Question for David - Magna Carta

David, you said that admiralty is a very good example of common law based in the principles of the Magna Charta, could you explain that a bit further. So the door to the common law is there, it is just hidden, as the access is through admiralty with saving to suitors. Hone Ins. Co. v. North Packet Co., 31 Iowa 242 (1871), "... saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it."

But say there is the rare fish that is out of ‘commerce’ entirely and deals only in just weights and measures and has no maritime-insurance-contracts whatsoever, would admiralty apply? I read the way to plead out of admiralty is, Non-assumpsit by way of confession and avoidance but only if you are that ‘rare fish’.

Where does public policy fits into all of this? Is the constitution and the declaration of independence [will, consent of the governed] public policy under the Law of Nations … BUT the UCC is private merchant-international law … so then are all of the statutes, regs and codes, then private law? What I find interesting too, is that the states themselves called FRN’S counterfeit securities.

Federal /state Law - Admiralty UCC = Law Merchant, Lex Mercatoria through Law of All Nations
All are merchants through commerce clause
Commercial paper
Codes, rules, regulations, statutes – quasi-contract-public-trust with state
Tithes to government
Limited liability insurance – state provides

--------------------------------------------------------------

Biblical Common Law
Just weights and measures, gold silver
Negative golden rule – do no harm
Ten Commandments – covenant with God
Tithes directly to God, not state church
No insurance – God provides

The States join Corp. U.S.
Starting around 1962 and continuing through 1968 Corp US went to the States and pointed out to them that their own constitutions forbid them from participating in foreign currencies and/or foreign loans, foreign bonds etc, and yet they were dealing in the foreign note system of Federal Reserve notes, counterfeit securities. They were warned if the people became aware of this fraud, they could imagine a scene similar to that of the Magna Carta signing where the Lords held a sword to the King's head and said sign or we'll get at new king. The king signed, as did the States. One by one they organized private corporations as sub-corps to Corp U.S.

[David Merrill]

Dear Free_Martha;

Thank you for that inquiry. Properly answered, your questions may be very informative and edifying.

Originally Posted by free_martha

David, you said that admiralty is a very good example of common law based in the principles of the Magna Charta, could you explain that a bit further. So the door to the common law is there, it is just hidden, as the access is through admiralty with saving to suitors. Hone Ins. Co. v. North Packet Co., 31 Iowa 242 (1871), "... saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it."

Exactly. But I consider the only obfuscation (hidden) to be Congress recently changing the wording of the 'saving to suitors' clause in §1333 of Title 28 U.S.C. That is of course within the scope of the district corporation known as the United States where the original intent was without. The original intent, that Congress admits could not be changed when they changed it, was that the fish in your next inquiry could operate free of commerce and technically remain exclusively in trade. [Sadly (domestic) trade has died with the county fair and some could argue that died with the trade being lubricated (inference to intercourse) by FRNs. 1913/1933]

The key to answering concisely is diversity. In your next inquiry there is no diversity of citizenship. So the 'saving to suitors' does not apply because there is no commercial (international/admiralty) relationship between the parties. If there is, and there almost always is whenever the sovereign does business with a Noachide (using FRNs and usury-based concepts) then the only access it through the "One Form of Action" principle. The only filing accepted by the clerk is a civil action and it is up to the clerk whether or not that action is admiralty. This is true across the board in the district overlay upon the states. But is it true with the Court of International Trade?

But say there is the rare fish that is out of ‘commerce’ entirely and deals only in just weights and measures and has no maritime-insurance-contracts whatsoever, would admiralty apply? I read the way to plead out of admiralty is, Non-assumpsit by way of confession and avoidance but only if you are that ‘rare fish’.

The Christian Jural Society in California state hired a moneychanger/agent along these lines. But that was cumbersome. However between the rare fish, a handful of people they were doing honest business and had an interface to the outside world so that they could speak in substance and the Noachide on the other end of the transaction would not know the difference.

