Don't Venture Too Far Offshore Without a State

[palani]

In the case of a stateless vessel, the U.S. can impose its own law.

http://news.yahoo.com/seized-vessel-shines-light-illegal-fishing-153147039.html


JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — The recent seizure of a stateless ship in international waters 2,600 miles off Alaska's coast has spotlighted the challenge that the U.S. and other nations face in trying to crackdown on illegal fishing, an activity that accounts for up to $23.5 billion a year in global economic losses.

Just thought I would point out that accepting U.S. citizenship is equivalent to being stateless. The U.S. is not a sovereign entity (more of a pirate entity really). The sovereignty resides in the people of the several States. If you are going to be stateless then you are going to have U.S. law imposed upon you, even if you are 2,600 miles from the nearest land.

Just to complicate the picture the several States entered a dormant insolvent phase when silver was removed from the currency. The federal overlay is called in statutes "this state", a borderless fiction, an unnamed territory far removed from reality in which everyone pretends to work for paper money with which they buy things that they do not own.

No amount of election is going to change this state of affairs. If election was going to cure the problem it would have done so long ago as there has never been a scarcity of elections to participate in.

[Glass]

As usual palani, nailing it. It's about statehood not citizenship. I'm looking into this because my "state" used to be a dominion and I'd like to investigate whether I can leave the "state" and move myself into the "dominion". That would be an interesting exercise to investigate.

[Joe King]

As usual palani, nailing it. It's about statehood not citizenship.I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

What I read is that by claiming US citizenship you also claim to be Stateless. One who is Stateless becomes "fair game" in the rule of mite.

How do you infer from the following that he's trying to say said citizenship has nothing to do with it? ???
Edited to add: It seems as though he's saying it's moreso a cause-effect kinda thingy, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. Who knows?

I would point out that accepting U.S. citizenship is equivalent to being stateless.
If you are going to be stateless then you are going to have U.S. law imposed upon you




I'm looking into this because my "state" used to be a dominion and I'd like to investigate whether I can leave the "state" and move myself into the "dominion". That would be an interesting exercise to investigate.If you feel that the one you're in now is the wrong one, why not just move back into the correct one?

[palani]

I once had a conversation with the Purser on a United Arab Emerates vessel. He told me of a situation he had been involved in once through this company. Seems the union contract ran out while the ship was at sea. They docked in Portugal and the crew of this ship entered into negotiations with another union (different representation). They elected to go with the new union organization even though the ships officers advised strongly against it.

When the officers were notified that representation had changed they put all the crew off the ship on the spot.

The thing is the company that had hired them had no obligation to negotiate with a different union.

The contract with the United States is THROUGH the constitution. Venture into other agreements at your own peril.

[palani]

From Vattel's Law of Nations Book I


if the question be, to quit a form of government to which alone it appeared that the people were willing to submit on their entering into the bonds of society, — if the greater part of a free people, after the example of the Jews in the time of Samuel, are weary of liberty, and resolved to submit to the authority of a monarch, — those citizens who are more jealous of that privilege, so invaluable to those who have tasted it, though obliged to suffer the majority to do as they please, are under no obligation at all to submit to the new government: they may quit a society which seems to have dissolved itself in order to unite again under another form

Is Obama now acting in the capacity of monarch?

Have you abandoned a society which seems to have dissolved itself in order to unite again under another form?

[Glass]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

What I read is that by claiming US citizenship you also claim to be Stateless. One who is Stateless becomes "fair game" in the rule of mite.

How do you infer from the following that he's trying to say said citizenship has nothing to do with it? ???
Edited to add: It seems as though he's saying it's moreso a cause-effect kinda thingy, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. Who knows?




If you feel that the one you're in now is the wrong one, why not just move back into the correct one?

Perhaps A state might have one set of rights and A citizenship might have another set of rights. Perhaps one has liberty as A right and the other does not have liberty as A right.

So yes. Why not move from one to the other if the other suits more?

[Joe King]

Perhaps A state might have one set of rights and A citizenship might have another set of rights. Perhaps one has liberty as A right and the other does not have liberty as A right.He said one invokes the other. That citizenship brings statelessness with it. To be Stateless means, the legal and social concept applicable to persons who are not citizens or subjects of any state.

In the case in the OP, it was about Stateless vessels.
A Stateless vessel is, a sea going vessel (or aircraft) located in international waters (or airspace) which does not appear to be validly registered in and/or is displaying no flag of any recognised country.

Do sea going vessels have citizenship? Palani was obviously referring to people in his statement about citizenship, not ocean-going ships.
Remember, they seized the ship for being Stateless, not that the people aboard it were Stateless.
From another article:
The Coast Guard said the crew initially claimed the vessel was from Indonesia but Indonesian officials did not claim it. In the case of a stateless vessel, the U.S. can impose its own law, Lloyd said.
If no State claims it, it becomes a case of "finders keepers".


