RE: Common Law and rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 7:16:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Because we cant get real to go away?



aw I'm sorry for cracking your glass house?   use some CWAZY GWU woks evewy time.




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 7:20:03 AM)

http://dprogram.net/2010/04/21/video-jordan-maxwell-you-are-property-of-the-rothschild-family/




DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 7:20:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Mostly I respond when I can point out how ridiculous these claims are. Gold fring eon flags making a court an admiralty proceeding. All caps being some sort of DBA etc. "

Oh, actually it's true,

Prove it.

For instance the USN (the closest thing the US has to an admiralty) doesn't use gold fringe on flags.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States#Decoration



Do tell what the fuck the navy has to do with admiralty law.

Dont worry jlf I wont be holding my breath.  LMAO


You're the one claiming the courts are secret military admiralty courts. What other branch of the US military would be in charge of these supposed military admiralty courts?




mnottertail -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 7:21:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Do tell what the fuck the navy has to do with admiralty law.


Better yet, what does admiralty law have to do with common law?




Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 7:23:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Do tell what the fuck the navy has to do with admiralty law.


Better yet, what does admiralty law have to do with common law?


it is one of the 3 law forms stated in the trust.

Organic that is, and no it has nothing to do with your wee wee.










Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 8:08:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You're the one claiming the courts are secret military admiralty courts. What other branch of the US military would be in charge of these supposed military admiralty courts?



Again ken YOU are claiming they are SECRET becuase you as usual do not know shit about what you pretend to know.

The only people its a SECRET to are....well uneducated idiots that think everything is a conspiracy theory.

So here you go schoolboy just stumbled across this while looking for something else.

enjoy your SECRET red face.



According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) "the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide," and that, "such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms." And that the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations."
THE AUTHORITY FOR FRINGE ON THE FLAG IS SPECIFIED IN ARMY REGULATIONS, BUT ONLY FOR THE NATIONAL (MILITARY) FLAG !
The U.S. Attorney General has stated: "The placing of a gold fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and the arrangements of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. . .ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags. . .the use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulations, No. 260-10." (See 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483 & 485) The only statute or regulation, in the United States, prescribing a yellow fringed United States flag is Army Regulation No. 260-10, making it a military flag. By Army Regulation 260-10, the gold fringe may be used only on regimental "colors," the President's flag, for military courts martial, and the flags used at military recruiting centers. "A military flag emblem of a nation, usually made of cloth and flown from a staff; FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT flags are of two general classes...those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name of flags. The later are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. COLORS AND STANDARDS are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk, with a knotted FRINGE OF YELLOW ON THREE SIDES. . .USE OF A FLAG -- THE MOST GENERAL AND APPROPRIATE USE OF THE FLAG IS AS A NATIONAL SYMBOL OF AUTHORITY AND POWER." (National Encyclopedia, Vol. 4)




mnottertail -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 8:18:19 AM)

the 1979 regs dont mean shit, and you would need to link the full regs to me for me to believe that bullshit.

AR840-10 is current as of 1 November 1998. search for fringe there.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r840_10.pdf
Fringe
A decorative border of short threads, cords,
or the like that is used on flags for enrichment
only.It is not regarded as an integral
part of any flag and its use does not constitute
an unauthorized addition to the design
prescribed by statutes.

From that reg.  Don't have any clue where your bullshit comes from.

edit: better yet, link to the regs, right from the us fucking army




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 8:30:13 AM)

You have a confusion in your thinking RO, alike to the classic example "all cows eat grass. horses eat grass, therefore, horses are cows"

In this case "the military uses gold fringed flags, therefore all gold fringed flags are military. the military uses gold fringed flags in their courts, therefore a gold fringed flag in a court indicates that it is a military court"

E




Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 9:03:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

You have a confusion in your thinking RO, alike to the classic example "all cows eat grass. horses eat grass, therefore, horses are cows"

In this case "the military uses gold fringed flags, therefore all gold fringed flags are military. the military uses gold fringed flags in their courts, therefore a gold fringed flag in a court indicates that it is a military court"

E



Well I prefer to wait for ron to come up with a civilian flag.  In the corner again.

LMAO




Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 9:05:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
the 1979 regs dont mean shit,


more of your half assed research




mnottertail -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 9:11:47 AM)


Title 4 printed in its entirety in this link.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf
 
Ornaments on Flag Staffs, Fringes on Flag
The Flag Code is silent as to ornaments (finials) for flagstaffs. We know of no
law or regulation which restricts the use of a finial on the staff. The eagle finial is
used not only by the President, the Vice-President, and many other federal agencies,
but also by many civilian organizations and private citizens. The selection of the
type finial used is a matter of preference of the individual or organization.
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.36
36 34 Op. Atty. Gen. 483.




DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 9:48:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You're the one claiming the courts are secret military admiralty courts. What other branch of the US military would be in charge of these supposed military admiralty courts?



Again ken YOU are claiming they are SECRET becuase you as usual do not know shit about what you pretend to know.

The only people its a SECRET to are....well uneducated idiots that think everything is a conspiracy theory.

So here you go schoolboy just stumbled across this while looking for something else.

enjoy your SECRET red face.



According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.)

Hint, the US Army regs are meaningless otuside the army. Specifically they do not apply to the US Navy. The Navy is the military branch that would be in charge of military admiralty courts , if such existed, and the USN does not use fringe on their flags.




Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 10:53:31 AM)

Real. every day you argue about minor points rather than answering me you are giving Ken more ammo. What EXACTLY are you going to gain ?

The olman was considered slow in the family, but over the years I discovered that this was because of different standards. But even he understood this somwhat and we did discuss it when I was first learning about it. Maybe pragmatism is the word, not sure but he had it in spades. After rational discussion I decided not to go through with this.

After careful consideration I did not persue it. What I did do was effective enough, in other words I enjoy quite a bit of lawlessness - QUIETLY. Now that I mention it, remember quiet titles ? That was a fucking waste of time.

Still, remember that I am not against you, and in fact have another example of the fuzzy lines of jurisdiction if you are cognizant enough to care. That's what I said, some people get so wrapped up in this they lose sight of the forest because of all those damnned trees.

Remember DomAviator ? Well he was in Texas and owned a bunch of rental property in New York. His renters signed a lease that clearly stated that the agreement was governed by the laws of Texas. A real bar memberin, suit wearin lawyer got this setup for him. This is a perfect example of how one can sign into a jurisdiction. Unless it was all lies, which I doubt, it makes a good example. He HAD a reason because such an arraingement gave him a tremendous advantage when it came down to any real litigation. Of course the condition and use of the property was governed by NY, but anything having to do with the contract was governed by TX.

You sit here and argue about the flag, while even though I am recused until I get your answer I have now offered more than you on the matter right here and now. DA had good reason for a bit of hanky panky with the law, and it was all nice and legal. My question remains, what is all this going to gain YOU ?

The pilot who beat the IRS over taxes on a half million dollars worth of income didn't have to do this. She didn't have to burn her pilot's license and all this shit. And in my case, I already pay nothing without going through all this. I just pay my property taxes and bills. Of course the occasional lawyer bill, but who doesn't ? You get the right lawyers and you can skate so well that there is simply no reason to declare yourself anything. I swear if I went any farther with this they would be paying me just to stay alive. I am considering it. That's why I have five fucking lawyers, but believe me, it's not like I keep them on retainer.

There are so many other ways, those which do not preclude any other actions I might take. Like my buddy, he was probably right turning down that $150,000 construction job because he would have to sign that he would make his employees pay city income tax in that venue. I would probably have signed it and if the question ever came up I would just say "those people don't work for me". The only difference is that I would probably have to pay that city taxes, so I am not so sure I would do that.

What my Daddy taught me was that you do what you gotta do to assure that you walk out of that courtroom. Once out the door you do whatever the fuck you want. It works for me. The path I was taking long ago made this process very alluring for me, but I did not fall into it. I am no longer discussing it's validity, it's not worth it. Realistically, Ken (I don't mean to refer to you too much, but right here.....) would make a great government employee who would tear people to shreds who try this. I understand this (not meaning to unnecessarily compliment anyone) enough that he could bite 90% of the people in the ass when they try it. But there will still be that other ten percent.

The fact is that this can work because the government is not really all that competent, I could take and play Devil's advocate and strike down most of it, despite the fact that I know. I was taught to argue both sides. Lawyers are taught to argue both sides.

But the fact remains, until you reveal to me some non esoteric, non idealogical, actual REAL advantage of doing this, I see it all as a moot point. Which also means you are not true to your name and should change it to Unreal.

Sure, certain strait laced folk, I love tearing them to threads when the opportunity arises. But REALize that both arguments in my eyes will come under the same scrutiny. My boss has a saying goes something like "Why are you looking for elephants when the problem is fleas ?".