Like indicated above, admiralty (international law; lex mercatoria/UCC) only applies when there is diversity of citizenship. The Christian Jural Society was conforming to Torah for the Israelites and the Code of Jewish Law about usury.

Where does public policy fits into all of this? Is the constitution and the declaration of independence [will, consent of the governed] public policy under the Law of Nations … BUT the UCC is private merchant-international law … so then are all of the statutes, regs and codes, then private law? What I find interesting too, is that the states themselves called FRN’S counterfeit securities.

But like you quote below, that usage of counterfiet securities may have been used to coerce the states into incorporation (call them the States, using noun in specific for the Corporation). You might read Joseph Vining's Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law or the case his book is about - well, morelike non-case because Vining explains why it had no standing. (See attachments.)

Other than that the public policy is the Magna Charta. America is considered a Christian nation. That Christianity is incorporated through the Common Law of England adopted for instance here:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_974.jpg

But understand that King George III only had so much of a facade of sovereignty to lose to Americans during the Revolution. One has to understand who the sovereign really was (the rich land barons holding a sword to the king in 1215 were Knights Templar back from the Holy Land), and who we are today, to utilize sovereignty and the 'saving to suitors' clause in proper context.

Federal /state Law - Admiralty UCC = Law Merchant, Lex Mercatoria through Law of All Nations
All are merchants through commerce clause
Commercial paper
Codes, rules, regulations, statutes – quasi-contract-public-trust with state
Tithes to government
Limited liability insurance – state provides

--------------------------------------------------------------

Biblical Common Law
Just weights and measures, gold silver
Negative golden rule – do no harm
Ten Commandments – covenant with God
Tithes directly to God, not state church
No insurance – God provides

The States join Corp. U.S.
Starting around 1962 and continuing through 1968 Corp US went to the States and pointed out to them that their own constitutions forbid them from participating in foreign currencies and/or foreign loans, foreign bonds etc, and yet they were dealing in the foreign note system of Federal Reserve notes, counterfeit securities. They were warned if the people became aware of this fraud, they could imagine a scene similar to that of the Magna Carta signing where the Lords held a sword to the King's head and said sign or we'll get at new king. The king signed, as did the States. One by one they organized private corporations as sub-corps to Corp U.S.

Beware I have never researched out this claim, which seems to be commentary that got filed with my clerk. The material comes from some folks in northern Colorado who were holding juries for a while and had some success at applying some of the typical patriot mythologies.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Thank you, David for that very concise explanation. I would appreciate it if you would so kindly explain bottomry. So … are people the beneficiary of the public trust, the primary claimant under the rights of bottomry? Any contract-trust created under limited liability insurance is bottmry - for instance a CC? I do note that the primary requisite for a CONTRACT OF MARINE INSURANCE IS A CONTRACT BASED UPON THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH … and disclosure.

Also ... Every contract of marine insurance by way of gaming or wagering is void ... does this not include tontines, as they are a form of wagering, and the social insurance benefits are what if not, tontines?

Also, Buffet refers to derivative instruments as financial time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction. Is he, referring to all of these ‘bottomry-insurance limited liability quasi contract-trust’ as ‘derivates’ that he says appear to be devised by madmen?

Mr Buffett argues that such highly complex financial [derivative] instruments are time bombs and "FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" that could harm not only their buyers and sellers, but the whole economic system.

Derivates like futures, options and swaps were developed to allow investors hedge risks in financial markets - in effect buy INSURANCE against market movements -, but have quickly become a means of investment in their own right. Derivates like futures, options and swaps were developed to allow investors hedge risks in financial markets - in effect buy INSURANCE against market movements -, but have quickly become a means of investment in their own right. Some derivatives contracts, Mr Buffett says, appear to have been devised by "madmen".

