I missed you (but not YOU) too...

[wargamez102]

...I think that there should be more time dedicated to research and evaluation of just what these so-called agencies are or consist of and posted/revealed.

I see alot of [p]eople that are reading more now ah day's but don't comprehend the identity of these agencies.

Administrative 101... Get er' done!!!

Put it' in black and white, and watch em' grow.

Meanwhile..., as always, "Happy Trails" (no icon needed)

Good Luck... (got to rib the shysters once in awhile and see which one is on their toes?) Especially if they're reading the chit!!!

Atturn what? (Ahhhhhhhhh twister) grin

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by wargamez102

...I think that there should be more time dedicated to research and evaluation of just what these so-called agencies are or consist of and posted/revealed.

I see alot of [p]eople that are reading more now ah day's but don't comprehend the identity of these agencies.

Administrative 101... Get er' done!!!

Put it' in black and white, and watch em' grow.

Meanwhile..., as always, "Happy Trails" (no icon needed)

Good Luck... (got to rib the shysters once in awhile and see which one is on their toes?) Especially if they're reading the chit!!!

Atturn what? (Ahhhhhhhhh twister) grin

Hehehehhehe!!

The alphabet agencies use administrative law to ‘manage’ public policy-public trust under the law of necessity.

Administrative Law is not Common Law, Equity, or Admiralty. Arising under the holding in the adjudged case of Bowen v. Department of Social Security et al., 127 P.2d 682, 685 (1942), administrative law is a distinct branch of law, and it is not common law, equity, or admiralty and therefore can not arise under the Constitution of the United States, to wit: Colonel O. R. McGuire, a member of the American Bar Association's special committee on administrative *153 law, in an article published in 26 Georgetown Law Journal, 574, 589, says:

'* * * administrative law is a separate and distinct branch of the law. It is not common law, equity, or admiralty law * * *.'

The court has recognized the principle with respect to the INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT that controversies arising under it are controlled by "SPECIAL STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS exercised in derogation [To take away; detract] of, or not according to, the course of the common law." Nafus v. Department of Labor and Industries, 142 Wash. 48, 52, 251 P. 877, 878.

[David Merrill]

Administrative Law is not Common Law, Equity, or Admiralty. Arising under the holding in the adjudged case of Bowen v. Department of Social Security et al., 127 P.2d 682, 685 (1942), administrative law is a distinct branch of law, and it is not common law, equity, or admiralty and therefore can not arise under the Constitution of the United States, to wit: Colonel O. R. McGuire, a member of the American Bar Association's special committee on administrative *153 law, in an article published in 26 Georgetown Law Journal, 574, 589, says:

'* * * administrative law is a separate and distinct branch of the law. It is not common law, equity, or admiralty law * * *.'

Reading Administrative Law in American Jurisprudence is quite revealing. AmJur calls it "government in miniature" because it joinders the opposing checks and balances of executive, legislative and judicial branches. Therefore the true government is actually opposed to administrative law theoretically; it is just that administration is so large that checked government submits to administrative goverment out of expediency.

Interestingly administrative government cannot exist without the watchdog of judicial review. With the district courts of the US being administrative that may only leave the Court of International Trade for judiciary.

No suitor has gotten any appropriate response from the Mandatory Judicial Notice accompanying a Libel of Review in admiralty:

[Satori]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Interestingly administrative government cannot exist without the watchdog of judicial review. With the district courts of the US being administrative that may only leave the Court of International Trade for judiciary.

No suitor has gotten any appropriate response from the Mandatory Judicial Notice accompanying a Libel of Review in admiralty:

Interesting is an understatement. Jural societies, common law juries... perhaps even a commercial iien accepted due to a Writ of Mandamus?

By the way, are you aware of anything preventing Sui Juris from becoming, additionally, an online forum for an interstate jural society, perhaps under the same "law of necessity"?


- Satori

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Satori

Interesting is an understatement. Jural societies, common law juries... perhaps even a commercial iien accepted due to a Writ of Mandamus?

By the way, are you aware of anything preventing Sui Juris from becoming, additionally, an online forum for an interstate jural society, perhaps under the same "law of necessity"?


- Satori

I suppose that as long as none of the Members here do anything that can be percieved as fraud or suborning fraud, nor a threat to commerce, then I think those in commerce would not have a problem; but no one can guarantee what another thinks prior to actual thought.