So yes. Why not move from one to the other if the other suits more?That's what I said. If you're in the wrong one, why not move to the right one?

[palani]

He said one invokes the other. That citizenship brings statelessness with it.

Rather citizenship in the U.S. belongs to the stateless. The U.S. is not a state. It is a municipality that oversees a territory.


Do sea going vessels have citizenship?

People are vessels. Persons are more like containers.

[Joe King]

Rather citizenship in the U.S. belongs to the stateless. The U.S. is not a state. It is a municipality that oversees a territory.So my initial assessment was correct in that you were saying that US citizenship invokes Statelessness.

[palani]

So my initial assessment was correct in that you were saying that US citizenship invokes Statelessness.

That would be my observation. After all, if U.S. law applies to stateless vessels in the middle of the ocean and if U.S. law applies to U.S. citizens then maybe the two have something else in common?

This observation would also apply to U.K. "citizens", Mexican "citizens", Swiss Federation "citizens" and not merely the U.S.

[7th trump]

Glass, actually as a "US citizen" moving from one state ("the state of") to another state doesnt matter. The "civil law" specifically states that the state of california is no different than the state of Iowa or even Puerto Rico, Quam, or the Virgin Islands or DC territorial wise.
I have had a very good relationship with a gentleman from Califirnia whos a public defender and doing very well. He would forward me court cites, for instance, that say the "common law" is to harsh for the Civil law. It blew my mind what he showed me from his experience defending clients who have legit torts against the system. Things he couldnt figure out baffled him until he dug deeper.
Let me dig up his emails (4 to 5 years old) to show you what he found out about law and its various forms.

[Joe King]

That would be my observation. After all, if U.S. law applies to stateless vessels in the middle of the ocean and if U.S. law applies to U.S. citizens then maybe the two have something else in common?

This observation would also apply to U.K. "citizens", Mexican "citizens", Swiss Federation "citizens" and not merely the U.S.It very well may. Again, DYODD.

[palani]

He would forward me court cites, for instance, that say the "common law" is to harsh for the Civil law.

You might be referrring to EQUITY rather than civil law. Civil law is foreign to the U.S. with the exceptions of Louisiana and California by virtue of the previous occupation of these territories.

From the preface of Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary


The author was induced to believe, that an occasional comparison of the
civil, canon, and other systems of foreign law, with our own,[ix] would be
useful to the profession, and illustrate many articles which, without such
aid, would not appear very clear; and also to introduce many terms from
foreign laws, which may supply a deficiency in ours.

[Glass]

He said one invokes the other. That citizenship brings statelessness with it. To be Stateless means, the legal and social concept applicable to persons who are not citizens or subjects of any state.

In the case in the OP, it was about Stateless vessels.
A Stateless vessel is, a sea going vessel (or aircraft) located in international waters (or airspace) which does not appear to be validly registered in and/or is displaying no flag of any recognised country.

Do sea going vessels have citizenship? Palani was obviously referring to people in his statement about citizenship, not ocean-going ships.
Remember, they seized the ship for being Stateless, not that the people aboard it were Stateless.
From another article:
The Coast Guard said the crew initially claimed the vessel was from Indonesia but Indonesian officials did not claim it. In the case of a stateless vessel, the U.S. can impose its own law, Lloyd said.
If no State claims it, it becomes a case of "finders keepers".

That's what I said. If you're in the wrong one, why not move to the right one?

I dont see any disagreement of facts there but my point is perhaps a bit oblique. "the state" and "The State" are different. Which one are part of. Before my "State" became such it was a dominion. That was the foundation of the 1st setlement. Many US States were originally "states".

As for the passengers. Becau se they are on a stateless vessel does not mean they are also stateless. What apies to on vessel obviously does not automatically apply to another. Boat being 1 vessel and person being another vessel.

Geez its hard to write on a mobile. Id like to add more detail but its slow going.

[Joe King]

I dont see any disagreement of facts there but my point is perhaps a bit oblique. "the state" and "The State" are different. Which one are part of. Before my "State" became such it was a dominion. That was the foundation of the 1st setlement. Many US States were originally "states".I'm referring to "State" as in a nation. Whichever it may be.



As for the passengers. Becau se they are on a stateless vessel does not mean they are also stateless. What apies to on vessel obviously does not automatically apply to another. Boat being 1 vessel and person being another vessel.Yea, that's what I said. It was about the boat, not the people on it.



Geez its hard to write on a mobile. Id like to add more detail but its slow going.I'm sure they got a $49.99 add-on for your phone bill that'll fix that slooowness. lol

[Glass]

I'm referring to "State" as in a nation. Whichever it may be.