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2817995.stm]

Bottomry- The oldest known form of risk transfer. It was used by the ancient Greeks and provided that a ship not returning to port is absolved of any debt on the ship itself or on its cargo. Lloyd's of London refined this concept when it began insuring the shipment of goods across the Atlantic to the Americas. From this, MODERN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE EVOLVED

bottomry – admiralty law - A contract in the nature of a mortgage, by which the owner of a ship, or the master as his agent, hypothecates and binds the ship (and sometimes the accruing freight) as security for the repayment of money advanced or lent for the use of the ship, if she terminates her voyage successfully. If the ship is lost by perils of the sea, the lender loses the money; but if the ship arrives safe, he is to receive the money lent, with the interest or premium stipulated, although itmay, and usually does, exceed the legal rate of interest.

hypothecate - To pledge securities as collateral for a loan without giving up ownership of the securities.

Bottomry is different from the contract of loan because:
?1. The peril of money, simply lent, concerns the borrower: whereas money lent at bottomry is at the risk of the lender.?2. In a simple loan, interest is due by positive stipulation only; whereas, maritime interest is implied in the contract itself.?3. In a simple loan, the interest, among merchants, could not exceed the rate fixed by the Prince, or, at most the custom of the country; whereas, bottomry may carry any interest."
?" . . . Maritime interest is not subject to the limits of ordinary legal interest, but that it may be regulated by the degree of danger to which the lender exposes or believes he exposes his money." "THE CONTRACT OF MARITIME LOAN APPROACHES MORE NEARLY TO THAT OF INSURANCE.

There is a strong analogy between them. In their effects they are construed on the same principles. In the one contract, the lender bears the sea risks, in the other, the underwriter. In the one, the maritime interest is the price of the peril; and this term corresponds with the premium which is paid in the ."

The Marine Insurance Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7c. 41).

p1. Marine Insurance Defined. -- A contract of marine insurance is a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in a manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against maritime losses, that is to say, the losses incident to maritime adventure."
4. Avoidance of wagering or gaming contracts.?(1) Every contract of marine insurance by way of gaming or wagering is void.?(2) A contract of marine insurance is deemed to be a gaming or wagering contract -- ?(a) where the assured has not an insurable interest as defined by the Act, and the contract is entered into with no expectation of acquiring such an interest;?(b)or, where the or no interest,' or `without further proof of interest than the policy itself,' . . . or subject to any other like term."
5. Insurable Interest Defined.?(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person has an insurable interest who is interested in a maritime adventure.?(2) In particular a person is interested in a maritime adventure where he stands in any legal or equitable relation to the adventure or to any insurable property at risk therein, in consequence of which he may benefit by the safety or due arrival of insurable property, or may be prejudiced by its loss, or damage thereto,or by the detention thereof, or may incur liability in respect thereof."The Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act, 1909, (9 Edw. 7 c. 12)

Disclosure and Representations
#17 . . . A CONTRACT OF MARINE INSURANCE IS A CONTRACT BASED UPON THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, . . .NOTE: If this good faith be not observed by either party, THERE BEING ANY CONCEALMENT OR NON-DISCLOSURE OF A MATERIAL PARTICULAR, THE CONTRACT MAY BE AVOIDED BY THE INJURED PARTY;"?#41 . . .Warranty of Legality. -- There is an implied warranty that the adventure insured is a lawful one, and that, so far as the assured can control the matter, the adventure shall be carried out in a lawful manner. . .?NOTE: It seems that the assured cannot hold the insurer to a waiver of illegality for . . . only legal adventures can be insured."

1. Prohibition of gambling or loss by maritime perils.
(1) If -- (a) Any person effects a contract of maritime insurance without having any bonafide interest, direct or indirect, . . . or a bonafide expectation of acquiring such an interest; . . . the contract shall be deemed to be a contract by way of gambling on loss by maritime perils . . .

