The original continental army was land jurisdiction as well as the local jural assembly militia. After the Articles of Confederation, there was the international military jurisdiction which was then formalized with the Constitutions as the responsibility of the International jurisdiction since it was to protect the land jurisdiction from foreign invaders. This was contracted with the British per the treaties and why sea and navigable waterways was expressly described in the treaties along with fisheries. The training and funding of the militia was to be by the Federal government per the enumerated duties, but the militia was not "owned" by the federal government.
Militia:
In Hebrew – Militia means People
Able bodied “men”/people as State Citizens called to defend the land and soil during a time of need
I find it mind bending trying to put all the pieces together and finding the specific sources being referenced like the minutes of the Geneva convention of 1930. Have you ever located them.
Here is the actual Library of Congress records title showing the 1790 Constitution being distinctly different in names "Constitution of the United States of America.. [With] Ratification of the constitution of the United States by the convention of the state of Rhode Island and Providence plantations ... In Convention, May 29, 1790". And you can go to the amendments and see they are different and more numerous than the 1789 Constitution of the United States of America, which is the amendments we are accustomed to studying - 21 in this case. And, that is different than the 1787 Constitution for the united States of America which shows the reason for the new organization in the letters.
This is mostly accurate in this link. However, the Articles of Confederation, which named the Confederation "the United States of America", were never repealed. As shown in the previous post, they created a "new organization" with the 1787 Constitution. This did not dissolve the Confederation. However; it specifically moved the duties of the "power of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and corresponding ["key word her is corresponding as it relates to the enumerated duties only"] executive and judicial authorities, shall be fully vested in the the general government of the Union". With making war, that by default requires a military and hence the jurisdiction of the high seas - Admiralty.
So, with this change, the government was vested with the jurisdiction of Maritime (commercial contract law) and Admiralty (uniform military and sea military) and International Land jurisdiction for treaties only.
Incorporation is jurisdiction of the air and under ecclesiastical, canon, ecumenical law and has always been held by the Vatican per the Papal Bull Unum Sanctum of 1302. Roman Law was under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church since the formal Christian faith was left to the control of Rome in 313 AD. Around 325, the church was formally structured under the Roman system which included the model of incorporation.
In the Definitive Treaty of Peace in 1783, Article 8 read as follows:
ARTICLE 8TH.
The Navigation of the River Mississippi, from its Source to the Ocean shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.
The treaty details and the authorities will need to be outlined in later posts to provide better context.
History cannot be looked at by itself from a historian only point of view. It also needs to include the laws to enforce the documents and how that was administered. What are the rules? What is the syntax? What are the definitions? Does case and various forms of similar, but different names mean anything? Is all that effort for all those details valid if they took no time to verify the different naming conventions, definitions, enforcement through law, and letter case variations? Yet, we are taught to ignore all that and make assumptions about names all being variations of the same thing. Not only does tht not make sense. But, the law outlines and defines the differences for a purpose. Without looking at these other details, it is only seeing a portion of the puzzle, perhaps the border only, and assuming we understand the whole picture.
Shire, I would love for you to speak on the topic of Constitutions that are treaties and constitutions that are charters. Would you be able to write about that?
A fascinating read. I tried to find a source for George Washington’s agreement with Cornwallis in 1777 to betray the patriot militia. Can you provide a source please?
Still looking for this gem. The parliamentary references are easier to locate. Some of the commentary items in Frank's account are not specifically referenced. The laws however, set the precedent of the conversion. There seems to be varying accounts of some of the betrayals in America during the founding. There are references to freemasons and other allegiances for some of the founders i have not been able to verify either. i try to stick to verified and referenced details. This account is provided in original writing ["hence the various sic noted"] so it is known it is as originally written. If the Washington detail can be found, i will share.
Read three (3) times by ALL members of both Houses
Approved by BOTH Houses
Passed to protect the rights of the people.
Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition
o “Positive Law. Law actually and specifically adopted by proper authority for the government or an organized jural society.” Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition
Non-Positive Law:
o Colorable Legislation – Dictionary of Canadian Law
o Applies to certain groups of people
o Does not apply to the sovereign people
o Operates as a contract – if accepted for sovereigns
o Non-Positive Law Titles/Acts/Rules/Codes/Statutes do not apply to the people!
