Birth certificates and slaves

The case of Alberty v United States was over the murder of a half-black, half-Choctaw man by a half-black, half-Cherokee man, on Cherokee territory. The Cherokee people assumed the right of trying one of the members of their tribe. However, the United States demanded, and got, jurisdiction over the case, using as their argument the doctrine of "Partus Sequitur Ventrem," meaning that the offspring is the property of the owner of the mother. The mothers of both men had been black slaves before the [un] civil war, but the children were born after the war. The case was brought in 1896, roughly 40 years after the emancipation proclamation that ended slavery. In this court case, we see the federal government declaring jurisdiction based upon OWNERSHIP, and this, long after it was legal for there to be slavery or involuntary servitude in America.

In Black's Law Dictionary, we see that a Marriage License is ONLY appropriate when a couple is contemplating a marriage between people of different races, as between a white person and a Negro or Indian etc.

When the mother signs the birth certificate of the child, the presumption is that she is the black slave that is still owned by the government, therefore, the doctrine of Partus Sequitur Ventrem applies, and the owner can do with the children as the owner wishes. The children are his property or slave. The government has the signed marriage license and birth certificates for their evidence, backed by many laws and regulations that we have never seen, and may never see

[David Merrill]

Good model. It is amazing sometimes how many models all fit together and still people will argue that you have not provided proof.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
Well now that you have brought it out like that... see where the driver license model comes in?

Imagine marriage as a business venture with going to the store...to stock up *for the business*... requiring a license...and with fruit (children) of the business having to have licenses to transport cargo (the stock and themselves).

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

After 3,500 hours of research, he confirmed what his client didn't want to hear: Between 1834 and 1861, Citizens had secured loans with mortgages on land -- and thousands of slaves.

The leather-bound financial books also offered a remarkably detailed window into the financial dealings of plantation owners, most notably those of Bernard de Marigny, one of the richest men of the epoch, whose gambling habit catapulted at least 62 slaves into the bank's books as collateral for borrowed money.[full article]

[David Merrill]

Thank you for that photo - now in my Banking folder. Nice note, that one.

http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/news/p...com11298898960

The delegation of the Dominican Republic was headed by Mr. Juan TEMISTOCLES MONTAS, Technical Secretary of the Presidency and Mr. Vicente BENGOA, Secretary of Finance. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Ramon FERNANDEZ, Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Treasury and Economic Policy Department of the French Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry, Vice President of the Paris Club.

Considering the territorial laws where I am at:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_969.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_974.jpg

These things make sense in the light of bankruptcy of the IMF etc...

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...006-page14.jpg
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...06-page-11.jpg



From: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...ry-2006-a.html

nice post fulltitle. why they making children of slaves beg for reparations? they took the land from us and now got us begging for reparations? damn the repairing, i want my land back.

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by kgod999

The case of Alberty v United States was over the murder of a half-black, half-Choctaw man by a half-black, half-Cherokee man, on Cherokee territory. The Cherokee people assumed the right of trying one of the members of their tribe. However, the United States demanded, and got, jurisdiction over the case, using as their argument the doctrine of "Partus Sequitur Ventrem," meaning that the offspring is the property of the owner of the mother. The mothers of both men had been black slaves before the [un] civil war, but the children were born after the war. The case was brought in 1896, roughly 40 years after the emancipation proclamation that ended slavery. In this court case, we see the federal government declaring jurisdiction based upon OWNERSHIP, and this, long after it was legal for there to be slavery or involuntary servitude in America.

In Black's Law Dictionary, we see that a Marriage License is ONLY appropriate when a couple is contemplating a marriage between people of different races, as between a white person and a Negro or Indian etc.

When the mother signs the birth certificate of the child, the presumption is that she is the black slave that is still owned by the government, therefore, the doctrine of Partus Sequitur Ventrem applies, and the owner can do with the children as the owner wishes. The children are his property or slave. The government has the signed marriage license and birth certificates for their evidence, backed by many laws and regulations that we have never seen, and may never see

That is a common mistake, the emancipation proclamation did not end slavery, it mearly changed the ownership. Don't feel to badly about not understanding, as this lie is told in all the schools across the land.

As I once heard from a law prof at Arizona State Univeristy, he asked the class how many slaves where freeded by the proclamation, he said it was a nice round number and held up a touching thumb and forefinger to indicate "zero".

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by kgod999

nice post fulltitle. why they making children of slaves beg for reparations? they took the land from us and now got us begging for reparations? damn the repairing, i want my land back.

Without Prejudice.
I know of a guy who was writing a book that only encouraging peaceful-ness and aimed to discuss in detail--without hocus pocus--the legal status/issues of, say, 'brown-skinned' folk in the Americas and --more than one attempt was made on his life. It was actually from a strong and academic legal perspective and touched upon scriptures, 'enemies under hostile occupation', Waltham Black Acts (England/UK), Amistad, Dredd Scot and the like. He actually pointed to so called "black leaders" as being pawns to continue the charade. Since too many slaves might have been 'set free' by reading the book--well you can imagine.

Remember, in Amistad one side was talking 'slave' the other was talking abou having been kidnapped. I suggest the kidnapped mindset is better.

...was she Salomé Müller, a long-lost German immigrant girl enslaved by a Southern planter? Or was she really a light-skinned black woman, shrewd enough to exploit her only opportunity for freedom? Bailey (The White Diver of Broome) keeps us guessing until the end in this page-turning true courtroom drama of 19th-century New Orleans. Bailey opens the story in 1843, when a friend of the Schubers—a local family of German immigrants—discovered Miller outside her owner Louis Belmonti's house. Struck by her remarkable resemblance to their late cousin Dorothea Müller, and unusual birthmarks exactly like he daughter Salomé's, the Schubers claimed Sally as kin and set about trying to prove her identity as Salomé and obtain her freedom. Bailey brings to life the fierce legal proceedings with vivid strokes. The case was controversial because it wasn't Belmonti but her previous owner, the perfect Southern gentleman John Fitz Miller, who faced disgrace if proved to have forced a white German girl into slavery. Bailey elucidates the bewildering array of possible identities turned up for Sally by numerous witnesses as well as the complexities of 19th-century Louisiana slave law and the status of black women. Sally herself remains an enigma at the center of this highly engrossing tale.

fulltitle, how did you know about that (kidnapping vs slavery). see, as you know, slavery was and is still legal, kidnapping is unlawful internationally. so, they keep the focus off kidnapping. i submitted a writ of habeas corpus once upon a time and told the judge i was kidnapped under color of law. they sealed the record. see, they want you to come and say you were unlawfully arrested, because, arrest is a commercial term. it doesnt address the flesh and blood man being kidnapped. see, kidnapping is recognized world wide as a international crime, and the judge knows i could take this up to the world court if need be. now, back to slaves. the only slaves phonetically are the slavics, and moorish people are not slavic people. finally,the black leaders , you are right, they keep the focus on reparations and slavery when the issue is kidnapping and stolen land by hostile occupants. see, these "states" are just that, a state of being. if i come into YOUR house and live in a bedroom, thats my state of being, thus the state of Isreal, the state of georgia, etc. its all stolen property.

[Big Al]

I found this a vary interesting review on the subject, for those that wish to take the time for a good informative review. I submit the following link.

http://http://www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/cispr/conferences/land/curtispaper.pdf#search=%22Partus%20Sequitur%20Vent rem%22