And, from "An Essay on Maritime Loans from the French" of M. Balthazard Marie Emerigon, we find: "The Lender (of a Maritime Loan) was not prohibited from demanding pledges and hypothecations as an additional security; providing it was not a pretext for exacting maritime interest after the sea risk should be at an end." "It is essential to this contract that there be a risk, and that the risk be incurred by the lender . . . The stipulation, interest or no interest is a real wager . . . This is not permitted among us . . ." "If the contract was void in its commencement, the maritime interest is not chargeable, because no maritime dangers were borne by the lender." "Difference between contracts of bottomry and those of Loan, Partnership and insurance.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by free_martha

Thank you, David for that very concise explanation. I would appreciate it if you would so kindly explain bottomry.

There is not much point in that after you have included such comprehensive definitions. My concepts about bottomry are not very deviant. See the P.P.S. below for the fuller Bouvier's definition.

So … are people the beneficiary of the public trust, the primary claimant under the rights of bottomry?

http://www.principalityofcaledonia.com/CCA/index.htm

Any contract-trust created under limited liability insurance is bottmry - for instance a CC? for instance a CC? (Commonwealth Compact?) I do note that the primary requisite for a CONTRACT OF MARINE INSURANCE IS A CONTRACT BASED UPON THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH … and disclosure.

Also ... Every contract of marine insurance by way of gaming or wagering is void ... does this not include tontines, as they are a form of wagering, and the social insurance benefits are what if not, tontines?

Good point! Read below...

Also, Buffet refers to derivative instruments as financial time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction. Is he, referring to all of these ‘bottomry-insurance limited liability quasi contract-trust’ as ‘derivates’ that he says appear to be devised by madmen?

The only thing in America that makes things look like prosperity is the housing bubble. People lose thier jobs to outsourcing while they refinance thier homes and deplete savings to survive.

I hear there may be over 600 "owners" of any one contract on an ounce of gold at any one time... I judge this insanity.

With that said I hope to drum an new perspective into the Reader with the same old David Merrill song about identity. The world's Tontine depends upon a swirling confusion about our own identity, upon us falling into the same old pseudonomania and alienation from the original estate. You asked me:

So … are people the beneficiary of the public trust, the primary claimant under the rights of bottomry?

Albeit that is a loaded question; I turn it upon you free_martha. But I will break it down to this:

1) Are the people the beneficiary of the public trust?
2) Is the public trust formed in the Constitution - Article VI - styled in/after bottomry?
3) Who are you?

Answer 1) Of course. That is why the People maintained the posture of only being in the Preamble; separate from the statute (Constitution) they formed over government as the Trustee. That is also why nobody could ever be a trustee and accept Titles of Nobility from foreign power.

Answer 2) Of course it is. The several states in compact were joindering thier international trade rights into unity - The united (a modifier) States known by the noun in specific United States. The United States is a vessel between two seas. Early on the summit of Pikes Peak was declared the high-tide mark. May 12, 1999 I published the Return of Indictment on Robert Rubin (for Temple Desecration) upon the testimony of the US Geologic Survey that Mount Hermon (north of Colorado Springs) is 9,053 feet above sea level*.

Answer 3) Again I will subdivide the typical identity crisis:

A) True Name; the man or woman at the keyboard. The sovereign with the image of God resident within

B) Legal Name; the artificial entity we are conditioned to adopt as prima facie evidence we are fiduciary responsible (trustee) for the obvious encryption

C) nom de guerre - the all upper case FIRST MIDDLE LAST representation of the social compact ingrained into us as B).

In other words, the People while deluded into thinking government is sovereign are assets, chattel on Schedule A of the trust indenture. The people after capital integration are the true beneficiary. [Allayah - to Return to the Eretz, the Land.] As government, the trustee makes any attempt (being puppet of international banking) to convey the assets into possession of the government/international bankers that self-executing disrupts the trust as an alter ego. That is a win-win situation. Therefore people working up the chutzpa slowly, one by one, is a good thing. It functions like a carefully regulated release valve system to unravel the highly compressed information infrastructure (the Big Lie) of the entire stellionation (verb as noun again, sorry) in a controlled manner. Capital integration.

