First rule is that the parties must be identified. In the case of the Declaration the presumption is that ALL who signed were esquires. Then it is assumed that these esquires were not properly authorized.
A declaration is not a contract. It is, what we call: a missive. Just to give closure on certain matters.
The oath within the declaration only binds those ascending to it initially only the signers and those in whose name they sign if and when properly authorized.
In the case of the Paris Peace treaty the same hold true, as the esquires, as representatives of the United States of America signed the treaty. There is a lie in there: as it says: plenipotentiary.
They are not, as they cannot conclude a deal. The deal has to be ratified by the senate.
That Britain payed money to support the effort of Congress for the .gov operation can very well be part of the deal of the final settlement.
Francis went on a tangent there and the limb broke off.
Ok, here' s a contract to be signed by representatives of two parties. The representatives are all members of the same club. However, when the contract is concluded, the process of ratification comes into view, and only after ratification, the contract goes into effect. In international law, an instrument is send to all related parties to inform them ratification of the contract has cleared positively.
Does that invalidate the contract? Because if your answer is yes, then no one, having studied at the same place, can conclude business together.
It would also mean that Britain would be incapable of making contracts with say: the Republic of the 7 Provinces, or With China in them days.
Check the signatories ..... and remember ... the temple bar existed since the 1200....
Although, I think that Frances has a point when he recounts how such a system could easily lead to conflicts of interests .... it is the authorization of the representatives by means of letters by an authorizing body and the ratification that puts things into effect.
With this in mind, read again the Paris Peace Treaty. What Frances did not see, but I did, is a last paragraph ..... about the debts!
And it is through the banking system that Britain wields tremendous power.
Perhaps you know the answer to this question.....as Washington DC the Vatican and inner London all separate states with its own laws are they able to be prosecuted for their chicanery? Or are they like royalty exempt from the laws of the land? Probably why the Irish put the bomb on Mountbattens boat!
Also as temple bar isn't an organisation or anything does this mean they get away with what they have done?
It seems that turning countries and people into corporations has made understanding the law difficult in that admiralty law is not for the benefit of we the People but them the thieves and killers. And here in UK solicitors don't do class actions even.... the justice system is totally corrupt
You are very close to answering your own question.
And the answer is yes. But the conditions that must be met is not an easy feat. Admiralty law is the law of the harbor, and maritime law is the law of the seas outside the territorial waters, and exclusive economical zone.
It is not that these rules are bad. You will find, when you think it through, based on our private law rights, equity is served best with many of these rules. Think for instance in terms of what constitutes proof.
Just as a ruler gives us the opportunity to easily turn a line straight (right/ recto), so to can these rules help to straighten things out. Some people, after a lot of exercise are capable of drawing a straight line out of hand.
But nature does not have straight lines. Humans do. Why? Because it makes it easier to exercise control.
That is why the establishment of corporation, dead bodies, as if they were separate entities from humans, is a bad idea. And to make matters worse, we have been sucked into a system where we all have been given a public law corporation, which in turn has kept us into indentured servitude.
To be sovereign, autonomous, self-determining requires a good comprehension of the way in which it works.
Hence, books like: Free Sea by Hugo Grotius, or The Entitlement to rule by Stephen Baca y Kerr. You have to learn from royalty on a different plane. And then you will see the source of law: i.e. the individual man or woman!
You are the law i.e. law of property within the laws of Nature. The Founders of the USA in the declaration of Independence understood that. Think: ears to hear, tongue to speak, eyes to see, legs to walk and travel, hands to trade and produce (to handle = handel = handeln = trade), brain to think. These are all human rights!
Secondary to that is the law of gold, law of soil. The first leads to the laws of transport through vessels. The second leads to all-od-ial title. (the word is best understood by looking it up in the dictionary by the Grimm brothers of the Geran language. Most dictionaries stop at the mentioning of it being introduced into latin as allodium by SAXON-nobility. Saxon = German. SO the root word is Allod, which is two concatenated words: all and od. all as in everything (all encompassing, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, omnipotent, omnipresent), like the English all, and od as in land. Kleinod, which is till recently used to designate a small gift or token, indicates the antonym to all-od) These are added or taken on properties.
These lead to the law of protection/ security. Hence, the second amendment without which the other rights have no value.
What the system has done is turn all this upside down and made us belief that this system is the correct order of things. Our rights have been put at the back of the line, subject to the interest of the State: public health, public morals, public order, national security, whereas our Right should be first in line in any judicial proceeding, whether it is trade or law suit.
We are in Davy Jones Locker. And there is but one way to escape it: to turn the vessel upside down. And to do that, we have to get moving.
(this obviously is a reference to Pirates of the Caribbean Part III)
And we need a compass that does not look tot he north, but to where our hearts really want to go. (Parts I, II, III)
Eh ... not quite.
First rule is that the parties must be identified. In the case of the Declaration the presumption is that ALL who signed were esquires. Then it is assumed that these esquires were not properly authorized.
