CONSTITUTIONS OF AUSTRALIA IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ARCHIVES

-----Original Message----- From: David Woods [mailto:Davidkilife@gmx.com] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 1:31 AM To: David Subject: FW: Some updates if interested. Hello. Please find two replies. You may disseminate the enquiries if you choose to. The first reply is from the UK Parliamentary Archives where I asked for confirmation of Constitution Acts for Victoria, NSW, S.A, TAS and QLD. Richard from UK Parliament Archives has confirmed that none of these Acts were debated or any bound copies exist. He backs up the alleged enquiries by the Royal Archives pertaining to these Constitution Acts. If you have not received the Royal Archives UK letter please email me. Most people know that all State Constitutions other than NSW Constitution Act 1902, but includes NSW amendment in around 2002 has been portrayed using the Australian States Constitution Act 1907 allegedly by King Edward VII. There is parliament debate by the UK Parliament for this Act, but so far I cannot find the actual assent by the King. An argument could be “Did the Westminster Parliament and King Edward have the authority to legislate for the States of Commonwealth of Australia after the Commonwealth Constitution commenced in 1901. If the Westminster Parliament and his mother Queen Victoria consented to the Com Constitution Act to be the supreme law within Commonwealth of Australia. I think a Commonwealth Referendum or at least a State Referendum for each State concerned should have been held prior to the Westminster Parliament and King Edward VII enacting the Act pertaining to the States Constitutions and State Law. Also for all NSW folk, please disseminate if you choose, as what the UK Parliament Archives and Royal Archives have stated on the NSW Constitution Act 1902, please find enquires from Krista of NSW Parliament Library who also supplied the PDF attachment above, but I have put the title of the document to rename the PDF attachment. Also Krista has confirmed what the State Library has confirmed that no Referendum can be located to create the 1902 Constitution Act. REPLY FROM RICHARD FROM UK PARLIAMENTARY ARCHIVES. The reason I go to the UK Parliament archives as I have emails from the Privy Council and UK National Archives staff that any enquiry regarding any Act of UK or debated by the UK for Australia and so on for any other Commonwealth County you must go through the UK Parliamentary archives. From: WARD, Richard Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014 11:55 PM To: David Woods Subject: RE: Hello Hi David Good Morning David I’ve had a search through our Archive records for reference to the Constitution Acts you listed in the e-mail your sent just prior to the festive period. These Acts being State of Victoria Constitution Act 1975, New South Wales Constitution Act 1902 (No 32), 1934 Queensland Constitution Amendment Act (No 35), 1934 South Australian Constitution Act (No 2151), 1934 Tasmanian Constitution Act (No 94) Unfortunately in each instance I could find no record of these Acts being passed by the UK Parliament. Consequently as the bills for these Acts were never presented to Parliament they were not debated either thus there would be no Hansard records for these Acts/Bills. As I said in a previous correspondence the UK Parliament makes a notation of an Act by chapter number (chapter 11 for example) while the Act you referenced make a number notation for the legislative document (No 32 for example) and that contradicts the UK drafting and immediately is an indicator that these Acts will not be UK Parliament legislation. Out of curiosity I checked the libraries of the house to see if they held bound volumes of Australian Acts of Parliament which they do not. I’m sorry we can’t be of any greater help but I would think after your previous unsuccessful queries on this matter and your subsequent liaising with a UK researcher that we where a last resort in at this point of enquiry. Good luck with your continuing research. Regards Richard Ward My enquiry to UK Parliament Archives. From: David Woods [mailto:Davidkilife@gmx.com] Sent: 20 December 2013 13:43 To: WARD, Richard Subject: Hello Importance: High Hi Richard, I sincerely want to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas if you celebrate this. If you are having time off, I sincerely hope it is very enjoyable and relaxing. If it is not too much trouble for you or anyone who may assist further with a few enquiries to locate Hansard or copies of Constitution Acts. I have been liaising with an UK researcher who cannot locate several enquiries at the UK National Archives etc. 1. I asked the researcher to try and locate the State of Victoria’s Constitution Act 1975 reserved 20th May 1975 and allegedly was given by order in Council by Her Majesty on 22nd October 1975 and was put into the State of Victoria Government Gazette dated 19th November 1975 on the left hand side on page 3, and also the confirmation on 26th November 1975 Gazette. The Researcher has stated that no patents or any notation could be located pertaining to this Act of 1975 within the UK National Archives. If it is possible, I would like to confirm whether this Act was debated in UK Parliament or does the UK Parliament have any bound copies etc. I sent on 28th October 2013 a letter by express and registered post to the UK Royal Archives. I do not believe I will get a reply from them even though I suppled my email address to contact me to obtain Royal Sign Manual and Signets or any orders for Constitutions and Governors and Governor General appointments. 