yellow & gold fringed flags

I like how this article puts it:

(Source)
The principle behind the power inherent in imminent domain was that no holdout property owner should be able to stand in the way of the construction of necessary public infrastructure by refusing to sell; or by demanding an exorbitant price for their property and thereby extort money from the taxpayers. Imminent domain has always been a bit unfair to the displaced property owner, but properly used it was and is a necessary compromise in the tension between the rights of private citizens and the interests of the public.

The unabashedly anti-government founding fathers obviously recognized the necessity of sometimes forcing a citizen to sell his or her property to the government, because they included a provision for such an event in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

It's not always fair, but it's demonstrably necessary.

Zip

From the same article:

In reality, what the Michigan Supreme Court decided was just common sense. After all, what meaning is there to the right to own private property, if government has the right to forcibly take that property from you and sell it to someone else, simply because the other party wants to use the property for a higher purpose than you? The very notion fails the smell test.

Hopefully these historic decisions out of Michigan signal the beginning of the end of at least this kind of judicial attack on private property rights. Maybe these decisions are a sign that the courts are beginning to realize that allowing governments to call anything they want a “public use” and then take it makes a mockery of the Fifth Amendment

Basically I get the feeling that the constitution is not being followed and decisions are made as the judge and/or judges see fit. I can see how one might get the feeling that the constitution is sham and we are really under maritime jurisdiction.

For a start, it's eminent -- not imminent -- domain.

But I agree that the recent SCOTUS decision upholding the right of a municipality to condemn or take a property so that another private individual can have it for a "better" reason is a frightening one. I think there's a big difference between a municipality taking property for an infrastructure improvement like a highway which all can use, and taking someone's property to profit another individual.

But that doesn't mean that we're under "maritime" law or anything else. Certainly the recent SCOTUS decision is not nearly as reprehensible as Dred Scott v Sanford; do you think that that decision, saying that blacks could never be citizens, indicated "Maritime Law" back in 1857?

Hardly.

Jurisprudential compromises are the basis of modern civilization.

If one man is allowed to stand in the way of a huge construction project, that is unfair to several parties and perhaps the public as a whole.

If a few men are forced to move, but given fair compensation for their losses then that is only unfair to a few men. It is for the greater good.

Without such compromises, the biggest freeway in your city may only be one lane wide. So a few guys have to relocate so that countless people can move around. (To the guys who have to be relocated: cry me a damn river.)

I know the whole "maritime law" thing sounds really appealing from a conspiratorial interest perspective, but in reality, it's baseless. A damn flag fringe secretly changes the entire system of government? Pull the other one!

www.admiraltylawguide.com...

Zip

[edit on 11/22/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
From the same article:

In reality, what the Michigan Supreme Court decided was just common sense. After all, what meaning is there to the right to own private property, if government has the right to forcibly take that property from you and sell it to someone else, simply because the other party wants to use the property for a higher purpose than you? The very notion fails the smell test.

Hopefully these historic decisions out of Michigan signal the beginning of the end of at least this kind of judicial attack on private property rights. Maybe these decisions are a sign that the courts are beginning to realize that allowing governments to call anything they want a “public use” and then take it makes a mockery of the Fifth Amendment

Basically I get the feeling that the constitution is not being followed

Where in the constitution does it say that the state can't take your property, so long as there is a legal process and compenstation?

and decisions are made as the judge and/or judges see fit.

The judge has to interpret the constitution, somenone has to interpret it, even you are interpreting it, its not clearly and plainly written enough to straightforwardly apply to every situation, it has to be interpreted, thats the nature of law.

I can see how one might get the feeling that the constitution is sham and we are really under maritime jurisdiction.

Why maritime law? Why does that apply but not constituional law?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Yes, the guy went there with all that stuff.

He kept saying that he refused to acknowledge the court's authority over his person, etc.

He got contempt of court, with a show cause hearing after two weeks.

Ironically, he also filed suit against every one of us.

I refused service on his paperwork --- paradoxically, he had mispelt my name. His lawyer tried to tell me it was irrelevant how my name was spelt, that I was still the individual named.

If you know of any court anywhere, I mean a REAL one, that has ever given into this malarky, do let us know.

You will obviously believe whatever you want. I'm telling you I saw guys who believed this crap, and all of them ended up pleading guilty. I never saw it work against a TX or Fed court.

Now, IRS is a different deal. I have heard of people walking out of that one.

.

Please go to this website and read what this individual went through in fighting the Canadian legal system. He got his case moved from an admiralty court to a common law court without the bar and then his case was dismissed because under commmon law with rights of a natural person NO ACT OF LAW CAN HARM A MAN!
This website is massive and a real long read. I couldn't even believe until I ran into people following his methods and getting away with stuff like not paying income tax and what not.
www.naturalperson.com...

