Re: [ba-unrev-talk] A caveat about democracy ...incl. legal systemcorrupted almost beyond recognition
John. (01)
You wrote: (02)
> BTW, I have two highly relevant references to share with you that I know
> is very important relative to these serious concerns and noted by Doug
> when he publicly announced on 3/6/03:
>
> "I don't know about you, but I see this as a SERIOUS Emergency."
>
>
> In fact, after your review, could you consider joining me in discussing
> this in more detail with Doug, Mei Lin, Jack, etc. since I'm planning on
> giving a demo on how to apply wireless Ultra-wideband (UWB)
> sensor/actuator and comunications technology to the Bootstrap Alliance,
> Amtech-USA.org, and CITRIS, etc.? (03)
I am not aware of Doug's statement referred to here and do not know what
emergency he is talking about. Also I can't attend the demo because I
live too far away - near Montreal. (04)
I am still hoping that eventually we shall be able to link major human
problems to the kind of digital tools Doug and friends have been working
on. I guess I am not overly realistic here... (05)
Henry (06)
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 18:50, John J. Deneen wrote:
> Henry K van Eyken wrote:
>
> >Thanks, John.
> >
> >And now further adding to the complexities of life: Iran is operating a
> >nuclear facility beyond the limiting specs set by the nuclear
> >non-proliferation treaty:
> >
> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/index.html
> >
> >While human minds focus on one thing, i.q. Iraq, other items that ought
> >be of major concern creep up on us hardly noticed and, therefore, not
> >considered in our stance w.r.t. the thing we are focusing on. N. Korea
> >and Iran, as well as Al Quaeda, ought to figure in any consideration of
> >the Iraq situation. This is beyond the capability of citizens
> >unfortified by digital augmentation, spiritual preparedness for coping
> >with problems arising from weighing public wellbeing against personal
> >wellbeing in situations of extreme stress, and media that report and
> >help evaluate.
> >
> Henry, I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> BTW, I have two highly relevant references to share with you that I know
> is very important relative to these serious concerns and noted by Doug
> when he publicly announced on 3/6/03:
>
> "I don't know about you, but I see this as a SERIOUS Emergency."
>
>
> In fact, after your review, could you consider joining me in discussing
> this in more detail with Doug, Mei Lin, Jack, etc. since I'm planning on
> giving a demo on how to apply wireless Ultra-wideband (UWB)
> sensor/actuator and comunications technology to the Bootstrap Alliance,
> Amtech-USA.org, and CITRIS, etc.?
>
> 1) Regional Terrorism News Portal
> <http://www.isi.edu/geoworlds/apan/terrorism> incorporates a) UC
> Berkeley's Multivalent Document Browser and b) "Intelligauge"
> software measurement and evaluation technology that assists software
> engineers in making decisions throughout the software adaptation
> lifecycle
> <http://schafercorp-ballston.com/dasada/dasada_kickoff_briefs/SoftwareLifecyclel.ppt>,
> including software design, analysis, implementation, and run-time.
>
> Note, this portal is automatically generated on a daily basis using
> advanced GeoTopics <http://www.isi.edu/geoworlds/geotopics/>
> technology from GeoWorlds <http://www.isi.edu/geoworlds/>, a
> research and development effort of the Distributed Scalable Systems
> Division <http://www.isi.edu/divisions/div2/> of the University of
> Southern California Information Sciences Institute.
>
> GeoWorlds extends, integrates, tests, and evaluates a unique
> combination of Digital Library and Geographical Information System
> technology.
>
> The goal is to demonstrate a vision of a system that helps a user
> understand facts and events in relation to space and time by
> presenting and exploring those relationships in a visual environment
> that integrates information search and analysis tools with
> geospatial displays and multimedia documents.
>
> Overall, it's a very interesting example of a societal-scaled case
> for "Sharing the Bootstrap
> <http://cubicmetercrystal.com/alpine/p2p-interop.html>" in
> Collective Intelligence and Augmenting Sensemaking Conversations
> <http://cognexus.org/ht02/nosek.doc> with e.g., FreeNet,
> purple-link, gIBIS, and Ultra-wideband peer-to-peer mobile
> computing, etc., on urgent/complex problems where the
> current GeoTopics of "terrorism" Web content are dynamically backed
> linked into an application called GeoWorlds for presenting and
> overlaying the actual geo-locations within society's vital
> infrastructures.