2. If it is possible I am also seeking whether this Act was debated and if any bound copies or orders or Royal Sign Manual and Signet from King Edward VII to assent to the State of New South Wales Constitution Act 1902 assented 18th August 1902 Constitution Act 1902 No 32 as no order can be located from New South Wales State Library, the NSW Electoral Commission or the Australian National Archives. 3. If it is possible I am seeking whether this Act was debated and if any bound copies or orders or Royal Sign Manual and Signet from King George V. to assent to the States of Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania to create their Constitution Acts in the years of 1934 to 1935 as no order can be obtained with any of the States Libraries or from the Australian National Archives. The Queensland Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 (24 Geo V, No 35) was reserved for His Majesty’s Assent and allegedly proclaimed on 13th April 1934. Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1934 (24 Geo V, No 35) . The South Australian Constitution Act 1934 was assented on 18th October 1934 CONSTITUTION ACT (NO 2151 OF 1934) and the Tasmanian Constitution Act 1934. CONSTITUTION ACT 1934 (25 GEO V, NO 94) was assented on 14th January 1935. If no one is available to perform these enquiries would you kindly let me know. With kind and sincere regards David Woods Reply from NSW Parliamentary Library on locating a Referendum for the NSW Constitution Act 1902. From: Krista Meulengracht Sent: Friday, 17 January 2014 10:04 AM To: 'David Woods' Subject: RE: Enquiry to obtain some Referendum information. Dear David I can find no evidence to suggest that there was a referendum in 1902 associated with the NSW Constitution Act. This legislation was enacted 18 August 1902, following the usual process of readings and debate in the houses of Parliament. I am attaching for your reference an excerpt from the book The Constitution of New South Wales by Anne Twomey (Federation Press, 2004) that considers the referenda topic. This source confirms the information from the Electoral Commission website and our own website that was initially provided to you by the State Library. I hope this satisfies your query, and good luck with your research. Kind regards Krista Krista Meulengracht REFERENCE LIBRARIAN Parliamentary Library DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SERVICES www.parliament.nsw.gov.au REPLY FROM NSW STATE LIBRARY. From: State Library of New South Wales [mailto:slnsw@libraryresearch.info] Sent: Monday, 23 December 2013 9:53 AM To: Davidkilife@gmx.com Subject: IR182597 Response to your General Reference question Response to your question #: IR182597 Your request is: From: David Woods Date: 11 December 2013 10:29 Subject: Request for some information To: library@sl.nsw.gov.au To the Manager, Hello. I am enquiring how I can obtain copies of certain referendums from the State Library as the Parliament Library advised me to enquire with the State Library first. I am trying to locate the writs and results to any Referendums that the NSW Parliament has conducted and also the writ and the copy of the Referendum for the Constitution Act 1902. With kind regards David Woods Our response is: Dear Mr Woods I am responding to your inquiry about locating the writs and results of referendums conducted by NSW Parliament. 1. RESULTS OF NSW REFERENDUMS: The results of NSW Referendums are published on the NSW Electoral commission's website and the NSW Parliament website. (a) NSW Electoral Commission website: (includes date, title and the number of votes for and against) http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/past_results/referendums_and...etc (b) Results of referendums in New South Wales: (NSW Parliament website) A list of the 16 questions put to the voters of New South Wales in referendums since 1900, together with the result. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/Res...etc 2. WRITS: I found an example of a notice of a referendum published in the NSW Government Gazette, which includes details of the writ. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the writ published in any Government publications. (See example of gazette notice attached) I have contacted the NSW Parliamentary Library about locating the writs and here is their response: " I'm not sure that the writ itself is publicly available anywhere, but the particulars of it are published in the gazette as a special supplement". If you would like to search the notices for each NSW referendum, The State Library holds the NSW Government Gazette on microfilm. You will need to visit the State Library in person to search the NSW Government Gazettes by date. Title: Government gazette of the State of New South Wales [microform]. Call number: RAV/FM4/1154RR Years: Jan. 1, 1901-Jan. 26, 2001 Link to catalogue record: http://library.sl.nsw.gov.au/record=b3679670~S2 For information on using the NSW State Library, including Christmas & New Year opening hours: http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/using/index.html Yours sincerely Bernie Carr Legal Information Access Centre State Library of NSW Number of documents attached to this message:1 Attached documents may be listed at the beginning or end of this email The status of your request is now closed. This is an automatic response - please do not reply to this email. Use the following links to: • Comment on our service • Submit another question Thank you for using our service. Ask a Librarian State Library of New South Wales

TEMPURA LAWYER REINSTATED

