Re: Martin, Martin, Martin...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by New Kid on the Block on September 17, 1998 at 08:09:21:

In Reply to: Re: Martin, Martin, Martin... posted by MARTIN on September 16, 1998 at 00:25:15:

: I think we have a communication problem.

I agree

: If you can aford $40.00 cash or money order buy this book.

: The Book of the Hundreds.

I possess the third and fourth editions. I am informed that a new expanded fifth edition will soon be available.

: Do not use the non statutory abatements.

Please explain yourself.

: If you are looking for law type knowledge this is a start. (You will not find a better documented legal history of the U.S.)

: A few things need to be explained and some slanted bias removed.

You are welcome to explain the bias.

: Most patriot types base their law on the false premise that we have a lawful civil government of the people.

: Is lawful good or bad?

: Slavery + child labor were very lawful. !

Actually, slavery was G-d's idea, but so was the Jubilee.

: : : Are you talking about proper English grammar as used by the English based Christians or today's modern ENGLISH.

: : Both, even in the latest edition of the Modern Language Association's handbook, there does not exist a rule of punctuation that allows for a succession of upper case characters without the use of some form of punctuation following each upper case character.

: All uppercase lettered words are just as wrong (English wise) as capitalizing only the last letter only in a word. It is a legal matter of international law.

I keep hearing these statments, but yet to see and documentation, statute, law, or dicta to support it. Not that it sounds unreasonable, just that we all seem to know there is something wrong with spelling EVERYTHING IN CAPITAL LETTERS. I have yet to see a definite explanation of the rules of construct as to what words or names in all caps means, or how to intrepret them.

: The defacto's identify themselves by misnomer, legal fiction in the name-title of their process which is not part of the text of a law.

: U.S. Martial law is not bad at all if you look back into history and compare it with the Republic or worse.

As to the areas of personal comfort, yes martial law has provided well for our comforts. We all have cake and circuses. However, under martial law, deciet is lawful, as it is a principle operation of warfare. How do you distinguish, or trust any rule of law since the close of flagrant bellum in the 1860's. What rule allows you to distinguish between a ruse of deciept and a compelled statement of the truth when it comes to the courts? Also civil law was offensive to our original patriots who fled England in order to worship in freedom. Civil law removed the judgments decreed by G-d in the Holy Scripture, and allowed then a mere man to sit in judgment, a usurptation of G-d's place. Whereas if you were convicted of rape, under the common law you were executed, under civil law, you are confined at the expense of the state for seven years or so. Martial law has provided well for convicted criminals also. We are warned to choose who we will serve. [F.Y.I. Mamon is defined in modern Jewish law as civil law and procedure. See: Jewish Law, History, Sources, Principles, by Menachem Elon, Deputy President, Supreme Court of Israel; The Jewish Publication Society, 5154/1994 pg. 2187.]

: : : Grammar can change the context of a word from a proper noun to a legal fiction.

: : Yes, grammer, not rules of punctuation.
: ???

To say the house vs. the House, the use of the capital letter creates a proper noun. It's identy is therefore possessive and representative of a specific meaning. Using the lower case means a general or common term. But, saying the HOUSE vs. the H.O.U.S.E., neither are proper or common nouns in the rules of punctutation for the English language the context is unchanged.

: : : There is higher learning of law than an 8th grade constitution class.

: : Your point here is?
: Read Henry Maines lectures on international law.

: Don't you think that International law applied to the States of America?

I am some what wary of International law and the jursidiction it sits in. Isn't this the venue that Lincoln created at the Hague? A court of commerce? While issues of law and rights can be heard there, its orginal intent was to handle maritime disputes between nations is it not? If I am not a principle in commerce, is my only court of redress the Throne where my Lord and Savior sits to the right hand of the Father? Or am I showing my ignorance here?

: I do not try to create dissenters or tax protestors.

I do not want to become a dissenter or tax protestor, I want to understand so that I can make an intellegent choice as where I wish to serve my Lord and Savior, my family, and my Country/King. It is the deception that I find most aggravating.

: There is a reason for everthing. This is a very complicated world.

Exactly, Roosevelt said that the government never does anything on accident. I have a presupposition the even the International Banking community, which has been instrumental in the rise and fall of many countries creates their own rules to follow. I have the capacity to understand if I can only find the answer.

New Kid

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]