Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:29:31 -0700
From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net (John Wilde)
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: [DMConsulting] Admiralty - it looks,walks, poops, like a duck, but  it isn't
To: DMConsulting@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com


--------------03C11825E61990FE30E17D46
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Since the inhabitant and very few others from this group have shown a complete
lack of understanding of the "police powers" and "administrative law" its no
wonder the analysis is flawed.

    Go read the case of Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1876) Click on the numbers
for the link to the case.

    LET ME MAKE THIS LOUD AND CLEAR.  THE POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES TO
REGULATE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS HAS ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS
EXISTED, EVEN BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR.  IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

    If someone has to look to something that occurred during the Civil War and
make such a claim that we are a "territory in inurrection" then that someone
does not know what they are looking at.

    The "police powers" involves the authority to enact "municipal legislation"
to regulate things and activities.  It does not regulate the person.  Example:  A
man chooses to practice medicine.  The law does not regulate the doctor, the law
regulates the "practice of medicine."  If the man chooses to become a doctor and
engage in the practice of medicine then he must agree to submit to the regulatory
authority for the "practice of medicine."  It is truly voluntary, because you
don't have to engage in the practice of medicine.  The choice is yours.

    The example of the thing that can be regulated is the "motor vehicle."  The
law as it is written today in all fifty states only regulates the "motor
vehicle."    IT DOES NOT REGULATE THE AUTOMOBILE.  It does not regulate the
driver either.

    As Munn v. Illinois put it.  When you offer your property or activity to a
"public use" the power to regulate is unquestionable.  When the property is used
privately or the activity is engaged in privately (juris privati only), then the
power of the state to regulate is virtually non-existant.

    It was only after the assertion of the "compelling governmental interest"
doctrine that certain areas that appear private facially became the subject of
governmental regulation.

    There were bad laws passed during the civil war.  There were bad laws passed
in the early 20th century.  There were bad laws passed in the 1940's, 1960's
etc., etc., etc.  In the early part of the 21st century we are way passed the
point of trying to devine the minutia of what these laws were intended to do.

    Trying to educate the "masses" or even a small percentage of the people about
this minutia is simply a waste of time.  We must teach the basics to the newbies
and that is it.  Any more and we are pissin' in the wind and those of us who have
been around for 10, 15, 20 plus years are failing in our responsibility.

    It does not get any simpler than understanding this "Government -
Baaaaddddd!!!!!!" "Freedom - Gooooddddd"  And even when we teach this simply
message, we are only going to get 2 maybe 3 percent of those who hear the
message.  But guess what, that is all we need.

    So even if Inhabitant is correct - something a strongly doubt - and we are "a
territory in insurrection" who cares.  How is it going to help bring down the
current regime?  It won't.  Unless we do something that will cause the goobermint
to use up its thinly spread resources, information such as what Inhabitant has
brought in this post is absolutely useless and is way beyond the ability of the
people to understand anything more than "Government - Baaaaddddd!!!!!!" "Freedom
- Gooooddddd"

g'day
John Wilde

Brad Barnhill wrote:

> The Inhabitant's theory, which I think has great merit, is that all licensing

> is based on the fact that we are in territory in insurrection and obstruction

> of the revenue laws based on the civil war statutes.

>

> B

> --

> =============================

> Brad Barnhill

> Systems Analyst and patriot

> =============================

> Member of the Board of Directors

> Freedom Hall Research Foundation

> =============================

> brad.barnhill@mindspring.com

> =============================

> Liberty is not a concept...

> Liberty is a way of life!!!

> =============================

>

> On Wednesday 27 June 2001 10:45 pm, you wrote:

> >       Based on a post by Jack Cohen, I did a search on the seizure

> > of real property from 12 Stat 319, some of which is still code in

> > title 50 205 et. seq.  Is the government still using the civil war?

> > This looks like an era when the congress and government got used to

> > the unlawful taking and have continued forward from then.

> >

> > This in my estimation is damning the way they deal with the

> > "seizures" on land.  We will use all of the admiralty words,

> > processes, but it really isn't admiralty - especially if you can

> > appeal it to the supreme court.  Does this fit into the A-F of today.

> > My farm experience (17 years worth) tells me if it looks like a duck,

> > poops like duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, and tastes like

> > a duck - it is a duck.

> >       Not so, per the supreme court.

> >

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> DMConsulting-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/