Tempura lawyer reinstated By: James Whittaker | james.whittaker@cfp.ky16 January, 2014 view1 comment | Comment on this story Mr. Polaine Mr. Polaine A British lawyer who was kicked out of the profession for his role in Cayman’s Operation Tempura corruption probe has been reinstated after a four-year fight to get his career and his life back on track. Martin Polaine claimed his life was ruined after he was disbarred for his role in the controversial internal police investigation. He was stripped of his right to practice as a lawyer in the U.K. due to a string of alleged offenses, including giving advice on matters relating to Cayman Islands Law without being called to the Bar in the territory. His counsel to investigators led in part to the wrongful arrest of Justice Alexander Henderson – a move that led to government being forced to pay more than $1.2 million in damages to the Grand Court judge. The U.K. Bar Standards Board has now quashed its original decision and replaced it with a two-month suspension. Mr. Polaine said the board accepted that there was no requirement for him to be called to the Cayman Bar. “The disciplinary findings against me were quashed and a re-hearing ordered. Although I was not able to put a full account forwards because I was constrained by legal professional privilege, I was, at least, in a position to give an account of some of what occurred,” he added. After the re-hearing, he said, only one of the original charges against him was retained. The new ruling, posted on the British Bar Association website, finds the lawyer guilty of “professional misconduct” for failing to properly advise investigators of their “disclosure obligations” in an application to a Justice of the Peace for search warrants of Justice Henderson’s home and judicial chambers. A two-month suspension is imposed for that offense. Mr. Polaine emphasized, however, that the board did not pursue a secondary charge that he had acted improperly by failing to advise officers to tell the justice of the peace that previous applications for search warrants in connection with this aspect of the investigation had been denied by the chief justice. None of the original charges relating to the lawyer’s right to practice in the Cayman Islands is retained in the new ruling. Those charges included giving incorrect advice to Cayman Islands authorities over Justice Henderson’s arrest, while not being qualified to act as a lawyer in the jurisdiction. The full findings of the five man panel, which issued its new ruling after hearing evidence from Mr. Polaine in October last year, and the reasons for their decision have not yet been published. Mr. Polaine added: “I was able to satisfy the standards board that there was no requirement for me to be called to the Bar in the Cayman Islands, which was the main thrust of the charges against me.” He has always maintained that he was authorized by Attorney General Sam Bulgin to work on the investigation and therefore did not need to be called to the Bar in the territory. The original hearing in 2009 followed a complaint from Justice Henderson about Mr. Polaine’s conduct, which came on the heels of the judicial review that found the search warrants for the September 2008 raid on Justice Henderson’s home and office were invalid and his arrest was unlawful. That ruling, and Justice Peter Cresswell’s finding that Mr. Polaine was not qualified to practice in the Cayman Islands, were the basis of the original, uncontested, decision of the Bar Association to take action against Mr. Polaine. The new hearing was the lawyer’s first chance to offer his version of events. The extent to which the panel for the re-hearing took a different view of the facts is not clear because their full judgment has not been published. Share your Comment We welcome your comments on our stories. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited and that your full name will be published with your comment. IMPORTANT IDENTITY INFORMATION: Whilst we collect login information from you, this information will be kept confidential and only used to contact you directly, if required. We require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. Your full name will be published with your comment. Read our ethics policy Please login to comment on our stories. LOG IN | REGISTER View Comments David WilliamsTempura lawyer reinstated Posted by David Williams on 1/16/2014 6:31:06 AM Interesting ruling. It's worth reading the original story on this that was published just over a year ago - http://compasscayman.com/caycompass/2013/01/08/Operation-Tempura-ex-adviser-wants-redemption/ - because there's a bit information there. And these are the original seven charges that Mr Polaine chose not to contest in 2009 - Between 01/09/08 and 21/03/09, allowing himself to be held out as a barrister, advised the Cayman Island authorities that Judge Henderson had committed the offence of misconduct in public office in circumstances where there was not such a reasonable suspicion and Polaine knew or ought to have known that he was not competent to give legal advice. Between 01/09/08 and 21/03/09, allowing himself to be held out as a barrister, advised the Cayman Island authorities that there was reasonable suspicion that there was material relevant to the conduct of the investigation into the offence of misconduct in public office in the home and judicial chambers of Judge Henderson in circumstances where there was no such reasonable suspicion and where Mr Polaine knew or ought to have known that he was not competent to give such advice. Between 01/9/08 and 29/10/08, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in failing to advise the Cayman Island authorities that the application for search warrants of the home and judicial chambers of Judge Henderson should be made to the Grand Court than to a lay justice. Between 1st September 2008 and 29th October 2008, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in that he failed properly to advise the Cayman Island authorities in respect of their disclosure obligations on an ex parte application before a lay justice for search warrants of the home and judicial chambers of Judge Henderson and in reliance