Proof we're under martime admiralty law. You are chattel. They own you

Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to Do Everything


…But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.


www.lewrockwell.com...


Under maritime law, law of the sea, you own nothing. You're always subject to debt, and subject to debt, you never pay off any debt. That's why you have to pay taxes on property you believe you own, you have to pay for privileges, such as driving, which under the Constitution is a right given to men by God, that's why you don't even have your children; the government does. People are just caretakers, and if you don't do what the government says, CPS can take your kids at any time.

Under maritime law, you're just chattel to feed the beast. You can see it now. The country's gone from an open and free market to a fiat economy, where the government tells you each and every step what to spend your money on. Mandated licenses, mandated fees, mandated taxes, mandated car insurance, mandated health insurance, etc...everything's mandated.

Wake up!

Originally posted by radio_for_peace
Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to Do Everything


…But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.


www.lewrockwell.com...


Under maritime law, law of the sea, you own nothing. You're always subject to debt, and subject to debt, you never pay off any debt. That's why you have to pay taxes on property you believe you own, you have to pay for privileges, such as driving, which under the Constitution is a right given to men by God, that's why you don't even have your children; the government does. People are just caretakers, and if you don't do what the government says, CPS can take your kids at any time.

Under maritime law, you're just chattel to feed the beast. You can see it now. The country's gone from an open and free market to a fiat economy, where the government tells you each and every step what to spend your money on. Mandated licenses, mandated fees, mandated taxes, mandated car insurance, mandated health insurance, etc...everything's mandated.

Wake up!

I didn't see anything in that link about maritime law. The commerce clause is part of our constitution. Different.


I've heard this stuff before - Jordan Maxwell - only I've never seen any evidence to support this claim. He never produces sources to prove what he's saying. All he ever uses for evidence is word games, and it sounds a little bit like listening to by friend with scizophrenia when he refuses to take his meds (real person, btw)... he sometimes strings ideas together based on how the words sound or on how patterns look, as opposed to, reality.

I found this subject fascinating when I first heard about it, but then disappointing when I saw no proof.

If anyone's got the goods, I'd love to hear it.

Originally posted by TrueTruth

Originally posted by radio_for_peace
Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to Do Everything


…But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.


www.lewrockwell.com...


Under maritime law, law of the sea, you own nothing. You're always subject to debt, and subject to debt, you never pay off any debt. That's why you have to pay taxes on property you believe you own, you have to pay for privileges, such as driving, which under the Constitution is a right given to men by God, that's why you don't even have your children; the government does. People are just caretakers, and if you don't do what the government says, CPS can take your kids at any time.

Under maritime law, you're just chattel to feed the beast. You can see it now. The country's gone from an open and free market to a fiat economy, where the government tells you each and every step what to spend your money on. Mandated licenses, mandated fees, mandated taxes, mandated car insurance, mandated health insurance, etc...everything's mandated.

Wake up!

I didn't see anything in that link about maritime law. The commerce clause is part of our constitution. Different.


I've heard this stuff before - Jordan Maxwell - only I've never seen any evidence to support this claim. He never produces sources to prove what he's saying. All he ever uses for evidence is word games, and it sounds a little bit like listening to by friend with scizophrenia when he refuses to take his meds (real person, btw)... he sometimes strings ideas together based on how the words sound or on how patterns look, as opposed to, reality.

I found this subject fascinating when I first heard about it, but then disappointing when I saw no proof.

If anyone's got the goods, I'd love to hear it.

:facepalm: dude, admiralty law is commerce.

It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by radio_for_peace


Utter cowcrap.

1. Maritime Law has no bearing whatsoever on anything you have mentioned.

2. Who should pay for the construction and upkeep of roads if not the people who use them?
Who should pay for services required to keep a town or city running if not the people living in them?

The tooth fairy sure isn't going to do it for you.

Black's Law Dictionary (2004) defines chattel as:

Movable or transferable property; personal property; esp., a physical object capable of manual delivery and not the subject matter of real property.

People are not chattel.

Admiralty law is

the rules governing contract, tort, and workers'-compensation claims arising out of commerce on or over navigable water

I fail to see how the original poster's claims hold water.

Originally posted by keeb333
Black's Law Dictionary (2004) defines chattel as:

Movable or transferable property; personal property; esp., a physical object capable of manual delivery and not the subject matter of real property.

People are not chattel.

Admiralty law is

the rules governing contract, tort, and workers'-compensation claims arising out of commerce on or over navigable water

I fail to see how the original poster's claims hold water.

