Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
Yes. You were born sovereign and always were but you surrender that when you get into contracts. When you were born, the private corporation of the United States created a clone of you. It's why all legal documents in your name, are always in all capitals. This isn't you, but the franchisee that they created. The argument of the British, is that you were born out of your mother's water, under the admiralty law you then are a product which is bought and sold on the New York stock exchange to other banks around the world. Theirs your true name, and your trade name. Natural law, common law, and commercial law's are all different and alot of people don't understand the legalities and how it operates.
What complete and utter nonsense.
The mere suggestion that the case in which your name is written in a document has any relevance is so stupid as to be asinine. Both of my parents have handwritten birth certificates and a handwritten marriage certificate. Legal documents, to be sure, in which their names appear not only in mixed case, but in cursive.
Individuals have no standing in admiralty law unless they acquire a claim against a vessel that is actionable in admiralty (for example if a vessel ties up at a wharf that is entirely your property and fails to pay its moorage fees, you have an action
in rem against the vessel itself, whereas at Common Law, your cause of action would lie only against the owner of the vessel.
Quote:
Natural Law - These are inalienable rights that the creator gives you of being born. Human rights, and is regarded as a positive law. The US was founded on Natural Laws.
Natural Law is legal theory--but there is no jurisdiction in the world that recognizes a
corpus of natural law. The natural law rights (which you conveniently fail to enumerate) are recognized only in so far as they have been codified in statute, or set out in jurisprudence. The primary source of my right to life is not natural law, it is section 7 of
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Quote:
Common Law - This is where we get our courts from - It's the British system that you agree to and do business with.
You have it backward. We do not get our courts from Common Law, we get Common Law from our courts.
We get our courts from the delegation of authority by the Crown (and yours by the delegation of authority by the Constitution and Congress).
Nowhere has United States Common Law descended from Admiralty. That is a legal impossibility. There are two types of legal systems: Common Law systems (the English model--followed in England & Wales, Canada, the US, 9 provinces and 49 states) and Civil Law Systems (the European model, followed in Scotland, Quebec and Louisiana). Admiralty law is based in Civil Law, and Common Law cannot derive from it.
Your Common Law, which different from the Common Law of England & Wales, is still consistent with it. You still have the law of Torts--a uniquely Common Law concept. You still have negligence law (again, Common Law). You still conduct trial by jury--unique to Common Law.
And your common law system does not incorporate the one distinctive feature that makes Admiralty Law different from all other types of law: you do not allow for actions
in rem in any area other than Admiralty. When you slip and fall on the ice on my front walk, you do not sue the land where the fall took place; you sue me, the landowner. But when a ship fails to pay its moorage fees you sue the ship, not the owner.
Quote:
Commercial Code - The Uniformed Commercial codes are what all states work from and do business by. If a ship comes into harbor bearing product, they require a certificate of manifest. When you are born, you require a birth certificate. The manifest then states what is coming in, how much it's value is.
The UCC has absolutely no relevance to a Panamanian registered vessel carrying cargo from Canada to the United Kingdom. The UCC applies only within the terrritory of the United States, and to vessels that are travelling from, to or through that territory.
Quote:
When the US went bankrupt in 1933 the private banks took the citizens as collateral. For example - If you have 100 people in the United States, and there is only 100$ given by the Federal Reserve you only have 100$ in circulation. The Federal Reserve would require an interest on there private money. So if they give you 100$ for 100 people, and those people are doing business with each other, at the end of the year 105$ must be paid back to the Federal Reserve. How are you going to be able to pay 105 if only 100 is in circulation? Someone, out of the 100 is going to be short 5$, this could be a car, house, anything. Multiply that by billions and trillions of dollars. It's an argument on why the government will never be able to pay back it's debts. When you borrow funds, you create more debt in the system. I was curious on what people's thoughts were within the topic.
The government cannot go bankrupt. Bankruptcy is a legal status that is created by a statute that applies only to legal persons, not to the government. Governments can become insolvent--but they can never erase their liabilities through a bankruptcy process--they must expressly legislate their debt obligations away (and bear the consequences of so doing).
Your money analogy is fatally flawed. You are assuming that money is the only asset. Money is merely the medium of exchange. I certainly have money in my wallet. Then I have credit with the bank (my funds on deposit) that I can instant convert into money at an ATM. Then I have credit at the bank that I can use to purchase goods and services without money (my credit cards, credit line and mortgage). Then I have the assets that represent money I have given to other people in the expectation of more money in return (my investments) that can only get turned into money when someone else wants to buy them from my. Then there is my house. I have many, many assets, far beyond the money that is in my pocket, or the bank account that I can instantly turn into money. I have a net worth that is in six figures--but I have never had that much cash in my possession.
As for your theory of money, there may only be $100 in circulation. But the economy is vastly larger than that $100. Suppose that there 100 people, and each of them has $1. Every day, every person buys $1 worth of goods and services from other people, and they each sell $1 worth of goods and services to other people. That means that each and every day, $100 worth of economic activity is taking place. So the GDP of these 100 people is $36,500. Those $100 in circulation facilitate an economy of $36,500. (And that is without any debt financing of any kind).
Now, say the government takes 5% of every transaction--that would theoretically create revenue of $1,825 for government to do the things that it needs to do. But what is it going to spend that money on? It is going to buy goods and services from people. So that money is going to find its way back into the economy. Government does two things: First, it participates in the marketplace. It starts buying things. So instead of selling $1 worth of goods and services to other people, I might sell 95 cents worth to other people, and 5 cents worth to the government. Second, it engages in direct transfers. If I am not able to sell services to other people, government will give me some money, so that I can continue to buy things--not as many as before, perhaps, but I can still buy. That $1,825 all works its way back into the economy.
But what happens if I want to spend only 90 cents per day and save the other 10 cents. Well, that's also money that is no longer avaialble to buy and sell things. And it's not going to come back into the economy, either, because it is sitting there in my piggy bank--doing nothing. Savings
is a drain on the economy. So what do we do? We incentivize
investment. Instead of putting that 10 cents per day into a piggy bank, I put it into a real one, which then promises to pay me a certain amount of money per year for the privilege of using my money. Or I give you 50 cents to buy equipment to make your goods more effectively, and you promise me a share of the income.
So with all of this commerce, taxation, savings and investment taking place, the amount of cash that the economy needs to operate is not a constant. As more savings happens, more cash is needed. But as more investment happens, that need is mitigated. Central banks are responsible for two things: making sure that there is the proper amount of money in circulation for the size and type of economic activity happening (the money supply); and making that money easier or harder to obtain (interest rates).
Nobody is out $5, because those hundred dollars are constantly in motion.
_________________
--James
30 Dec 2012, 10:36 am