upon his advice, the Cayman Island authorities failed to put material facts and matters before the lay justice and misinterpreted other material facts and matters in the application to the lay justice. Between 1st September 2008 and 21st March 2009, engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice in that he allowed himself to be introduced as a lawyer before the lay justice who was hearing an ex parte application for search warrants of Judge Henderson's home and chambers without the lay justice also being informed that he was not qualified to practice as a lawyer in the Cayman Islands thereby creating a misleading impression. Between 1st September 2008 and 21st March 2009, engaged in conduct likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute by expressing a personal opinion to the press or other media to the effect that his advice had been correct thus, inferring that Mr Justice Cresswell's judgement was wrong. Between 1st September 2008 and 21st March 2009, the supply of legal services without insurance cover for professional negligence. What this ruling appears to be saying is that in the UK someone can give bad advice to an overseas client and end up costing them around CI2million (that's the total for the damages award plus legal costs incurred) with relative impunity.

PROFITEERS OF OPPRESSION: DR. JOHN WILSON

PROFITEERS of OPPRESSION Inbox x John Wilson 28/11/2013 to Wilsons Dear Fellow Freedom Fighters, CORPORATIZATION like never before.............. with cartoons. In Australia, there is an entire INDUSTRY of OPPRESSION with LAWYERS as PROFITEERS quick to STEAL & KILL & DESTROY - which are the words in JOHN 10:10 to describe THIEVES. OPPRESSION IS SLAVERY and WE THE PEOPLE are DUMBED DOWN from every angle with TASER-PACKING POLICE patrolling Sydney's Railway Stations in increasing numbers who are there to "protect" us ......... but, anyone with a brain to think with can see the TRUTH. OPPRESSION & SLAVERY are inseparable in our "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom" from the phoney "Governor-General" to the TASER-PACKING "We don't need a warrant. We're the POLICE" thugs who trespass and assault, with or without being told to do so by their superiors. Here is a subtle example of the INDUSTRY of OPPRESSION, vel SLAVERY, that is ever-present. Yesterday, I was handing out leaflets at Parramatta Railway Station when a tall well-dressed lawyer took one of the leaflets - only to hand it back to me with a card of his own (attached as "FINES001.pdf"). He was obviously a "debt collecting" lawyer and we started a conversation with my saying "Do you know that grants and promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void?" .. to which he said nothing ... etc., etc.,.... and he departed saying "Don't forget to pay your fines on time!" His card was from the "Australian Institute of Administrative Law" and, on looking up the website, it is one of those "Forget Common Law Rights - Just Do What You're Told By Your Masters" affairs. Below I have copied-n-pasted the agenda from their latest "AIAL FORUM" and did not see the need to look any further. This brainwashing is being coupled with the now-familiar unbelievably unlawful stealing and destruction conducted by a Bureaucracy which WE pay for. .... and all because WE let them get away with it because WE are too brain-dead to bother to read and learn a little COMMON LAW. On my wheelie-bag I have an A3 of "ABOLISH SLAVERY IN AUSTRALIA (etc) " (attached) and I wear an A2 of "TRIAL BY JURY means JUSTICE FOR ALL, NO BAD LAWS and NO POLICE STATE"(attached) ... and I have quite a few discussions with a wide variety of people and quite a few arguments with lawyers ...... but, there again, many lawyers congratulate me and express support for the cause. "Such is life", as Ned said..... but we are not dead, yet. Yours sincerely, John Wilson. ***********************************************

ADMIRALTY LAW

READING AND COMPREHENSION ARE TWO THINGS, it seems: Of Bankers & Presidents, High court rulings, Admiralty laws, UN Treaties Inbox x chas x 7 Jan (6 days ago) to bcc: me Dear Freedom Fighters, 1.From the demented mind of Mr Jim McLeod, a light shines through QUOTE from a Judge: “The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court, which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached. So you say, just innocently like a lamb, ‘Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.” 2. What does it mean? Are United Nations Treaties ALSO "international maritime contracts"; i say they are VALID regardless of the jurisdiction they came from, COMMON LAW, ADMIRALTY LAW OR STATUTORY LAW. 3. That why I say there are Statutory Human Rights Laws in each state and Commonwealth that apply those United Nations Treaties "international maritime contracts", if they play by admiralty laws then use the UNITED NATIONS Admiralty Laws on them. 4. The Bikies and their Lawyers [sic] (liars) really should challenge the anti-association laws in QLD under ICCPR. 5. But this is just pure semantics of white genocidal criminals: what it boils down to is this: 6. Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey Co. V. Corcoran 714 S.W.2d 943. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus is warranted when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W.2d 943. Mandamus will lie when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do so. 7. Of Bankers and Presidents, they have shot 2x presidents, Abe Lincoln and JFK for trying to mess with their monetary system. 8. What we want to mess with is the reputation of the Star Chambers, (Might end up like Abe and JFK too) 9. Let's have a look at the East India Company again: "The company was dissolved in 1874 as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act passed one year earlier, as the Government of India Act had by then rendered it vestigial, powerless and obsolete. Its functions had been fully absorbed into the official government machinery of British India and its private presidency armies had been nationalised by the British Crown." 