I find it notorious that in the text you shared from Frank’s work on positive law, within the same conte r they reference to man and women and Homo sapiens. Why fo they reference back and forth between the two terms when they are obviously not the same.
i believe the ingrained word use plays tricks on most of mankind. The level of intentional word manipulation seems to be prevalent in all levels of life and i find new words regularly that help with the enslavement. When recognized, i add it to my list and try to consciously tell myself to switch to the correct word with the correct definition.
Shire: what is the role of maritime boundary treaties in all this. Why aren’t maritime corporations forbidden from registering people when dry dock on land?
We have choice. That is the part of the trick. Through pledging ourselves with registrations and licenses, we volunteer. The Constitutional amendments are there to protect us while in a foreign jurisdiction. The statutes are there for how they are to conduct business to facilitate the enumerated duties and also protect the people when in a foreign jurisdiction. Since the vast majority of the people have no clue about law these days, the government slowly took over our land jurisdiction and we allowed it out of ignorance and constructive fraud. So, we simply register since we think we have to... we do not know any different.
Soil (top 6”) – National Law, personal property, trade
Land (sub-soil - under everything – without it, there are no others) – International Common Law – treaties, property, rights
Maritime (top plus 1” above in air - and inland waterways) – commercial or contract law
Admiralty (High Seas) – uniform military and sea military law
Air (across globe) – ecclesiastical, canon, ecumenical law
Shire Herald: So cannon law is the Roman Catholic Corporate Law of the Air? So corporate law falls within the Law of the Air?
Soil (top 6”) – National Law, personal property, trade
Land (sub-soil - under everything – without it, there are no others) – International Common Law – treaties, property, rights
Maritime (top plus 1” above in air - and inland waterways) – commercial or contract law
Admiralty (High Seas) – uniform military and sea military law
Air (across globe) – ecclesiastical, canon, ecumenical law
Did we ever an Army as part of our land jurisdiction? Or was the Army always under sea military law?
The original continental army was land jurisdiction as well as the local jural assembly militia. After the Articles of Confederation, there was the international military jurisdiction which was then formalized with the Constitutions as the responsibility of the International jurisdiction since it was to protect the land jurisdiction from foreign invaders. This was contracted with the British per the treaties and why sea and navigable waterways was expressly described in the treaties along with fisheries. The training and funding of the militia was to be by the Federal government per the enumerated duties, but the militia was not "owned" by the federal government.
Militia:
In Hebrew – Militia means People
Able bodied “men”/people as State Citizens called to defend the land and soil during a time of need
Adult General Populace of each State
So the articles of confederation created an international military jurisdiction?
So the Constitution for the United States of America placed the military in international jurisdiction under the British control?
http://annavonreitz.com/mysources.pdf - worth reading
Pretty much how i have felt as the veil starts to fall.
No where close to the scope and magnitude of the fraud. Still just scratching the surface.
I find it mind bending trying to put all the pieces together and finding the specific sources being referenced like the minutes of the Geneva convention of 1930. Have you ever located them.
Here is the actual Library of Congress records title showing the 1790 Constitution being distinctly different in names "Constitution of the United States of America.. [With] Ratification of the constitution of the United States by the convention of the state of Rhode Island and Providence plantations ... In Convention, May 29, 1790". And you can go to the amendments and see they are different and more numerous than the 1789 Constitution of the United States of America, which is the amendments we are accustomed to studying - 21 in this case. And, that is different than the 1787 Constitution for the united States of America which shows the reason for the new organization in the letters.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation
This is mostly accurate in this link. However, the Articles of Confederation, which named the Confederation "the United States of America", were never repealed. As shown in the previous post, they created a "new organization" with the 1787 Constitution. This did not dissolve the Confederation. However; it specifically moved the duties of the "power of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and corresponding ["key word her is corresponding as it relates to the enumerated duties only"] executive and judicial authorities, shall be fully vested in the the general government of the Union". With making war, that by default requires a military and hence the jurisdiction of the high seas - Admiralty.