A declaration is not a contract. It is, what we call: a missive. Just to give closure on certain matters.
The oath within the declaration only binds those ascending to it initially only the signers and those in whose name they sign if and when properly authorized.
In the case of the Paris Peace treaty the same hold true, as the esquires, as representatives of the United States of America signed the treaty. There is a lie in there: as it says: plenipotentiary.
They are not, as they cannot conclude a deal. The deal has to be ratified by the senate.
That Britain payed money to support the effort of Congress for the .gov operation can very well be part of the deal of the final settlement.
Francis went on a tangent there and the limb broke off.
Can you simplify that for me please....are you saying it's all ok? It was fixed with Britain's aid?
Ok, here' s a contract to be signed by representatives of two parties. The representatives are all members of the same club. However, when the contract is concluded, the process of ratification comes into view, and only after ratification, the contract goes into effect. In international law, an instrument is send to all related parties to inform them ratification of the contract has cleared positively.
Does that invalidate the contract? Because if your answer is yes, then no one, having studied at the same place, can conclude business together.
It would also mean that Britain would be incapable of making contracts with say: the Republic of the 7 Provinces, or With China in them days.
I would recommend to look up on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/europeantreatie00paulgoog: European treaties bearing on the history of the United States and its dependencies.
Check the signatories ..... and remember ... the temple bar existed since the 1200....
Although, I think that Frances has a point when he recounts how such a system could easily lead to conflicts of interests .... it is the authorization of the representatives by means of letters by an authorizing body and the ratification that puts things into effect.
With this in mind, read again the Paris Peace Treaty. What Frances did not see, but I did, is a last paragraph ..... about the debts!
And it is through the banking system that Britain wields tremendous power.
Frances is a granny!!!
Thank you for the information.....
Perhaps you know the answer to this question.....as Washington DC the Vatican and inner London all separate states with its own laws are they able to be prosecuted for their chicanery? Or are they like royalty exempt from the laws of the land? Probably why the Irish put the bomb on Mountbattens boat!
Also as temple bar isn't an organisation or anything does this mean they get away with what they have done?
It seems that turning countries and people into corporations has made understanding the law difficult in that admiralty law is not for the benefit of we the People but them the thieves and killers. And here in UK solicitors don't do class actions even.... the justice system is totally corrupt
You are very close to answering your own question.
And the answer is yes. But the conditions that must be met is not an easy feat. Admiralty law is the law of the harbor, and maritime law is the law of the seas outside the territorial waters, and exclusive economical zone.
It is not that these rules are bad. You will find, when you think it through, based on our private law rights, equity is served best with many of these rules. Think for instance in terms of what constitutes proof.
Just as a ruler gives us the opportunity to easily turn a line straight (right/ recto), so to can these rules help to straighten things out. Some people, after a lot of exercise are capable of drawing a straight line out of hand.
But nature does not have straight lines. Humans do. Why? Because it makes it easier to exercise control.
That is why the establishment of corporation, dead bodies, as if they were separate entities from humans, is a bad idea. And to make matters worse, we have been sucked into a system where we all have been given a public law corporation, which in turn has kept us into indentured servitude.
To be sovereign, autonomous, self-determining requires a good comprehension of the way in which it works.
Hence, books like: Free Sea by Hugo Grotius, or The Entitlement to rule by Stephen Baca y Kerr. You have to learn from royalty on a different plane. And then you will see the source of law: i.e. the individual man or woman!
You are the law i.e. law of property within the laws of Nature. The Founders of the USA in the declaration of Independence understood that. Think: ears to hear, tongue to speak, eyes to see, legs to walk and travel, hands to trade and produce (to handle = handel = handeln = trade), brain to think. These are all human rights!
Secondary to that is the law of gold, law of soil. The first leads to the laws of transport through vessels. The second leads to all-od-ial title. (the word is best understood by looking it up in the dictionary by the Grimm brothers of the Geran language. Most dictionaries stop at the mentioning of it being introduced into latin as allodium by SAXON-nobility. Saxon = German. SO the root word is Allod, which is two concatenated words: all and od. all as in everything (all encompassing, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, omnipotent, omnipresent), like the English all, and od as in land. Kleinod, which is till recently used to designate a small gift or token, indicates the antonym to all-od) These are added or taken on properties.
These lead to the law of protection/ security. Hence, the second amendment without which the other rights have no value.
What the system has done is turn all this upside down and made us belief that this system is the correct order of things. Our rights have been put at the back of the line, subject to the interest of the State: public health, public morals, public order, national security, whereas our Right should be first in line in any judicial proceeding, whether it is trade or law suit.
We are in Davy Jones Locker. And there is but one way to escape it: to turn the vessel upside down. And to do that, we have to get moving.
(this obviously is a reference to Pirates of the Caribbean Part III)
And we need a compass that does not look tot he north, but to where our hearts really want to go. (Parts I, II, III)
This accords with the 8 laws of Nature.