10. What does that mean? GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATIONS ARE THE SAME !!! Thats where they coin the phrase "TOO BIG TO FAIL", when corporations get to be governments, they become the government, and TOO BIG TO FAIL. 11. SO stop sticking your head in the Black's Law dictionary: REAL WORLD LAW lies in Mandamus will lie for an abuse of discretion where discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously or where discretion has been exercised in bad faith, Peavey Co. V. Corcoran 714 S.W.2d 943. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion. Mandamus is warranted when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, Reis V. Nangle 349 S.W.2d 943. Mandamus will lie when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do so. 12. Because in the Heart of Darkness, it s still a dog-eat-dog world. C ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jim MacLeod Date: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:41 PM Subject: RE: High court rulings To: GREGORY-JOHN TUDEHOPE , chas x Cc: Robert Mcjannett Greg Always a wisdom derived from you – still with equity question – the criteria of estates – I would have loved to have a depth of response say from Dick Yardley regards the matters of 1975 as per the matters of 1775 as per the matters of 1213 – the chronology and the replications that travel down through the invested authorities becomes convoluted to comprehend but gradually a slow and steady distillation seems to be possible We seem to have to be able to stand back far enough and also hold several layers of thoughts simultaneously as well as be wearing our BS detectors Meanwhile so far mere shallows have been encountered regards depth of responses – and the usual suspects who have been plaguing the perception managements have given us another spray– this historical stuff (see the part below) is admitted as relevant has a few interesting insights but fails to ignite a reading from those who should consider the past and the problems that are embedded therein. Your noted response below is interesting The event in the last email is the result of the Deed that provides for revocation or annulment of the quasi contract as it is only assumed or implied. Note that I have attached your free thought as above to Chas - the assumed / implied (assumption / implication) is there a natural derivation inherent? And what then? 45. What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each? ANSWER: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty/Maritime Law. [Source: UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5] Common Law. “In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments. The ‘common law’ is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution.” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary] LAYMEN definition: There is no Compelled Law. Covers a damages. This is Criminal law. Equity Jurisdiction. “In a general sense, the jurisdiction belonging to a court of equity..” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary] LAYMEN definition: One is compelled to perform to the letter of any contract. This is CIVIL law. The event in the last email is the result of the Deed that provides for revocation or annulment of the quasi contract as it is only assumed or implied. Admiralty law and Maritime Law. Involves commerce on the High Seas and International Contracts. Involves Compelled Performance with Criminal Penalties. 46. Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law? ANSWER: Yes. (1) Admiralty Law. Commerce on the high seas that involves the King (i.e., government). QUOTE: Admiralty is a subdivision of King’s Commerce such that all of King’s Commerce that takes place over waterways and the High Seas . .. Is assigned to be governed by a special set of grievance settlement and evidentiary rules, just custom tailored to Commerce of that nature . . . at least that was the case in the old days when Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate business transactions with the King out on the High Seas. . .. On land, assigning fault and making partial recovery by the responsible party is quite common, but not so out on the High Seas. So this special marine jurisdiction (and ‘jurisdiction’ meaning here is simply a special set of rules) was developed organically, piece by piece and sometimes Case by Case . . . Also, some of the other special rules applicable to grievances brought into a Court of Admiralty are that there is no jury in Admiralty–NEVER– everything is handled summarily before a Judge in chronologically compressed proceedings. Also, there are no fixed rules of law or evidence (meaning that it is somewhat like an Administrative Proceeding in the sense that it is a free-wheeling evidentiary jurisdiction–anything goes). SOURCE: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 383] (2) Law Merchant. “Commerce on the high seas that does not involve the King (i.e. government).” QUOTE: “The system of law which particularly relates to marine commerce and navigation, to business transacted at sea or relating to navigation, to ships and shipping, to seamen, to the transportation of persons and property by sea, and to marine affairs generally. “ [Black’s Law Dictionary] 47. How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts? ANSWER: Federal Reserve Notes QUOTE: “Up until the mid-1800s here in the United States, very frequently merchants paid off each other in gold coins and company notes . .. It was infrequent that the King had an involvement with private Maritime