To me, North Dakota would be a nation. Ohio, Texas etc. This was pre-federation. After federation those nations were vacated and everyone (99.99%) moved across to the United States and became citizens. These people didn't actually physically move anyware it was just that an alternative nation was layered over the top. The original nation(s) is still there, it's just vacant for the most part. Abandoned if you will.

[Joe King]

To me, North Dakota would be a nation. Ohio, Texas etc. This was pre-federation. After federation those nations were vacated and everyone (99.99%) moved across to the United States and became citizens. These people didn't actually physically move anyware it was just that an alternative nation was layered over the top. The original nation(s) is still there, it's just vacant for the most part. Abandoned if you will.As I said, State means nation. Whichever one that may be relative to the situation. I was just wondering how you came up with the idea that it's about statehood and not citizenship when ones citizenship is what directly determines ones statehood. ie The statehood hinges upon the citizenship claimed.

[palani]

The statehood hinges upon the citizenship claimed.

Statehood is a sovereign concept while citizenship is a subject concept.

You cannot contract with yourself so you are given the choice of being either a sovereign or a subject. One cannot be subject to oneself.

A state has nothing to do with territory or physical boundaries. It is about body politic, a group of people. If you feel comfortable witht the concept the word "group" includes a singularity.

[palani]

As to the stateless condition of U.S. citizens consider these points:

1) The amendment that created the office of U.S. citizen did so because there were a couple of the "several States" that refused to accept freed slaves as full citizens. This refusal created a stateless condition of the freed slave. The nature of the 14th amendment acts upon stateless people.

2) Did the U.S. constitution create an independent State? It did not. It created a municipal government for the purpose of administrating territories that were attached to the District of Columbia. It also created an "improved" federal government for the several States of the union. There is no state that exists at the federal level to alter the condition of stateless persons. The federal government has never been sovereign in and of itself. Its' body politic consists solely of actors who are said to represent the several States of the union, actors such as senators, congressmen, judicial actors and executive actors.

[po boy]

Glass, actually as a "US citizen" moving from one state ("the state of") to another state doesnt matter. The "civil law" specifically states that the state of california is no different than the state of Iowa or even Puerto Rico, Quam, or the Virgin Islands or DC territorial wise.
I have had a very good relationship with a gentleman from Califirnia whos a public defender and doing very well. He would forward me court cites, for instance, that say the "common law" is to harsh for the Civil law. It blew my mind what he showed me from his experience defending clients who have legit torts against the system. Things he couldnt figure out baffled him until he dug deeper.
Let me dig up his emails (4 to 5 years old) to show you what he found out about law and its various forms.

Please share with the class.

[po boy]

http://library.georgegordon.com/node/1659

[Glass]

I'm sorry JK. "State" and "state" are different. I used 1 for one purpose and the other for another purpose. When you respond to me you are transposing my use of 1 type with the other type.

I can tell the difference and I do know that many won't pick up this sleight of hand. I know from your posts that you know what I know yet JK you are being disingenuous in this regard. Thank you for the discussion but for me it ends here.

If by chance I am wrongly stating this then please take the time to a least view the Grip video (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?54854-UNGRIP-%28From-the-creators-of-Esoteric-Agenda-and-KYMATICA%29) . It's a start.

7th, civil law and common law are most definately different and yes the common law is more brutal. It is eye for an eye. It is the Make the damaged party Whole principal. It is the obligation to make restitution. You can best find examples of it in the Bible. U suspected you of all people would grasp that. Perhaps I don't know you well enough and need to look at your postings here to get a better feel for what you are about.

edit: I have been involved in developing various Terms and Conditions for trading with other people/corps. Invariably there is a Do Over clause. Something like: If you are unhappy wiht the work or the solution provided or it is deficient in some way, we (so and so Co) will do the work over. To me this is pure common law. We made a blue (mistake) we will make good.

Equity is probably the more appropriate law principle to refer to than civil. The problem with equity is that it goes from being a 2 party issue to a 3 party issue and the 3rd party is an inteloper and the ultimate beneficiary ahead of the actual injured party. This is all a side track anyway.

State is one thing, state is another. They will never meet as they cannot. Where you exist is up to you. It's always up to you.

[7th trump]

I'm sorry JK. "State" and "state" are different. I used 1 for one purpose and the other for another purpose. When you respond to me you are transposing my use of 1 type with the other type.

I can tell the difference and I do know that many won't pick up this sleight of hand. I know from your posts that you know what I know yet JK you are being disingenuous in this regard. Thank you for the discussion but for me it ends here.

If by chance I am wrongly stating this then please take the time to a least view the Grip video (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?54854-UNGRIP-%28From-the-creators-of-Esoteric-Agenda-and-KYMATICA%29) . It's a start.

