It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]
Since admiralty courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction (which does not extend to nonmaritime matters), 28 USC § 1333(1),
Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by semperfortis
If we were, then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. Go to court and ask if the jurisdiction is under common law, things don't line up. The codes aren't congruous with common law, aka law of the land. So I submit that we are not. At some point, Maritime law was enacted. Obviously I can point you to links and you can point me to links, but here's the issue: Why are things the way they are if we are under common law?
Your quote, I want nothing more than that. But that's not what we have! If we did, none of this would even be under discussion. There would be no reason to have the UCC with its codes and statutes that has enslaved us, for one.
Originally posted by forgetmenot
Gold fringed flags? It must be a conspiracy!
Let's go over this again, when you came down your mother's birth canal you came out of her water, making YOU a maritime admiralty PRODUCT. That is right you became a PRODUCT of commerce at the time of your birth. Your mother also needs to sign your birth certificate. If you notice on your birth certificate where your mother signed, she is not listed as parent, nor is she listed as mother. Where your mother signed your birth certificate she is known as informant!
Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by semperfortis
That's how it SHOULD be I agree, but the statues and codes do not line up with common law, law of the land.
Oh man, this must be where all of this went horribly, horribly wrong. I thought all of you understood the likes of Jordon Maxwell and the Rosicurian info, huge info dumps like this one www.barefootsworld.net... etc etc.
Yep, without understanding that, I can see how all this went bad.
Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by fourthmeal
No what has gone apparently wrong is your inability to understand that Common Law is NOT the law of the land in the United States
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Trumps ALL OTHER
Sorry but no manner of hype from anyone can change that..
Originally posted by fourthmeal
I recognize the problem we have here and I have no recourse other than to recommend we just put a wait-and-see attitude to this.
Its a freaking mess. If we weren't under Admiralty Law and if there was no issue with the freeman / sovereign thing, there would be no need for this book:
www.scribd.com...
But there it is.
Also this guy explains a lot of this crap www.youtube.com...
Before Wilson arrived, the suspect, Foust, had fled the area. While the officer was talking with the female victim, Foust returned and engaged in a heated argument with the woman. According to the sheriff's office, Foust was "upset, loud and confrontational with the officer." Wilson and Foust went outside the business and were soon involved in a physical altercation. Foust, according to the sheriff's office, attempted to gain control of the officer's Taser. "The officer discharged his service weapon, striking Foust," stated a press release issued by the sheriff's office.