Commerce. And there was an easy-to-see distinction in effect back then between Maritime Jurisdiction contracts that involved private parties . . . and Admiralty Jurisdiction, which applied to Commercial contracts where the King was a party. . .. However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: The beneficial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 390] QUOTE: “This concept of using Admiralty as a slick tool for Revenue Raising is an important concept to understand, as this procedure to raise revenue through an invisible Admiralty Contract is now surfacing in the United States in the very last place where anyone would think a marine based jurisdictional environment belongs: On your Internal Revenue Service’s 1040 form. . . “ [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 396] 48. How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA? ANSWER: The Birth Certificate combined with the adult who performs Acceptance of Benefits. QUOTE: “But later through a Federal Judge, I realized that there are special financial benefits that persons documented as being politically enfranchised at birth, experience later on as adults, when they are being shaken down for a smooth Federal looting; and it is this Acceptance of Benefits as adults, in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, that attaches contract tax liability, and not the existence of a Birth Certificate document itself. . . As a point of beginning, one person cannot bind another. But most importantly, all the Birth Certificate and correlative documents in the world will not separate a dime in taxation from you until such time as you, individually, and personally, have started to accept juristic benefits.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 411] QUOTE: “Remember that when benefits are being accepted in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there lies a good tight contract.” {Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 412] 49. What is Statutory Law? ANSWER: Codified Merchant Law. QUOTE: Statutory Law. “That body of law created by acts of the legislature in contrast to constitutional law and law generated by decisions of courts and administrative bodies.” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary] QUOTE: “The word “colourable” means something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is “colourable.” If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a “colourable” contract. And “colourable” contracts must be enforced under a “colourable jurisdiction.” So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts, which use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is “colourable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colourable money.” Colourable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 6] 50. What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence? QUOTE from a judge to an attorney: “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don’t honor those decisions. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. . . .” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 3] QUOTE by the attorney: “I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case . .. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: That this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company . .. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years . .. In the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases would be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level . .. All our courts since 1938 were merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4] 51. Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions? QUOTE from a Judge: “In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: America is a bankrupt nation–it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments. Take a silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction–call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4] QUOTE from a Judge: “The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court, which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached. So you say, just innocently like a lamb, ‘Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.”” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5] 52. For what are the international bankers waiting if the nation is bankrupted? QUOTE by an attorney: “But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time (i.e., 1980s) to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they don’t want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a World Army and all courts into a single World Court, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. . .” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5] The problem is that there are contagions such as we know of who are blurring the fundamental fabric of the framework that has been previously fraudulently fashioned and from therein they try to tell us that the direction to focus upon is a) b) c) d) or variations on this and either within or outside of alleged sequences / legitimacy / cognisance / dissonance – you name it. Basic comprehension has become a challenge in this circus because there is yet to be established the original contaminant and the intent that has been engineered. Once that is fully outed it seems thereafter the step by step clarity enables the proper cleansing of the current corruption…. Seems by looking at 1213 as a possible point of entry we discover a cohort that has been long at work in the delivering of dysfunctional Deed mechanisms which are in real need of being properly a) described b) developed c) empowered d) appropriately owned….more thoughts on this will no doubt arise in the wake of this brief post to you GT. Please give some moment to what I have attempted to speak to here….