A Jurisdiction Foreign to Our Constitution

Approximately 400 years ago a condition existed where the church and priests who were educated in latin were the only ones to read and explain the scriptures. At the time there was one monk, William Tyndale, who campaigned to have the bible translated into the language that the common man could read and understand. He was jailed and later burned at the stake as a heretic.

Closely resembling this is the statutory law which governs us today, written by lawyers [the priests of today] who have a close society, who understand the law which was written for them and only them. Educated in law schools by lawyers. Anyone going into court pro se, is encouraged to “see a lawyer”. The law as established today is complicated and confusing to the average person. It is written and judged so that there is no one established path to a verdict they desire. It is written so that the power structure remains a closed circuit. The lawyer and judges are in control.

The power struggle within the legal system is between the Admiralty and the Common law. The Common law was simple and understood by everyone. It was simply put by the Savior in the “Golden Rule”. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Any violation of another’s rights would be brought before a jury of ones peers. Now days, there are no juries of ones “peers”, peer being defined as “a person of the same rank, value, quality, ability, etc; equal”.

THE LAW OF ADMIRALTY

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:…”  Declaration of Independence

To best understand the last portion of the definition for law of the land, one needs to understand that there are two fundamental jurisdictions that pertain to this earth, they are: 1) The Law of the Land; and, 2) The Law of the Sea.  The Law of the Land is known as the Common Law and the Law of the Sea is known as Admiralty.  The Common Law is fairly straight forward and easy to follow, it encompasses two divisions which are: 1)  Do all that you agree to do; and, 2) Do not encroach upon other persons or their property.  1

Admiralty on the other hand can be very complicated, but to keep it simple, it is the civil law and its multitude of regulations that are intended to govern our lives and operates under contract.  “Without a stipulation, the admiralty has no jurisdiction at all over the person.” 2  It deals with agreements and events upon the sea including insurance, paper money, debt, and etc.  The captain of the ship was and is in reality, the Master.  His word was final.

“… [W]here the common law was the law of the land, the civil law was held to be the law of the admiralty,…”  3 Just because admiralty is associated with the sea, does not mean that it is contained thereby. “Neither the judicial act nor the constitution, which it follows, limit the admiralty jurisdiction of the District Court in any respect to place.  It is bounded only by the nature of the cause over which it is to decide.”  4 (emphasis added)

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. points out the prominent feature of admiralty; “The sovereign power rested in the head of state, who granted to the people, his subjects, the rights he decided they should have, reserving all other rights in himself, as  likewise the right to extend, alter, add to, or withdraw the rights already granted….  The Common Law system of  government, … as developed in the United States … is  completely polar to the Roman or Civil Law system as to legal origin and the sovereignty behind it….

In the last years (1935), we in America have gone a  long distance towards the adopting of the Roman concepts, and the abuses against property rights and human freedom and liberty which are possible under that system.” 5

The comments of Ezra Taft Benson are similar; “… There are only two governmental systems in the world today.  One system recognizes that the sovereign power is vested in one person or a group of people who serve as  head of state.  This kind of government rests on the premise that the ruler grants to the people the rights and powers the ruler thinks they should have.  This system is wrong, regardless how benevolent the dictator may be, because it denies that which belongs to all the people inalienably — the right to life, liberty, and property.”  6

The struggle has been since the beginning, the attempt of Admiralty coming on to the land. “I think it high time to check this silent and stealing progress of the admiralty in acquiring jurisdiction to which it has no pretensions.” 7 Think of this as you read the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson, in itemizing the reason for separation, stated that England was subjecting the colonies to a “jurisdiction foreign to our constitution.” (Declaration of Independence)  The Revolutionary War in part was to eject the “foreign jurisdiction” (Admiralty) back to the sea.

“… [T]he extensive jurisdiction of the admiralty in the colonies was the subject of complaint at the time of the Revolution; … [T]he imposition of taxes and the collection of revenue; and the whole of that jurisdiction was given to the admiralty.” 8

The other opposition (right to trial by jury) to the admiralty law within the body of the country is pointed out in the U.S. Federal Court case Bains vs. The James and Catherine; “It is well known, that in civil causes, in courts of equity and admiralty, juries do not interfere, … [I]n the judiciary act of 1789, … in the ninth section … it is provided, that the trial of issues in fact in the district courts in all causes, except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury; …” (et al.) 9

After discussing these conflict between the two jurisdictions, Justice Baldwin concludes; “It is therefore a self evident proposition, that the jurisprudence of the United States is not founded in the civil law, …” 10

The Common Law or, as I would call it, the Law of God, is the foundation for the Constitution of the United States,  it is a common-law document.  The only laws that can find legitimacy and protection under the Constitution are of Common Law origin. Any legislation outside common-law jurisdiction is not the ‘law of the land.’ Without access to the Common Law we cannot have the Constitution. We are left with contract law or admiralty.

… Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not the law of the land. (Sedg. St. & Const. law, 2d ed., 475)” 11

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land….” 12

“It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state. There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go.” 13

References in the volume, ‘The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation,’ prepared by the Congressional Research Service of Congress, showed that over one hundred (100) acts of Congress have been over turned; over nine hundred (900) State Acts have been over turned and; over one hundred (100) State, county, city ordinances have been over turned.  Strong evidence that not all laws passed by government are the law of the land.

“The American courts of admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our constitution, and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land.” 14

It may be appropriate at this point to ask, “is Title 26 of the U.S. Code the ‘law of the land’?  The courts have ruled that Title 26 is constitutional.  However, just because the revenue laws are constitutional does not give them status as being the law of the land in the sense that they have a structure found in the common law.  Our Constitution has a provision that allow for the creation of contracts and there is nothing in our common law system that prohibits the individual or individuals from entering into these admiralty contracts as long as they are of a voluntary nature and there is no fraud.

It might be said that outside of the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government any liability for the income tax imposed upon the citizens of the sovereign states is and only can be by contract.  That contract is the “voluntary” signing and filing of the 1040 form or other related documents from the Internal Revenue.  Thus the voluntary nature of the income tax as believed by many.

“The jurisdiction of the admiralty was deemed a jewel of great lustre and value in the diadem or crown of the king,….” 15 As Benjamin Franklin stated, power and profit play a great part in the influence of the character of men in office.  Admiralty is the source of this power.

In respect to the revenue laws, these are given to the admiralty.   Being under the admiralty, I would ask; where is the contract or agreement that binds me to this requirement?  For most people it is the voluntary filing of the 1040 form.  This is why the governments want Americans to file returns. Substitute returns (dummy returns), are not acceptable to the courts.  They do not represent a valid stipulation entered into by the defending party.

The saving grace of admiralty is found in the structure of the contracts and the law itself.  One must be a voluntary party to the agreement.  Always challenge the jurisdiction of the court.  Make the government produce the contract.

Thus as with the bible in centuries past, we are confronted with a legal system which is contrary to our Constitution.  A legal system imposed upon us by power structure with designs on the wealth of this Nation and its citizens.  A legal system which seeks to control and subject the people.  It has happened in past ages and is doing so now in our day.  It is well said in the ancient history of this land “that the foundation for the destruction of this people is being laid by the unrighteousness of the lawyers and the judges.”

Are the sovereign people above the law?  Most definitely!  We are governed by the Common Law.

Foot Notes:

1.  .  Richard J. Maybury, Whatever Happened to Justice

2.   Ramsay v. Allegre, 12 611, 614 [1827]

3.   Benedict on Admiralty, §15, p. 1-33

4. Justice Story, DeLovio v. Boit, Case No. 3,776 (2 Gall. 398), Circuit Court D. Mass., [1815] (emphasis added)

5. Stand Fast by Our Constitution; See also, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed.; Common-Law

6.  The Constitution, A Heavenly Banner, pp. 18-19

7. enedict, supra, §72 p. 5-28)(See also, Putnam: ‘How the Federal Courts Were Given Admiralty Jurisdiction,’ 10 Cornell L.Q. 460 [1925], note 9.

8.  Bains vs. The James and Catherine,  2 Federal Cases, 756 at 416

9.  Bains vs. The James and Catherine, supra, at 419; emphasis added; See also, Justice Daniel dissenting Jackson v. The Magnolia, 61 U.S. 296, 313

10.  “An important canon of construction is that constitutions must (, or at least may) be construed with reference to common law, (although the reverse is not necessarily true) since, in most respects, the federal and state constitutions did not repudiate but cherished the established common law.

(Provisions of the Federal Constitution have been interpreted by reference to the common law in existence at the time of the writing of that document.) It has been said that without reference to this common law the language of the federal constitution could not be understood. (This is because the United States Constitution and the plan of government of the United States were founded on the common law as established in England at the time of the Revolution.) Therefore, it is a general rule that phrases in the Bill of Rights taken from the common law must be construed in reference to the latter.” (Highlighted areas taken from 16 AM. JUR., 2nd ed., Sec. 74; those not highlighted from an earlier edition.)

11.    Black’s Law Dictionary, Law of the Land ; emphasis added

12.  Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, 2nd ed., § 177; State v. Loomis, Southwest Reporter, vol. 22, p. 350, 351

13.  Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 [1887]

14.  Mr. Justice Campbell dissenting; Jackson v. The Magnolia, 61 U.S. 296, 330 (1857)

15.   Bains vs. The James and Catherine,  2 Federal Cases, 756 at 416

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s