7th, civil law and common law are most definately different and yes the common law is more brutal. It is eye for an eye. It is the Make the damaged party Whole principal. It is the obligation to make restitution. You can best find examples of it in the Bible. U suspected you of all people would grasp that. Perhaps I don't know you well enough and need to look at your postings here to get a better feel for what you are about.

edit: I have been involved in developing various Terms and Conditions for trading with other people/corps. Invariably there is a Do Over clause. Something like: If you are unhappy wiht the work or the solution provided or it is deficient in some way, we (so and so Co) will do the work over. To me this is pure common law. We made a blue (mistake) we will make good.

Equity is probably the more appropriate law principle to refer to than civil. The problem with equity is that it goes from being a 2 party issue to a 3 party issue and the 3rd party is an inteloper and the ultimate beneficiary ahead of the actual injured party. This is all a side track anyway.

State is one thing, state is another. They will never meet as they cannot. Where you exist is up to you. It's always up to you.
Yes Glass, I do grasp the Bible is based on Common law....it is the source of Common Law. And when this is all said and done with the Common Law will rule once again.
What you'll find about me is that to return this country to its grandness the Common law has to be reinstated in order for the inhabitance of this country to become the People (not US citizrns) who are above the government.

[7th trump]

You might be referrring to EQUITY rather than civil law. Civil law is foreign to the U.S. with the exceptions of Louisiana and California by virtue of the previous occupation of these territories.

From the preface of Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary

No, I'm refering to the Roman Civil Law form Palani. Equity law is recognized by the US Constitution where as the Civil Law (Roman) is not. Ever since the 14th was enacted (supposedly) the federal government had citizen subjects for the first time ever.
The federal government adopted Roman civil law to control its new subjects.
While George Gordon is good, I think www.1215.org is a better site to understand the differences between the People and "US citizens". George doesnt really dwelve on the seperation as much and pulling yourself out of the mix, but rather teaches the idea how to exist in both.
My opinion is you cannot coexist as a "subject" and as the People at the same time. You cannot be a master and yet a slave simultaniously. One or the other, but not both. Www.1215.org actually shows the Senate document (US constitution interpreted for US citizen subjects).
If you decide to go to www.1215.org read the very first paragraph after entering.


New to this site? Before you begin you should have a general knowledge of how this strategy works.
IF YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY, please understand that herein is a completely different perspective on the law. [U]This is not business as usual. Your education was primarily geared to equity law. [B]This site is primarily about common law, which is similar, but sufficiently different that to benefit from it you must be prepared to revamp your perspective.[B][U]
IF YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY and you are uncomfortable about your knowledge of the law, consider purchasing the compact 2-day law course from Jurisdictionary. Though based on equity procedures, it will be a major help for you to understand the common law procedures. After absorbing that information you should be ready to learn the advance information here.

[Joe King]

Statehood is a sovereign concept while citizenship is a subject concept.

You cannot contract with yourself so you are given the choice of being either a sovereign or a subject. One cannot be subject to oneself.

A state has nothing to do with territory or physical boundaries. It is about body politic, a group of people.I never said it didn't.


If you feel comfortable witht the concept the word "group" includes a singularity.Right. You said that the claiming of US citizenship is a claiming of Statelessness and I agree. Which is why I posted that ones "statehood hinges upon the citizenship claimed". If that is of US citizenship, then the Statelessness goes along with it. It's an all or nothing proposition.

[Joe King]

I'm sorry JK. "State" and "state" are different. I used 1 for one purpose and the other for another purpose. When you respond to me you are transposing my use of 1 type with the other type.

I can tell the difference and I do know that many won't pick up this sleight of hand. I know from your posts that you know what I know yet JK you are being disingenuous in this regard. Thank you for the discussion but for me it ends here.The word state {capitilized or not} when combined with the word "less" and as used in the context of the OP is meant to say they are without a flag, or rather, without a country.

Therefore the US gov takes the position that they will impose their law upon it if no other nation claims it.

If a man or woman doesn't have a State, as with US citizenship, the same will apply to them. Which is exactly what palani was getting at.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.




If by chance I am wrongly stating this then please take the time to a least view the Grip video (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?54854-UNGRIP-%28From-the-creators-of-Esoteric-Agenda-and-KYMATICA%29) . It's a start.I already understand the concept of Statelessness.


State is one thing, state is another. They will never meet as they cannot. Where you exist is up to you. It's always up to you..State is like "the State of Isreal" and state is like "what is your mental state?"

[7th trump]

"No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.

"The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
United States v. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.

“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

Might want to elaborate a bit about statelessness.............
The courts clearly recognize two states which is it?

"The amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery."
Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29.

[palani]

Do you suppose statelessness is the cause of all these wars against sovereign nations? Imagine this. The U.S. military is composes of nothing but stateless entities going around the globe creating mayhem and carnage because of "state envy".

"Let there exist no nation/state on the face of the earth as long as we ourselves agree to live in a stateless condition."

Could explain much.