Do you believe his claim that the state owns your child if you have one?
Do you believe his claim that the USA is in receivership?
A child or slave can fit your definition of chattle.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


No, the state does not "own" my children any more than I do. People cannot be owned (see the 13th Amendment). Slavery is illegal in the United States.

At one time, slaves would have been considered chattel, but this no longer applies.

reply to post by radio_for_peace


facepalm?

I ask a question - for evidence - and that's your reply?

Why don't you just be a grown up and say "i don't know", like a big boy?


what the hell is wrong with people?

reply to post by Kailassa


18 USC 7 - Sec. 7

The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", as used in this title, includes: (1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State. (2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the International Boundary Line. (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

The key phrase is any corporation created and statement 3.....There is your proof.....and yes the CONstitution is something that brings up maritime law and is something that unless you have claimed in admiralty jurisdiction to be party to, then you are not party to it.....See Capitonym.....then look at We The People......It is a specific group of people establishing how they are going to run the show....The CONstitution is a trust. That's all....cry all you want...Learn And Win....It's call LAW!

reply to post by keeb333


You signed your kids over.....congrats.....yes you signed them into slavery....your marriage cert says product of the union....the BC and SS just make this all the more deeper, but there is remedy my friend and if you want it....email me and I will share it with you....No charge!!!! Well the things you need will cost money, but I will not charge you anything

I've tried repeatedly to educate people on this issue - to no avail. People prefer to become ostriches over this and deny, deny, deny without even understanding what it is they are denying.

Yes, every American is the property, chattel, of the "Corporation". YOU are ALL under contract and you don't even know it. I'm not going to waste my time any longer spilling the facts, but here's a few things you can look up on your own. Why is there gold tassle on the American flag of every courtroom? Why, when appearing in court, does the docket list your name in all capital letters? What are you signing when you: get a driver's license, a marriage license, a birth certificate or social security number? What "collateral" is used when the Treasury receives money from the Fed? Why do police officer's uniforms feature the American flag with a gold border? What is the difference between a US CITIZEN and a Citizen of the United States? Why do lawyers carry the title "Esquire"?

That is just the beginning folks. Our entire "Republic" is a sham. The US is a corporation and you are under contract with it. The terms of this contract are governed by maritime admiralty law. You own nothing! Your freedom is a simple illusion. Check it out for yourself - and be horrified!

reply to post by kozmo



I agree totally.

I am not actually from the US, I was born in the UK and now live in Sweden.

One thing the people need to know in the US you are not alone regarding this matter, pretty much the same applies thoughout europe but under different laws.

So many people are always watching TPTB left hand and whilst also watching the right hand thinking they are smart, what everyone needs to wake up to is that TPTB also have two feet, head shoulders etc etc.

Once you start seeing that then you might get an idea of how far the rabbit hole goes down.

Just my 2 cent.

[edit on 7/12/2009 by TheDon]

reply to post by kozmo


Well you are close....no American is their property...every citizen is.....

reply to post by radio_for_peace


Here's the goods/proof
This is the second time I've came across this "martime admiralty law".
Some of you may of seen this before about a Former Police Officer Challenges Court Jurisdiction (martime admiralty law) This guy has tested it in court

It's a good read.

If you have never seen your Government in action, go to any court and watch the show. They always make the PERSON say their name and walk past the "BAR" (this is the act of getting on a ship, and subjecting your "PERSON" to Maritime Jurisdiction and leaving the land) Look at the Flag of any court room, it will have a gold fringe around it, this is a Maritime Flag or military Flag, it gives away the fact you are not on the land, but 'under' Admiralty jurisdiction and a passenger on a ship. The list of names and cases outside the court is a passenger list and ship manifest, just like the old days for getting on a ship. This is why, if you board the ship and complain about your "Constitutional Rights" the judge will give you a contempt charge. The Captain of the ship has control of the ship while on the water, the Constitution is the law of the Land, you just left the land if you gave your name, respond to any title (Mr. Mrs. DEFENDANT, whatever) or walked past the BAR. You choose to get on the ship and surrender your Rights listed in the Constitution. We were magically transformed into a PERSON, not a man or a woman.

Zelong.

[edit on 9/12/09 by Zelong]

Originally posted by radio_for_peace
:facepalm: dude, admiralty law is commerce.

Specifically, Admiralty Law governs over International Trade Powers delegated to the Federal Government. Maritime contracts taking place overseas. Government Officials who actually sign such contracts & treaties are bound by that, but Freemen on the Land are not...Unless that Freeman's signature itself appears on the contract. The "fact" of Admiralty Law having any kind of lawful jurisdiction on land is a "legalese pretense" they use to trick you into thinking that you'd agreed with the contract, even if you never had.