T




Dubbelganger -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 11:04:09 AM)

Term: "Remember DomAviator ? Well he was in Texas and owned a bunch of rental property in New York. His renters signed a lease that clearly stated that the agreement was governed by the laws of Texas. A real bar memberin, suit wearin lawyer got this setup for him. This is a perfect example of how one can sign into a jurisdiction. Unless it was all lies, which I doubt, it makes a good example. He HAD a reason because such an arraingement gave him a tremendous advantage when it came down to any real litigation. Of course the condition and use of the property was governed by NY, but anything having to do with the contract was governed by TX."

I knpw a little something about lease contracts, since I've been a landlord for 21 years. One can put anything one wants into a contract. The courts will uphold only what is legal in that particular jurisdiction. And in the case of DimAviator, the courts in NY most definitely will not cede jurisditcion to some court in TX. They cannot; de jure, the court in NY has jurisdiction, PERIOD.




pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 11:06:00 AM)

The plan is to wipe out the middle class in the US.




SohCahToa -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 11:07:14 AM)

No, you is wrong: it's going to be rebranded 'the intermediate class'




Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 11:47:41 AM)

"the courts in NY most definitely will not cede jurisditcion to some court in TX"

Surely. They have jurisdiction over the property, DA would use their laws to get people out, like shutting off the water which voided the occupancy "permit" or whatever. This was to his advantage. He would not have to go through the eviction process, the city would toss the people out for him. He said he used this once on a visit when he found someone rebuilding a motorcyle engine in the kitchen, getting oil and shit all over the place.

But to sue him over contractual provisions people would have to do it in TX. Who the hell would do that for a deposit and maybe a half month's rent ? Transportation would cost more than the judgement if they beat him.

Now suing DA in NY over other things could force him to go to NY to defend. The contract defined the jurisdiction, but only for the contract. Of course NY law was totally in effect when it came to the physical aspects of the property.

Without the tin hat, all I am saying is that jurisdiction is not as clear cut as it seems. Examples are repleat if one looks. If your kid gets lead poisoning off paint on a toy in the US, who do you sue ? Mattel. They didn't do it and were most likely unaware of the situation for quite some time. So Mattel is out some money and therefore should have the right to sue, but they have to sue someone in China. And this could be over some shit that happened in bumfuct Idaho somewhere.

Still, I am no longer addressing the validity of the common law or the possibility for it's use, except of course in a meaningful, productive manner. I am simply asserting that jurisdiction is not automatic based simply on the lines drawn on a map.

What's more, with this free trade shit going on, we are going to see the lines blurred even more in the next few years. Now we got a Japanese car maker who bought parts from a US firm who jobbed the manufacturing of the defective parts to a company in China. Who sues who here ?

A legal remedy is of course needed, I figure it'll take about two years for them to sort this out. Current law, even international law is not quite right yet.

And there is alot more to it when it gets into the international realm, which so far nobody has even really touched upon. We now have a couple of travesties of justice over shit like this, and it will have to be fixed. Without even going into German law, let's keep it a bit closer to home. We now have a guy who was jailed for importing lobsters because it was found that the exporter of the lobsters had broken the regulations in bumfuct Honduras or something. We also have a US gun dealer who had probably never left the country, but was extradited to Mexico for shipping a piece down there that was illegal THERE. As if he was supposed to know.

Now it has gone both ways, an importer and an expoter both were charged because something they did violated the laws of another country, even though they probably never set foot in those countries. In the case of the lobster guy, absolutely nothing he personally did was contrary to any law of either country. The gun dealer might be more of a gray area these days.

At any rate, I think I can reasonably predict that jurisdictional laws will be reformed especially when it comes to international trade. I give it about two years. That's about their speed.

And I am still waiting for my answer from Real. I don't want to put anyone down but every day that goes by without a solid answer to my question is just another shovel of dirt. And that is from someone who does not disagree.

The point of having a discussion among people who are going to fuck with the government is to share useful information. I have seen very little of that here.

T




jlf1961 -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 1:41:16 PM)

Dont get real started on another tangent, it is already bad enough that he is going on about flags.




Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 3:09:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Dont get real started on another tangent, it is already bad enough that he is going on about flags.


the fact remains there are no provisions in the design for gold fringe and anyone who knows even the first damn thing about government is spelled out including how to write your fucking name.  YOu seem to think that a court of all things can simply modify or put up a flag because they think is looks purty, well you have a lot to learn about government.  If it not listed then it has no standing.  That said the courts are impersonating something.  but what?  Oh I know a conspiracy theory!  LMAO!!!!!!!!!!1




LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/22/2010 3:13:33 PM)

Do the flags flying on Wall Street have gold fringes?

E




Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875