>
> GeoTopics is a service that daily examines news reportage from the
> websites of a growing number of large, elite English-language news
> operations (you can see the list by clicking on News Media Included
> <http://www.isi.edu/geoworlds/geotopics/newsmedia.html>). Its
> contribution is to help identify the "hot topics," and the most
> frequently referenced places, found that day in this very large
> collection of reports. The goal is to help you look at what's going
> on worldwide in either of two ways: what places are relevant to a
> topic, or what topics are hot in a place.
>
> GeoTopics ranks topics and places by the number of references found
> to them that day. It automatically compares these to the previous
> days' results, flags new topics that emerged that day, and tells you
> whether ongoing topics seem to be getting more or less attention
> than the day before. For each days' topics and places, clicking on
> them gets you both the full set of reports under that heading and a
> breakdown of those reports (i.e., reports on each topic are broken
> down by places referenced, and reports on places are broken down by
> topics referenced).
>
> You can scroll back through GeoTopics' archives to look at its
> analyses of preceding days, back to the point where we first started
> running it.
>
> GeoTopics is not a search engine. It does not necessarily find the
> topic or the specific document of your dreams. What it is, is a
> special-purpose Information Analysis Service - an aid to help you
> quickly get a feel for what might be interesting to look at more
> closely within a large set of material. It was built by drawing upon
> a much more powerful and general-purpose system: GeoWorlds
> <http://www.isi.edu/geoworlds>.
>
> I know as a former physicist in risk/consequence disaster management
> analysis at LLNL, modeling is key step in terrorism defense
> <http://www.rdmag.com/features/0209terr23.asp>, since it provides
> the ability to accurately predict "worst-case" scenarios of the
> dispersion, concentration profiles, and ultimate fate of
> chemical/biological (CB) or radiological agents released into the
> atmosphere.
>
> IMHO, this turnkey system integrates the best available open-source
> technology for the "bootstrapping" the Hyperscope/OHS goals with all
> the necessary resources of a digital library
> <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Edemmel/CITRIS_FCM_110602/Wilensky_FCM_110602.ppt>,
> geographic information systems (GIS)
> <http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/gis/index.html>, and remote sensor data
> management technologies <http://telegraph.cs.berkeley.edu/tinydb/>,
> together with other information analysis, retrieval and
> collaboration tools.
>
>
> 2) On 12/02/02, Jim Spohrer invited Ruben Kleiman
> <rk@post.harvard.edu> to speak at EOE <www.eoe.org> Speaker Series
> on Open Software Communities for Education, to promote on-line
> sharing and improvement of learning resources. Below are pointers to
> links to his three part presentation, including an abstract:
>
> Fallen Knowledge and the Fruits of Syncretism (AI Goes Mainstream)
> Part I <http://eoe.org/forum/presentations/Kleiman_Part_I.pdf>:
> Part II <http://eoe.org/forum/presentations/Kleiman_Part_II.pdf>:
> Part III <http://eoe.org/forum/presentations/AIMag18-03-006.pdf>:
>
> Abstract
>
> "The Tree in the Garden of Eden is a key to Judeo-Christian
> thought. Whether the tree represents Knowledge or Eternal Life has
> been a perennial argument, but that the fruit was forbidden to
> Adam is hardly ever denied. Some think that we are dealing with a
> jealous god (the Veda's Indra and the Greek Zeus, the unappeasable
> thunderers--perhaps a Shadow issue (in the Jungian sense) from
> usurping the Titans before them) and that it was a specific kind
> of knowledge that led to the Fall. Others wish to hold that the
> Fall was caused simply by Man's violation of the god's command.
> The former interpretation gives us an insecure god who--if he
> created us--will forever keep us ignorant and that is our lot;
> whereas the latter view suggests that it is pure (perhaps innate)
> vanity to pretend to any kind of knowledge, that the enterprise
> is, in some deep sense, ultimately worthless. One is a vision of
> Knowledge outside of ourselves that we can, however perilously,
> discover; the other is a vision of an inner Knowledge that, if it
> exists, can only be found in the human imagination.
>
> These Western visions of Knowledge influence the assumptions
> computer scientists use to create software that can inference
> rather than just compute. Thanks to a plethora of new standards
> and the promise of pervasive distributed web services, some areas
> in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly in Knowledge
> Representation, are going mainstream. Unfortunately, deep problems
> in Knowledge Representation remain unsolved. Some of us will leap
> ahead without due deliberation, egged forward by competitive angst
> or zeal. The new and numerous hands and minds of
> commercially-minded engineers, focused on practical problems, will
> take many traditional ideas in Knowledge Representation to task
> yet will undoubtedly create many useful applications along the way.