I just joined this group and I hope this will bump this topic because I think my request is valid and thought provoking.

I request of any person, to produce evidence that supports the assertion that my physical location is an instrument of consent to a nations legal doctrine.

Are we all aware that states aren't places? I.e. The United States of America is a corporate fiction and not a physical land mass? And just because you are on the land mass known collectively as 'America' who says a parchment of paper with opinions of men means anything to you?

And if you claim the constitution applies to me without consent or contract, purely on the bases of my being in space and time, I urge you to bring it to my attention.

This is appears to be a very informative and helpful forum I must say... I hope my questions come with answers...

After a night night my thoughts tonight conclude that the constitution doesn't applies to legal person at common law, for common law is derived from natural law not positive law. Lex Humana vs Lex Posita

a reply to: xSocialx

It is, of course, a matter which our nation's legal monopoly has isolated within a sphere of exclusivity.

We must dissemble the elements to comprehend that, in the final analysis, we no longer have the right or standing to debate the applicability of the constitution to anything. The establishment construct has rendered the matter inconsequential outside their own halls of power. It is whatever they want it to be, and further, they have the unilateral ability to redefine ALL the precedents to establish ANY posture they feel benefits their position.

Not being defeatist or apologetic; simply acknowledging that the magnitude of the cabal which controls the establishment have successfully rendered the existing constitution into a plaything open to the expedience of their objectives.

Personal sovereignty is a threat to systemic control of the only reason these interests exist, namely "empire."

Understand that the point of the construct is to institute the absolute control of people, while appearing to be within the sphere of control of whichever people are being 'ruled' over.

The immediate and direct response to any challenge limiting the "right" of a governing people (usually ungoverned) to claim their position is the "position of all" and rendering them the actual 'ruling' order (interestingly, this seems inevitably to lead to the 1% holding total control over 99% of the power and resources which we are told is 'wealth.')

Note that now the impetus is to control information... because some genius at the table of overlords finally realized that controlling the economic fate of billions isn't enough to extinguish the drive in people to claim liberty, and freedom as their birthright.

Soon the reality will present itself that none outside this understanding are but sheep. There is no changing the "system" from within. All nation's rulers are knee-deep in ensuring the perpetuity of influence and control... those who wish to change or forge the future are the enemies of states. Most will be dealt with with the finality of violence; others will be suffocate under 'laws' which ensure their inability to seek redress, or dare to demand a reassessment of the status quo.

The way it was explained to me when I was young is still the way I prefer to see it. The flag of the United States of America can not be gilded. When the flag is gilded, or bound, it implies the nation is bound or restrained, and as such is considered improper. Military flags answer to the executive office and are bound by the direction of the supreme commander of the military forces. It is not improper for military flags to be bound, or gilded.

Maxmars I agree with much that you said. We can only hope to be recognized by lawful men. Any reasonable man can see that this legal frame work is a fallacy of natural law.

Hobbes and Mackenzie agreed on that...

a reply to: xSocialx

It is not my intention to be fatalistic about such matters; nor apologetic about the immense inertia the 'legislated' system has. But I cannot often allow myself to lay heavy significance to what those in power consider "dalliances" with triviality.

In the case of the significance of the flag and it's traditional use, I concur that there appears to be a callous denial of the intent behind the tradition. However, I cannot delude myself into thinking that restoring the flag and displaying it as was implicitly intended would in no way guarantee that those in power honor, or even respect the ideal. It wouldn't mean squat to them to treat the flag and it's implicit meaning as we know it was meant to be. They will still bend the law to ensure that they remain in power, their posterity never wants for anything, and the remainder can squabble over the remaining 1% of whatever is left. Such a paradigm was the model shortly before the beginning of the dark ages...

The law exists to support the interests of the party or class that forms it and is merely a collection of beliefs and prejudices that legitimize the injustices of society. The wealthy and the powerful use the law as an instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in hierarchy. The basic idea of CLS is that the law is politics and it is not neutral or value free. Many in the CLS movement want to overturn the hierarchical structures of domination in the modern society and many of them have focused on the law as a tool in achieving this goal. CLS is also a membership organization that seeks to advance its own cause and that of its members.


www.law.cornell.edu...

dropping by this old thread with a resource describing the Civil Peacetime Flag versus other flags and hoping others will re-discover this thread and spark up the convo again

www.barefootsworld.net...

I just Turned 70, I will know we are Free when the Gold comes off our Flag.