For prime example today is March 21. Yesterday was the deadline urged by the Federal Reserve for Congress to raise the debt ceiling again**. Well that happened last week. However the Fed was telling Congress counsel to dip into government pension funds in order to cover the extra credit. Congress is mum about that so I presume that is the plan. However it is unprecedented to gouge the unproductive and there still seems to be enough productive sheeple willing to pay even more in income taxes.

The mere fact of international and admiralty (pardon me for making them nouns) lies in the income tax itself; the Trading with the Enemy Act 12 U.S.C. §95, 95(a-b) says it all right there. The people cannot be deemed enemies unto themselves. That would be schizophrenic. The people are dichotomized - which is schizophrenic.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._12_TWEA_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._12_TWEA_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._12_TWEA_3.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf..._12_TWEA_4.jpg


We are schizophrenic - and so are we!


Regards,

David Merrill.



*Robert E. Rubin the Secretary of the Treasury was announcing his resignation in time for the five o'clock news. Within a few months somebody climbed the mountain with a sledge hammer and destroyed the marker and the 600 lb. boulder it was mounted in. But they left two reference markers (with arrows pointing to the main marker) at right angles only 12 feet away from it. Were these common vandals? Carrying a doublejack up to the top of a mountain only to destroy one of three markers?

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/his.../rerubin.shtml
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/manag...tary/rubin.htm

** Iran forming the petro euro based Bourse while the Fed abolishes M3 reporting so we will not track hidden taxes (inflation).


P.S. I just had to get one last jab in for Judge Roy Bean for repeatedly saying that my name is David Merrill Van Pelt.

We are schizophrenic - and so are we!

Spoofing I am schizophrenic and so am I.

The Hebrews gave but one name to a child...

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ble_family.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...Dictionary.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...common_law.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...t_and_Seal.jpg

[David Merrill]

P.P.S.

Originally Posted by Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856

BOTTOMRY, maritime law. A contract, in nature of a mortgage of a ship, on which the owner borrows money to enable him to fit out the ship, or to purchase a cargo, for a voyage proposed: and he pledges the keel or bottom of the ship, pars pro toto, as a security for the repayment; and it is stipulated that if the ship should be lost in the course of the voyage, by any of the perils enumerated in the contract, the lender also shall lose his money but if the ship should arrive in safety, then he shall receive back his principal, and also the interest agreed upon, which is generally called marine interest, however this may exceed the legal rate of interest. Not only the ship and tackle, if they arrive safe, but also the person of the borrower, is liable for the money lent and the marine interest. See 2 Bl. Com. 458; Marsh. Ins. B. 21 c. 1; Ord. Louis XIV. B. 3, tit. 5; Laws of Wishuy, art. 45 Code de Com. B. 2, tit. 9.
2. The contract of bottomry should specify the principal lent, and the rate of marine interest agreed upon; the subject on which the loan is effected the names of the vessel and of the master those of the lender and borrower whether the loan be for an entire voyage; for what voyage and for what space of time; and the period of re-payment. Code de Com. art. 311 Marsh. Ins. B. 2.
3. Bottomry differs materially from a simple loan. In a loan, the money is at the risk of the borrower, and must be paid at all events. But in bottomry, the money is at the risk of the lender during the voyage. Upon a loan, only legal interest can be received; but upon bottomry, any interest may be legally reserved which the parties agree upon. See, generally, Metc. & Perk. Dig. h. t.; Marsh. lnst. B. 2; Bac. Abr. Merchant, K; Com. Dig. Merchant. E 4; 3 Mass. 443; 8 Mass. 340; 4 Binn. 244; 4 Cranch, 328; 3 John. R. 352 2 Johns. Cas. 250; 1 Binn. 405; 8 Cranch, 41 8; 1 Wheat. 96; 2 Dall. 194. See also this Dict. tit. Respondentia; Vin. Abr. Bottomry Bonds 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1246-57.
BOUGHT NOTE, contracts. An instrument in writing, given by a broker to the seller of merchandise, in which it is stated that the goods therein mentioned have been sold for him. There appears, however, some confusion in the books, on the subject of these notes sometimes they are called sold notes. 2 B. & Ald. 144 Blackb. on Sales, 89.
2. This note is signed in the broker's name, as agent of the buyer and seller; and, if he has not exceeded his authority, the parties are thereby respectively bound. 1 Bell's Com. (5th ed.) 435; Holt's C. 170; Story on Agency, 28; 9 B. & Cr. 78; 17 E. C. L. R. 335; 5 B. & Ad. 521; 1 N. R. 252; 1 Moo. & R. 368; Moo. & M. 43; 22 E. C. L. R. 243; 2 M. & W. 440; Moo. & M. 43; 6 A. & E. 486; 33 E. C. L. R. 122; 16 East, 62 Gow, R. 74; 1 Camp. R. 385; 4 Taunt. 209; 7 Ves. 265. Vide Sold Note.

