De ja vu all over agin.
http://user.icx.net/~drherb/fringe.html
This is based on Admiralty Law; reference your local classifieds for forfeiture & seizure notices....it's in there. Reserve rights under common law or UCC & they will have difficulty taking your car. Clips, ridiculous sounding at first, but researched & valid upon verification & discussion with pros.
JURISDICTION
The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
Common Law
Common Law is based on God's Law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS -- IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.
Equity Law
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action -not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract.
Admiralty/Maritime Law
This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.
However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the International Law or Law of Merchants and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case -- that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.
COURTS OF CONTRACT
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced -- Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your signature, you are saying:
"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."
What Does The Gold-Fringed Flag Signify?
It is commonplace to see a gold-fringed United States flag standing in the present-day courtrooms. Is the gold fringe there for decoration only, or does it signify a certain jurisdiction? Make no mistake about it -- the American People have been put on notice that the normal constitutional functions of government have been suspended and that their Land has been placed under martial law. The information below is not by any means exhaustive, but will at least point the reader in the right direction to do additional research on his own.
Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag," a military flag does result in jurisdictional implications when flown
(Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 Ill. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 Am).
Under the powers designated by these statutes, the President may: seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities,assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communications, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.... (United States Senate Report 93-549, 19 November 1973).
THE FLAG, AS WITH ALL THINGS IN LAW, IS HIGHLY DEFINED.
On The Title 4 U.S.C. 1,American Flag of Peace of the United States of America THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO PROVISIONS IN THE LAW FOR ADDING A FOURTH COLOR (YELLOW FRINGE) TO THE TITLE 4 U.S.C. 1,2 FLAG.
THE LAW OF THE FLAG
The Law of the Flag, an International Law, which is recognized by every nation of the planet, is defined as:
" .. a rule to the effect that a vessel is a part of the territory of the nation whose flag she flies. The term is used to designate the RIGHTS under which a ship owner, who sends his vessel into a foreign port, gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the ship master that he intends the Law of that Flag to regulate those contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ref.: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41
Legal notices displayed concern property seized by Federal agents as ***** under Admiralty law. Notice is required so that anyone who might have an interest in the property seized has opportunity to seek to protect his interest. One would not be wise to attempt this, though. Most likely, any excuse will be used to allege that the party claiming interest in the property was a party to the alleged offense that resulted in the original seizure. The allegation is enough to justify the taking of property - under Admiralty law guilt is presumed. The claimant might well lose other property not yet in the hands of these landgoing pirates, even though no actual conviction of any offense is ever entered. Check your local paper's legal notices. Look into the cases cited and see if any conviction occurs - or if any charges were even filed - against the persons whose property was seized.
Colorado is a long ways from the ocean. Admiralty law is farther still from the common law recognized under Federal and State constitutions.
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power, of right, to bind the people of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts, expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties , but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county."
NOTES: The "last war" they are referring to is the "French and Indian War." Please notice the Founder's objection to the extension of Courts of Admiralty. These Courts were to operate on the high seas, and to serve as collectors for duties on imported goods or fees associated with ships as well as administering the "Prize Courts" (the seizure of property). These courts, however, were not supposed to be applied on land against the people. On land, the People were to be served by "Common Law." They were never supposed to be used "for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county."
Great Britian ignored the first declaration, and so the following year, the Founders went on to again bring up this grievance in the second declaration issued on July 6, 1775. This Declaration is known as, "THE DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES AND NECESSITY OF TAKING UP ARMS."
In this declaration the Founders state:
"These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder." (MY NOTE: Please understand the preceeding sentence. Today is a carbon copy repeat of this philosphy of government)
"The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations.
Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it.
They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable priviledge of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of
government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the 'murderers' of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences shall be transported to England to be tried. But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can of right make laws to bind us in all cases what so ever. What is to defend us against so enormous so unlimited a power?"
Please once again notice the position in their list of grievances where the Founders place this policy of "...extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty ...." They placed this grievance BEFORE objecting to not having a trial by jury, BEFORE the suspension of one of the legislatures of one of the Colonies (equal to suspending the legislature of one of our States), BEFORE their complaint of the central government (Great Britain) changing the very system of our government, and even BEFORE complaining that the central government was "...exempting the 'murderers' of colonists from legal trial...!"
Indeed, the Founders strenously objected to applying Admiralty Law against the people! The third proof is found in the Constitution itself, in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees, "The Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; ...."
And the 5th Amendment states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of Law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Just what kind of Law does the Constitution refer to, when it speaks of the people being subjected to?
The 7th Amendment gives that answer.
It says, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the Right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury shall be reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law."
Please note it does not leave any wiggle room. The Law we are to be subjected to in any controversy exceeding 20 dollars is the Common Law! NOT ADMIRALTY LAW!
