subsequent to those Bill of Rights that have arguably "evolved" would be the 12th Amendment, and the 18th Amendment. One changed the time frame in which the President takes office, and the other was repealed by the 21st Amendment. All other Amendments are the same now as when they were written and enacted as Amendments, and in that regard have not evolved.

reply to post by Xcathdra


first let me say thank you for your thought provoking post
it took a while to read all the information you have provided

i guess the truth is taken out of context the original video does force a point and is only showing case law and information that supports its case while excluding the periferal information that colours the subject in a different light

the fact that a republic requires its people to be well versed in law and civil life is an interesting concept as most in my country only learn the law when they break it.

i must admit that the video opened my eyes to a conspiracy so vast i started to see only the facts i was looking for

as i understand what i read
the reason the us is incorperated is to make it an entity that is capable of being held accountable as if it were a person

citizens are not employees of the federal govenment as they are first free people then employed by the state if they choose to participate in the civil life of the country

i still wounder about the irs but thats another thread

admiralty law in my mind was a military tribuneral
and maritime was civil contract law
but these definitions are as you pointed out with your link
are far to simplistic way of veiwing something complex

the difference between of the people and for the people in legal terms well i read your reference and still beleive (rightly or wrongly)
that the change to capitals and from for to of does make a massive difference to who can be covered by the document

lets agree to dissagree

i agree congress is the only ligitamite entity to coin money
and i think the federal reserve is a quasi legal counterfeiting operation that debases the currency for their own benifit

i think the ownership of the fed can be traced back to the city state of london but as of yet i only have speculation (still looking)

thank you for expanding my veiw of this subject

xploder

reply to post by Xcathdra


some of my miss conceptions comes from this video


this explains alot of my points but as you have already pointed out this video is narrow in its dipiction of facts

lol you tube can be dangerous in the wrong hands

xp

reply to post by duality90


the only mention of the city state in london i could find for you is in a you tube video called the ring of power and its 2 hours long and doesnt provide proof just some ones indepth study of



skip tp 3.35

again not proof only reference
sorry best i can do atm very busy

again in a narrow context this video seams very strange have started to look into case law involved so i dont jump to conclusions

but it would seam again to back up the first video
well as you say you can make anything look plausable with a narrow context



this is the original reason i thought the ird was dodgey

XPLOder

Here is another thread on it with a link to the article that first made the case about 15-20 years ago... www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18-8-2010 by hawkiye]

reply to post by hawkiye


wow great minds think alike thanks for the link i will be up all night reading through this info
hawk your a gent

XPLodER

this is the third time i have searched for a topic and not found it
is there another trick im missing


[edit on 18-8-2010 by XPLodER]

please follow this link to hawks thread it is much more detailed and they have covered most of the topics we are discusing

www.abovetopsecret.com...

thanks hawk

XPLodER

reply to post by XPLodER


Its all good man.. I always find stuff like that intresting. To me it looks like this. A group of people who are dissatisfied with our Government is trying to go back to a purley Origional Consitutional way, reversing case law and other items.

Maritime / Admiralty did start out as military. Back in the age of sailing it was not uncommon for The brits to stop American vessels and press the crew into service. The power vested in them by King / Queen. The law has changed over the years (updated to keep up with technology, the ever expanding field of International Law (/shiver), and the fact a Captian can talk real time with his or her superiors on the other side of the Globe.

While I somewhat understand the point of the video, I dont agree with how they are trying to get their message out. The video actually reminds me of question 10 of yours, about the powers lieing to the people etc..

the fact that a republic requires its people to be well versed in law and civil life is an interesting concept as most in my country only learn the law when they break it.

Again the intent behind the founding Fathers and, at the time the constant involvement in Government by almost all citizens, was for the citizens to know whats going on because they were participating.

Fast forward 300 years, and add 290million people to the equation and things get intresting. The simple fact our Constitution has thus far survived is a testament to the Document they wrote and what they thought would make a good government while at the same time serving the people.

i must admit that the video opened my eyes to a conspiracy so vast i started to see only the facts i was looking for
I think this is awesome and an example of what we should be doing. I dont mind people having a point of view and strongly defending that view. The ability to expand the picture doesnt always mean completely changing it.

Republicans and Democrats both have good ideas, and I believe they are doing what "they" think is whats best for our country. They just fail at the compromise portion.

as i understand what i read as i understand what i read
the reason the us is incorperated is to make it an entity that is capable of being held accountable as if it were a person accountable as if it were a person

In laymens terms yes.. I do Law Enforcement for a living and can say the way a Law is written is completely different from how its enforced. Officers have discretion on how they apply the law, and always run the gambit of it ending up in court and being ruled against, creating Case Law.

When you delve into the Judicial side and use Legalese all the time, what looks outright wrong to the people looking in, are normal to the people inside looking out. In order to sue the Federal Government you have to have standing (did the Govt screw you over some how). The Federal Government actually has to agree to be sued (weird I know, but the Law side is screwy).

The question posed is how does an individual, you, get the ability of redress against the Government (Feds)? Where in English Common Law, and American Case Law starting out, is there case law for an individual suing the government?

The next question is how do you define what a Government is in legal speak to ensure that people can sue the government for redress? At some point someone will have to make up a weird hard to translate but easy to misinterpret to answer that question. Somehow you have to make the Government a legal entity for Judicial reasons.

No where in the constiution does it do this. It just creates the branches, establishes some authority for the Feds,and reserves the rest for the states.

citizens are not employees of the federal govenment as they are first free people then employed by the state if they choose to participate in the civil life of the country

Citizens do not work for the Federal Government, nor do they work for the state Government, unless they specifically get a job with them. The Government, Local, County, State, Federal, all work for the people (Vox Populi, Vox Diety - The Voice of the people is the voice of God).

However, its easy to see how people come to that conclusion when we the people fail to hold our Government accountible to us.

As far as the IRS and Federal Reserve.. We need to get rid of them (I dislike both very much in its current form). The personal income tax was never intended by the Founding Fathers. It was introduced during WWII to help raise money for the war, and like almost all other taxes, once in place its hard to get rid of. There have been a lot of legal challenges regarding the IRS, and the USSC has upheld its creation and authority to tax.

the difference between of the people and for the people in legal terms well i read your reference and still beleive (rightly or wrongly) that the change to capitals and from for to of does make a massive difference to who can be covered by the document

If the words were not changed it would read like this.

A government for the people... Well, its nice a government is for us, but where does it get its legitimacy from? There was a push for Gerge Washington to actually become a King after we won, but he opted not to (Thank you George). The founders very much wanted something in place that would prevent a repeat of why we wanted independance in the first place (No taxation without representation - in other terms if you want my money, then you will be held accountible for how you spend it).

Without the Government being made up of the People, By the People and For the people, then we would be something other than a Republic / Democracy.

The Great Experiment was can a Government rule by consent and approval of the people they represent. Dont get me wrong, the founders had issues with the people.. Its one of the reasons we have an electoral college. Back in the day they put that gem in place on the off chance the "people" went bonkers and elected King George as the President. The electoral college has the authority (back then anyways) to ignore the will of the people and vote for someone else. Today most states have laws that require the electoral college to cast their vote for whomever their state voted for by majority.

I enjoyed this very much and Thanks for putting it out there.

reply to post by Xcathdra


thank you for your valuable input on these subjects as information and education is always the path to better systems and i thank you for all the time and effort you have expended and i hope you will reveiw hawks thread linked above as they are far more informered than i

am adding you as a freind
anyone who speaks the truth and uses logic is welcome in my world

humbly XPLodER