One can see by Rule C(3) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims that persons deemed liable by the plaintiff can be arrested in rem like the vessels they are.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...vio_v_Boit.zip
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...tion_pages.zip

[idknow]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

http://www.treasury.gov/education/hi.../rerubin.shtml
http://www.treasury.gov/offices/mana...tary/rubin.htm

[cut]

Corrected the url's above.
Thank you for your participation.

Thank you David, it was not my intent to ask a ‘loaded question’ and please accept my apologies for doing so.

I had figured it out that the people are the beneficiaries to the public trust as we are the primary claimant under the rights of bottomry. In the 1930’s our forefathers graciously donated their private property, gold, to the state. And what did they get in return exchange? The *gift * given in reciprocity to the people, was the offer of limited liability insurance that all of the property *donated* would be held in the public trust with the caveat that you would not ask for it back.

However, was/is that offer in the utmost good faith with full disclosure … ? I have my doubts. Looks like a massive tontine-pyramid-ponzi insurance scheme that many continue to ‘donate’ to. People did not have to take the offer but they were ravaged by the depression, followed by the war. Many who would have opposed it were simply not there anymore. If you speak to people who lived through the 30’s they looked at government handouts as charity and refused to be ‘beholden’.

As to Buffet saying that derivative instruments are financial time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction, I suggest that the NAME-GAME is a bigger part of those ‘derivatives’. The state styles the name in any amount of varieties and each and every style may well be the derivative referred to by Buffet; with a $$ attached to them. It is said that a ‘signature’ is as ‘good as gold’ and it surely must be as it is in great demand.

Is public policy just a kinder, gentler way of saying law of necessity? Everyone is deemed to be in a trader in commerce through the Law of Nations law merchant. That law merchant is deadly no doubt about it and its usage has not changed from feudal times. The ‘law merchant of necessity’ employed in the 1800’s is still in use today.

Law Merchant was taken out of the common law and put into Equity, where it could be "judicially noticed" in any jurisdiction. Law Merchant = Summary Judgment = "Natural Law." It is the law of the jungle, of the summary judgment, of the survival of the fittest. Thus, it is this unwritten private law of which the judges are bound to take "judicial notice" in their rulings. The principle being that, whatever else can be pleaded, any supposedly national law of civil constitutional right claimed violated can be ruled immaterial on the basis of this unseen, unspoken, imprinted, "natural" law. It never needs to be given in evidence, and always favors the practicing "merchant" communizer as against the quasi "merchant" citizen who hasn't the faintest idea that the judge sees him as a merchant, unable to understand. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...0INSTRU MENTS

excerpts from Comyns's Digest of the Laws of England (1800) have a remarkable content.

"By the St. 11 Edw. I de Acton Burnel, a merchant may cause his debtor to come before the mayor of the staple, &c., and make recognizance of his debt, which shall be entered on the roll, with the seal of the debtor and the king, in custody of the mayor, &c."

