Amendment 16 to the Constitution of the US

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Well, its a right to usage...but, the reason it is called a franchise and a property right is that lawyers have a right to use the laws of the United States. All the US laws are ultimately owned by British corporations (See Thompson Group, LLC, LTD and subsidiaries)! US Laws, or Code, are private property and thus attornies have special property rights to use the code in the maritime court of law (a whole other subject).

why just maritime courts?

also, the laws aren't ultimately owned by British corporations... I'm assuming you must be referring to reference services like Lexis and Westlaw, the latter of which is owned by the Thompson group and forms the "official" court reports of a few states. anyone can use these services, and all are charged the same fees (with corporate discounts and the like).

what's important to realise is that, though called "official," these reports aren't the actual publications of the courts, merely (compilations of) the work of privately employed court reporters, in the same way a newspaper article is copyrightable as being a representation of an uncopyrightable event (ie, the news itself). the actual decisions and statutes and whatnot are, of course, publically and freely available, and certainly not "owned" by Britain.

oh, almost forgot- where they ARE the official court reports, they are required to be publically available in all federal law depository libraries and are usually available in any big library generally.

-koji K.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 21-10-2004 by koji_K]

This is what I have: Thompson, which owns West Publishing Co., Barclays West Group, Bankcroft Whitney, Clark Bordman, Callaghan, Legal Solutions, Rutter Group, Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Lawyer's Coop, Reed Elsevier (owns among others Lexis). I would guess that the US and others have special property rights to it as well seeing as they are US code. Like a book that is copyrighted and yet you find it in the library. Apparently the Black Law dictionary is copyrighted. Are all these reference services?

By the way, these are British corporations, not Britain itself.

There's also the Jay Treaty, Trading with the Enemy Act, and the establishment of the US as a corporation under English common law to link the US to Britain.

I dunno, what do you think?

Also, wanted to add this: www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk...

1997 No. 1778

SOCIAL SECURITY

The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997

Made 22nd July 1997
Coming into force 1st September 1997

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 22nd day of July 1997

Present,

The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Whereas at London on the 13th February 1984 an Agreement on social security between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") and an Administrative Agreement for the implementation of the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Agreement")[1] were signed on behalf of those Governments and effect was given to the Agreement by the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Order")[2]:

Which is....

Statutory Instruments printed from this website are printed under the superintendence and authority of the Controller of HMSO being the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament.

The legislation contained on this web site is subject to Crown Copyright protection. It may be reproduced free of charge provided that it is reproduced accurately and that the source and copyright status of the material is made evident to users.

Raises some questions doesn't it?

Or this?

During the trial of James and Sharon Patterson, (Case 6:97-CR-51) William Wayne Justice, Judge of the United States District Court Texas-Eastern Division when presented with law stated: "I take my orders from
England. This is not a law this court goes by."

www.stormbringer.tv...

Perhaps, I should just make a whole new thread about this....

[edit on 22-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

I think you're mistaking copyrighted pages with statutes on them for being the law itself. The laws themselves are not copyrighted or owned by any corporation, but representations of them are (to compensate them for the costs of reproduction, dissemination, formatting, indexing, cross-referencing) etc. But these aren't US laws anymore than if I wrote down the laws on a napkin and paid the fifty cents to have that copyrighted.

-koji K.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K
I think you're mistaking copyrighted pages with statutes on them for being the law itself.

-koji K.

Could you elaborate?

See my edit above

-koji K.

Ah yea, I see what you are saying. Well, the one link I posted about the Social Security Amendment is US law. But ultimately, who owns the law, nobody remembers the entire IRS code, it is written down, so does the US own it? If the US is a corporation under British common law, do the British own it because it is an extension of their law? I think the problem though is that their is a difference between law and policies. It is probably true that the US owns its "policies." But the laws are an entirely different story. Either way, somebody copyrights the law or policies. I don't think that's really the point anyway. The lawyers are still a franchise of whoever owns the law/policy. The point though is that the US in many ways, is owned by Britain. But, like I said, I'll make a new post about that soon enough, probably tomorrow.