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….