"By the St. de Mercatoribus, 13 Edw. I, he shall come before the mayor, &c. or other sufficient men sworn thereto, if the mayor &c. cannot attend, and acknowledge his debt and day of payment; and the recognizance shall be enrolled, and the roll double; one part to remain with the mayor, &c. the other with the clerk thereto named, and the clerk shall make an obligation, to which the seal of the debtor shall be put with the king's seal, &c., of which the one part shall remain with the mayor, &c. the other with the clerk."
"By which status the mayor, with the constables of the staple, may take recognizance of merchants of the staple for merchandise only of the same staple, and not others. Vide the St. 23 Hen. VIII, 6.,"

Much more reminds us strikingly of the alphabet agencies. For one example:

"By the St. de Act. Burn, 11 Edw. I and de Merc. 13 Edw I, if the debtor does not pay, &c., the creditor shall bring his obligation to the mayor, &c., who shall incontinent cause the moveables of the debtor, to the amount of the debt, to be sold and delivered to the creditor by the praisement of honest men, and the king's seal shall be put to the sale, &c."

"And if the mayor find no buyers, he shall deliver the said moveables to the creditor at a reasonable price, &c."

"And the mayor may cause the body of the debtor (if lay) to be committed to the prison of the town till he agree the debt."

"And therefore the mayor may make execution, where the conusee lives, and has lands and goods within his jurisdiction."

Finally, believe it or not, right out of the Middle Ages the "jeopardy assessment" and the "90-day letter," out of the private law of the time of Edward I, thus:

"By the Stat. Act. Burn, 11 Edw I, & Merc 13 Edw I, if the debtor have no moveables, of which the debt may be levied, or cannot be found within the jurisdiction of the mayor, he shall send the recognizance under the king's seal into the Chancery, and the Chancellor shall direct a writ to the Sheriff to seize the moveables, or the body of the debtor (if lay), and make him agree to the debt in the same manner as the mayor, if he had been in his power."

"So, by the St. de Merc., 13 Edw. I, if the debtor agrees not the debt in a quarter of a year, by sale of his goods and lands, all his lands shall be delivered to the merchants by reasonable extent, to hold till the debt be levied."

When you refer to as schizophrenic – two faces in one - it is essentially, bifurcation, the dividing of property into two parts. These are the legalese calls ‘words of art’ they use to ascribe a juridical personality – legal identity. Examples: the French, Declaration of man. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm Here they refer to man but also as a citizen. Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, ch. 1, part 1, states: "Every HUMAN BEING has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. He also possesses a juridical PERSON-[ality].

free_martha

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by free_martha

Thank you David, it was not my intent to ask a ‘loaded question’ and please accept my apologies for doing so.

No problem. What I meant was that it presumed admiralty.

I had figured it out that the people are the beneficiaries to the public trust as we are the primary claimant under the rights of bottomry. In the 1930’s our forefathers graciously donated their private property, gold, to the state. And what did they get in return exchange? The *gift * given in reciprocity to the people, was the offer of limited liability insurance that all of the property *donated* would be held in the public trust with the caveat that you would not ask for it back.

However, was/is that offer in the utmost good faith with full disclosure … ? I have my doubts. Looks like a massive tontine-pyramid-ponzi insurance scheme that many continue to ‘donate’ to. People did not have to take the offer but they were ravaged by the depression, followed by the war. Many who would have opposed it were simply not there anymore. If you speak to people who lived through the 30’s they looked at government handouts as charity and refused to be ‘beholden’.

As to Buffet saying that derivative instruments are financial time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction, I suggest that the NAME-GAME is a bigger part of those ‘derivatives’. The state styles the name in any amount of varieties and each and every style may well be the derivative referred to by Buffet; with a $$ attached to them. It is said that a ‘signature’ is as ‘good as gold’ and it surely must be as it is in great demand.