This kind of thing reminds of something I barely recall seeing advertising for on television a few years ago. I cant recall any details tho.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by idknow

I suppose that as long as none of the Members here do anything that can be percieved as fraud or suborning fraud, nor a threat to commerce, then I think those in commerce would not have a problem; but no one can guarantee what another thinks prior to actual thought.

An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce... nobody said it could only be emitted after another party took issue with something. So we could make one public (Sui Juris itself would make a relevent public forum in which to do so) and then get to it. No?


- Satori

Anything is possible, Satori but the members of suijuris would have to define the ‘law’ with which the jural suijuris community agrees to abide by.

Here they speak of vitual magistrates BUT policing cyberspace with that deadly law merchant/UCC but they it is also said the law merchant can only be enforced with the consent of the parties.

http://www.lessig.org/content/articl...agistrate.html

The virtual magistrate must be grounded to real magistrates; it must be anchored in real world legal systems, both within the United States, and internationally. The question we ask in this paper is how. Our aim is to outline the structures of private international law that would allow the determinations of the Virtual Magistrate (VM) to be enforceable in the widest range of legal contexts. Our conclusion is that systems such as the VM could be made enforceable, with the adaptation of very conventional legal materials.

Perhaps something radically old. For the precedent for such authority (not grounded in any particular sovereign but binding a cross sovereignties) is not hard to find historically. At the founding of the United States, bodies of customary law floated across American jurisdictions without any real connection to the sovereignty of a particular jurisdiction.

Customary international law (formerly known as the law of nations), the law merchant, the common law - these were all bodies of law that were in different ways enforceable in both state and federal courts in America. 4 They functioned in just the way these citizens of cyberspace desire a law of cyberspace to function - as a unified and universal set of authority for resolving disputes, without the conflict of real space law.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by free_martha

Anything is possible, Satori but the members of suijuris would have to define the ‘law’ with which the jural suijuris community agrees to abide by.

Fair enough. We would be upholding and ruling on and within the common law. As sovereign citizens whose Congress has adjourned sine die in 1861 without permission from ourselves nor from our ancestors.

Here they speak of vitual magistrates BUT policing cyberspace with that deadly law merchant/UCC but they it is also said the law merchant can only be enforced with the consent of the parties.

I don't see what involvement sovereigns have with the Law merchant. In the latter, truth is sovereign. But we are sovereign. Therefore, reason dictates that we are not native to the law merchant, and when we invoke it for business it is merely as color of law for the purposes of international and interstate transactions.

The question we ask in this paper is how. Our aim is to outline the structures of private international law that would allow the determinations of the Virtual Magistrate (VM) to be enforceable in the widest range of legal contexts. Our conclusion is that systems such as the VM could be made enforceable, with the adaptation of very conventional legal materials.

I would be cautious of implementation of a magistrate system, virtual or otherwise. As sovereigns who owe no supplication to our government, what we decide for our communities is law, with regard to delegating citizens as court officers for jural societies. LeRoy Schweitzer of the Montana Freemen was doing so, and making the supreme court of the land as described in the framing documents, rather than the "Supreme Court" which was no such thing. I recommend his research.

Perhaps something radically old. For the precedent for such authority (not grounded in any particular sovereign but binding a cross sovereignties) is not hard to find historically. At the founding of the United States, bodies of customary law floated across American jurisdictions without any real connection to the sovereignty of a particular jurisdiction.

And aptly so. A citizen of any of the States united is a citizen of all the rest of the States in the Union. State borders were not meant to limit the jural ability to function; even before D.C. was created the legislature itself was convening in public buildings in the several States.

You're very well-versed.

Establishing a jural society online might have another, less obvious benefit. In this I refer to federal involvement attempting to "hush up" the emergence. Not only is there more visibility, but when members get together online from various locations, the federal government must attack several locations simultaneously to stop it, sending plausible deniability right out the window in front of perhaps a thousand online witnesses.


- Satori

Satori, please do understand that what I meant [and should have said] is that we should avoid the law merchant at all costs, and that in a jural community all would have to come to agreement as to what the law in the jural community was comprised of ...

Just so we don't go down that road and there is the ass-U-umption by some virtual magistrate in cyberspace that we had all consented to the law merchant because of our silence.

free_martha