Stay out of the courtrooms that are governed by Admiralty Jurisdiction (& thus, the Uniform Commercial Code, not the Constitution)...Once you enter, you are considered to be "entering into contract & their jurisdiction" with them. Once you give them any personal information about yourself (including your name) or agree to any of their statements or answer any of their questions, you are also entering into contract with them. They only have power over you if you enter into contract with them; that is the limit of their jurisdiction. The only thing you should say is, "I do not accept your offer of contract." Also, sign nothing they try to give you.

Originally posted by Kailassa
2. Who should pay for the construction and upkeep of roads if not the people who use them?
Who should pay for services required to keep a town or city running if not the people living in them?

The Federal Government has the Power to build and maintain a road system for use of the Post Office...But the Public Roads are paid for through local taxation (ie: the State). On a related note, don't use Zip Codes when sending anything to the government; Don't accept anything from the government that bears the Zip Code for your location (send it back, unopened with the phrase"Improper Jurisdiction; Zip Code not required"); If you keep it or open it, you're entering into contract. The Post Office doesn't need the Zip Code, cannot discriminate with (non)delivery against Citizens who don't use it & its use by private Citizens is entirely optional. However, the IRS uses Zip Codes to establish federal jurisdiction...

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Do you believe his claim that the state owns your child if you have one?
Do you believe his claim that the USA is in receivership?
A child or slave can fit your definition of chattle.

Again, this is only if you agree to enter into contract with them. In this case, registering the child's Birth Certificate constitutes entering into contract. Originally, it should have been recorded & filed at the Hall of Records where the hospital-of-birth occurred. However, this also constitutes a contract (essentially, signing your child into slavery, while the parents become no more than the Wards or Guardians) entered by your parents, unknowing of the ramifications (full terms & conditions) of that contract. Under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), in the sections dealing with Remedy & Recourse, this contract is nulled at the point of origin due to Gross Misrepresentation of Contract & Failure to Provide Full Disclosure of All Terms & Conditions...That is, voided as if it never existed (retroactively). This can be rectified through the use of properly notarized & filed affidavits (The link to the thread below has more detail), stating that you reclaim your Citizenship by Birthright & all inherent Rights thereof...In essence, use the Due Process of Law to defend yourself.

Originally posted by Helminator
Well you are close....no American is their property...every citizen is.....

True. But there are 2 different classes of citizenship, as specifically defined by Law. Every Natural Born Child on US Soil within the boundaries of a State is a Citizen (note the capital "C"), accorded all Rights under the Common Law, Constitution & Bill of Rights. A citizen (note the lower-case "c") of the United States (born on federal territories/ possessions) is an Immigrated/Naturalized citizen as described in the 16th Amendment. Through the use of "registering" Birth Certificates, you essentially enter into contract with the Federal Government to be considered as a 16th Amendment citizen. Only those Rights specifically mentioned in the 16th Amendment are applied to you! They will enforce no other Rights!

The main reason why so few people understand how the government gets away with so many "offers" of fraudulent contracts is because nobody is told about it & have to learn the hard way. "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse," INDEED!

Originally posted by Zelong
This guy has tested it in court

Actually, he's not the only one to do so...Hundreds of thousands of people are doing the same thing AND WINNING! It's estimated that about 1 million people have already reclaimed their Sovereignty through the Due Process of Law, past the fraudulent government...& the number is growing. That's one of the reasons that the government is getting scared & trying to clamp down so hard on everybody who hasn't learned the Truth of Law yet (but this number is diminishing ).

Lots of related info has been researched in this thread with lots of supporting links throughout. It's a long thread but a very good read.

reply to post by Zelong


From your post, it seems that the case for the fact that we live under maritime law, is entirely rested upon the presence of fringe on the flag.

I need more than that to believe that we are literally under it's rule.

Is there an example you can share with me of maritime law being explicitly mentioned in the proceedings of a court case? Something in the written opinion of the judge? A transcript somewhere?

Is there anything more than coincidental symbolism, which may just be a simple stylistic anachronism, something akin to the robes of the judge?

Jordan Maxwell seems to just riff on symbols, like a one man Carl Jung cover band who's been poppin' the red pills like candy, and really oughtta slow down...pretending to be a professor in an undersized blazer...like an older Chris Farley who doesn't get that it's a joke...

He's like a few guys I knew in college who did too much acid, and started to see their entire world as if actually operating according to the framework of their personal cognitive kaleidoscope, or painted only by the colors afforded by their considerably mangled prisms.