Is public policy just a kinder, gentler way of saying law of necessity? Yes. Everyone is deemed to be in a trader in commerce through the Law of Nations law merchant. That law merchant is deadly no doubt about it and its usage has not changed from feudal times. The ‘law merchant of necessity’ employed in the 1800’s is still in use today.

It came in handy for justifying the pilfering of the Holy Land during the Crusades.

Law Merchant was taken out of the common law and put into Equity, where it could be "judicially noticed" in any jurisdiction. Law Merchant = Summary Judgment = "Natural Law." It is the law of the jungle, of the summary judgment, of the survival of the fittest. Thus, it is this unwritten private law of which the judges are bound to take "judicial notice" in their rulings. The principle being that, whatever else can be pleaded, any supposedly national law of civil constitutional right claimed violated can be ruled immaterial on the basis of this unseen, unspoken, imprinted, "natural" law. It never needs to be given in evidence, and always favors the practicing "merchant" communizer as against the quasi "merchant" citizen who hasn't the faintest idea that the judge sees him as a merchant, unable to understand. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...0INSTRU MENTS

excerpts from Comyns's Digest of the Laws of England (1800) have a remarkable content.

"By the St. 11 Edw. I de Acton Burnel, a merchant may cause his debtor to come before the mayor of the staple, &c., and make recognizance of his debt, which shall be entered on the roll, with the seal of the debtor and the king, in custody of the mayor, &c."

"By the St. de Mercatoribus, 13 Edw. I, he shall come before the mayor, &c. or other sufficient men sworn thereto, if the mayor &c. cannot attend, and acknowledge his debt and day of payment; and the recognizance shall be enrolled, and the roll double; one part to remain with the mayor, &c. the other with the clerk thereto named, and the clerk shall make an obligation, to which the seal of the debtor shall be put with the king's seal, &c., of which the one part shall remain with the mayor, &c. the other with the clerk."
"By which status the mayor, with the constables of the staple, may take recognizance of merchants of the staple for merchandise only of the same staple, and not others. Vide the St. 23 Hen. VIII, 6.,"

Much more reminds us strikingly of the alphabet agencies. For one example:

"By the St. de Act. Burn, 11 Edw. I and de Merc. 13 Edw I, if the debtor does not pay, &c., the creditor shall bring his obligation to the mayor, &c., who shall incontinent cause the moveables of the debtor, to the amount of the debt, to be sold and delivered to the creditor by the praisement of honest men, and the king's seal shall be put to the sale, &c."

"And if the mayor find no buyers, he shall deliver the said moveables to the creditor at a reasonable price, &c."

"And the mayor may cause the body of the debtor (if lay) to be committed to the prison of the town till he agree the debt."

"And therefore the mayor may make execution, where the conusee lives, and has lands and goods within his jurisdiction."

Finally, believe it or not, right out of the Middle Ages the "jeopardy assessment" and the "90-day letter," out of the private law of the time of Edward I, thus:

"By the Stat. Act. Burn, 11 Edw I, & Merc 13 Edw I, if the debtor have no moveables, of which the debt may be levied, or cannot be found within the jurisdiction of the mayor, he shall send the recognizance under the king's seal into the Chancery, and the Chancellor shall direct a writ to the Sheriff to seize the moveables, or the body of the debtor (if lay), and make him agree to the debt in the same manner as the mayor, if he had been in his power."

"So, by the St. de Merc., 13 Edw. I, if the debtor agrees not the debt in a quarter of a year, by sale of his goods and lands, all his lands shall be delivered to the merchants by reasonable extent, to hold till the debt be levied."

When you refer to as schizophrenic – two faces in one - it is essentially, bifurcation, the dividing of property into two parts. These are the legalese calls ‘words of art’ they use to ascribe a juridical personality – legal identity. Examples: the French, Declaration of man. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm Here they refer to man but also as a citizen. Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, ch. 1, part 1, states: "Every HUMAN BEING has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. He also possesses a juridical PERSON-[ality].

free_martha

You are amazing!