So, with this change, the government was vested with the jurisdiction of Maritime (commercial contract law) and Admiralty (uniform military and sea military) and International Land jurisdiction for treaties only.
Incorporation is jurisdiction of the air and under ecclesiastical, canon, ecumenical law and has always been held by the Vatican per the Papal Bull Unum Sanctum of 1302. Roman Law was under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church since the formal Christian faith was left to the control of Rome in 313 AD. Around 325, the church was formally structured under the Roman system which included the model of incorporation.
In the Definitive Treaty of Peace in 1783, Article 8 read as follows:
ARTICLE 8TH.
The Navigation of the River Mississippi, from its Source to the Ocean shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.
The treaty details and the authorities will need to be outlined in later posts to provide better context.
History cannot be looked at by itself from a historian only point of view. It also needs to include the laws to enforce the documents and how that was administered. What are the rules? What is the syntax? What are the definitions? Does case and various forms of similar, but different names mean anything? Is all that effort for all those details valid if they took no time to verify the different naming conventions, definitions, enforcement through law, and letter case variations? Yet, we are taught to ignore all that and make assumptions about names all being variations of the same thing. Not only does tht not make sense. But, the law outlines and defines the differences for a purpose. Without looking at these other details, it is only seeing a portion of the puzzle, perhaps the border only, and assuming we understand the whole picture.
Shire, I would love for you to speak on the topic of Constitutions that are treaties and constitutions that are charters. Would you be able to write about that?
This not a specific topic of evidence gathering for the distinction. However; i can supply the definitions.
A fascinating read. I tried to find a source for George Washington’s agreement with Cornwallis in 1777 to betray the patriot militia. Can you provide a source please?
Still looking for this gem. The parliamentary references are easier to locate. Some of the commentary items in Frank's account are not specifically referenced. The laws however, set the precedent of the conversion. There seems to be varying accounts of some of the betrayals in America during the founding. There are references to freemasons and other allegiances for some of the founders i have not been able to verify either. i try to stick to verified and referenced details. This account is provided in original writing ["hence the various sic noted"] so it is known it is as originally written. If the Washington detail can be found, i will share.
Shire, do you agree an other way to understand positive law is law that allows for an act?
And negative law is one that prohibits? And Do you have a cannon on negative law?
Positive Law:
o Law passed with legitimate authority
Signed by the President
Read three (3) times by ALL members of both Houses
Approved by BOTH Houses
Passed to protect the rights of the people.
Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition
o “Positive Law. Law actually and specifically adopted by proper authority for the government or an organized jural society.” Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition
Non-Positive Law:
o Colorable Legislation – Dictionary of Canadian Law
o Applies to certain groups of people
o Does not apply to the sovereign people
o Operates as a contract – if accepted for sovereigns
o Non-Positive Law Titles/Acts/Rules/Codes/Statutes do not apply to the people!
The key term here is a member of a jural society. You can’t possibly one unless authorized to practice law.
Thank you, Shire.
I find it notorious that in the text you shared from Frank’s work on positive law, within the same conte r they reference to man and women and Homo sapiens. Why fo they reference back and forth between the two terms when they are obviously not the same.
i believe the ingrained word use plays tricks on most of mankind. The level of intentional word manipulation seems to be prevalent in all levels of life and i find new words regularly that help with the enslavement. When recognized, i add it to my list and try to consciously tell myself to switch to the correct word with the correct definition.
El you believe Homo sapiens is pagan word for a product of evolution?
I too have a lot of questions about Washington’s betrayal of the patriot militia.
Shire: what is the role of maritime boundary treaties in all this. Why aren’t maritime corporations forbidden from registering people when dry dock on land?
We have choice. That is the part of the trick. Through pledging ourselves with registrations and licenses, we volunteer. The Constitutional amendments are there to protect us while in a foreign jurisdiction. The statutes are there for how they are to conduct business to facilitate the enumerated duties and also protect the people when in a foreign jurisdiction. Since the vast majority of the people have no clue about law these days, the government slowly took over our land jurisdiction and we allowed it out of ignorance and constructive fraud. So, we simply register since we think we have to... we do not know any different.