***

If nothing else, we still have juries, and that's a revolutionary step in the advancement of our legal system. What we don't hear enough about, is the concept of jury nullification; the notion that the jurors serve as a stop gap measure against tyranny being imposed via the judicial branch. No matter how unfair a law may be created in the congress, or enforced by the judiciary, the final decision as to whether or not to punish the person on trial, would be made by a small group of free citizens - peers - people who might actually be in a position to know the character of the accused. Bias was built into the system on purpose, as a bulwark against a mad machinery.

In some of the earliest opinions written by American judges, the power of jury nullification was explicitly understood to include the prerogative to dismiss charges on the basis of a law deemed to be unjust. In other words, juries were originally intended to be able to veto a law at the last minute, just in case a really bad one got through.

Nowadays, judges instruct juries that they must explicitly adhere to the letter of the law; that they may not think outside of the box the law has provided them to operate within. Jury nullification has been effectively washed down the memory hole.


Maritime law or no maritime law, we have lost the power to prevent the imposition of ANY law, and new ones are born all the time. We need that simple power to say "NO" to a system that goes out of control.







[edit on 9-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

reply to post by TrueTruth


It will educate you if you read the link I posted.

Is there an example you can share with me of maritime law being explicitly mentioned in the proceedings of a court case? Something in the written opinion of the judge? A transcript somewhere?

Would you like a video with that

From what MidnightDStroyer has stated it shouldn't be to hard to find more information if you like.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by Zelong
This guy has tested it in court

Actually, he's not the only one to do so...Hundreds of thousands of people are doing the same thing AND WINNING! It's estimated that about 1 million people have already reclaimed their Sovereignty through the Due Process of Law, past the fraudulent government...& the number is growing. That's one of the reasons that the government is getting scared & trying to clamp down so hard on everybody who hasn't learned the Truth of Law yet (but this number is diminishing

).

Lots of related info has been researched in this thread with lots of supporting links throughout. It's a long thread but a very good read.

Zelong.

reply to post by Zelong


I read the link.

The only person talking about maritime law in that link, was the guy on trial - which doesn't prove that his argument is valid. It just proves that he thinks he has a point.

I was talking about some kind of document that this really is what you say it is, and that courts really follow it. I've heard the claims before, but never seen any real evidence.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
I read the link.

Perhaps, perhaps...But did you also read the linked thread from there? That's the link that leads to an 18-page thread (named "Attention ATS! Know The Hidden Meanings Behind the Laws in America, Before it is Too Late!") containing all sorts of leads & links concerning Admiralty Law & other related topics. Like I said before, it's a lengthy read, but lots of leads are presented to give you plenty of research time.

You'll find all sorts of good pathways for research if you can continue following links. ATS is waaay big & chances are that most topics, like this one, have been well-covered before; Sometimes, even a few years before now.

Get crackin' 'cause I'm going to take note of the time-mark on my post now & compare it to the time-mark on your next reply...Take your time & read thoroughly, so you don't wind up missing the forest by looking at the trees. Still, I will keep in mind that you'd have to peruse at least a few pages before you can find a direct mention of Admiralty Law, but it's in there. Simply because that whole thread is devoted to revealing how the laws have been perverted for at least the past century.

Keep in mind, while you're reading that I did not author the thread, but I put a lot of research into it...I've been looking into law research for about...oh, about 6 years.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by MidnightDStroyer]

Please provide specific evidence on all claims that we are under "maritime law". Something, a document, anything! I'm sure there's something that a FOIA inquiry would be able to pull up, redacted or not.

I don't buy it.

I've always noticed that a large number of people that talk about "maritime law" are always against taxes and federal jurisdiction under the guise of wanting freedom. Their arguments always circle back to taxes and ownership rights. Taxes, taxes, taxes!

Also, please show me anything in the constitution that backs up your claims. Oh, and don't use the 5th/14th amendment or it's annotations, there's nothing there. (I've already done the research at: FindLaw Fifth Amendment Page) Also links to the 14th.

If you don't want to pay your taxes, because that's one of the real issues here and no one can deny it (it's brought up EVERY TIME "maritime law" is discussed), then don't partake in any of the following: public hospitals, public transportation, interstates, public schools, etc...

Yes the government is shady, yes they do things that I don't approve of. However, if you're going to knock on tradition in our society, then you might as well go start a rally against the Girl Scouts for socialism by forcing their girls to sell cookies.

Mmm... Thin Mints...

Edit: Forgot about the 14th for a second!

[edit on 9-12-2009 by RcknShdw]