>
> In this talk, I'll explain how and why this situation has come
> about and will put this in the context of the hard problems that
> must be resolved before hype can turn to hope. I will discuss the
> key notions behind RDF, OWL, so-called "ontologies," the semantic
> web, agent communication languages, and other standards and
> approaches, including natural language understanding, using
> concrete and easily understood examples.
>
> To round out the talk on a higher plane, I will explain how the
> first paragraph of this abstract relates to the topic at hand and
> I will turn to some major ideas in post-modern thought (especially
> in relativism, semiotics and deconstruction) to point to my
> syncretic viewpoint on the problem of Knowledge."
>
> >Re that second point, when people trample on one another trying to
> >escape from a brawl in a New York club, imagine what we will do against
> >one another when WMDs hit us. We won't be a band of brothers.
> >
> >H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 19:56, John J. Deneen wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Henry,
> >>
> >>Thanks for reminding us about the overall importance of Doug's life-long
> >>concerns: a) augmenting the human intellect, b) improving critical
> >>thinking, and c) solving urgent complex problems that's impacting humanity.
> >>
> >>E.g.
> >>Below are two directly related and though-provoking references caveats
> >>about democracy which further delineate these problems requiring
> >>collective intelligence, collaboration, and challenges at
> >>a Societal-scale similar to the type of work undertaken by
> >>UnansweredQuestions.org, including pointers to internet links
> >><http://www.unansweredquestions.org/top_11.html> concerning a collective
> >>public 9/11 inquiry about the relationships among capitalism, militarism
> >>and politics.
> >>
> >>1) The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond
> >>recognition, and
> >>2) Fiction of Law
> >>
> >>In addition, the following four books recommended by Judge Edith Jones
> >>of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as presented to the
> >>Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.
> >>
> >> Philip Howard:
> >>
> >> * The Death of Common Sense
> >> * The Collapse of the Common Good, and
> >> * The Lost Art of Drawing the Line.
> >>
> >> Michael Novak:
> >>
> >> * On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond
> >> recognition.
> >>
> >>
> >> * The first threat to the rule of law, the judge quoted George
> >> Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the
> >> security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of
> >> religious obligation desert the oaths … in courts of justice?"
> >>
> >> Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if
> >> the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it?
> >>
> >> * The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which
> >> is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated
> >> that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.
> >>
> >>
> >> * The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises
> >> from contemporary legal philosophy.
> >>
> >>
> >>American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard
> >>Law School
> >><http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/3_March/030703_mn_american_legal_system_corrupt.shtml>
> >>
> >> "The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond
> >> recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
> >> the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law
> >> School on February 28.
> >>
> >> She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely
> >> sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come
> >> because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism." ...
> >>
> >> [ ...] "She said that the business about all of the Founding
> >> Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She
> >> says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead
> >> to intolerance.
> >>
> >> "This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow
> >> sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given
> >> by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the
> >> moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are
> >> vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality
> >> before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that
> >> this new century will experience a revival of the original
> >> understanding of the rule of law and its roots.
> >>
> >> "The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non
> >> of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been
> >> clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own
> >> people are being killed."
> >>
> >> According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the
> >> rule of law comes from within the legal system itself.
> >>
> >> Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of
> >> the first writers to observe the United States from the outside
> >> looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in
> >> America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of
> >> their profession and the study of law based on venerable
> >> precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for
> >> formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These
> >> qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of
> >> the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to
> >> guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were
> >> essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.
> >>
> >> "The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence
> >> for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming
> >> businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business,
> >> pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to
> >> pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the
> >> law. … While the business mentality produces certain benefits,
> >> like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other
> >> adverse effects include advertising and shameless
> >> self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by
> >> lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) There is also a second matter: Fiction of Law.
> >>
> >>E.g. Who is a citizen or resident of the United States?
> >>
> >>There are three classes: (1) There is the citizen of one of the several
> >>States who is rhetorically a citizen of the United States but isn't
> >>technically a citizen of the United States, (2) there is the special
> >>class of citizen of the United States created by the Fourteenth
> >>Amendment, and (3) there is the citizen of the geographical United
> >>States who doesn't fall within the constitutional scheme. For example,
> >>in 1917 Congress bestowed blanket citizenship on Puerto Ricans, in 1927
> >>Congress bestowed blanket citizenship on Virgin Islands natives, etc.
> >>Citizens of insular possessions cannot vote in presidential elections
> >>and do not have voting representation in Congress. Whatever their
> >>status, it lies outside the Constitution.
> >>
> >>This is the fine line between Acts of Congress applicable in territories
> >>and possessions of the United States and laws of the United States
> >>applicable in States of the Union. The former are "nonconstitutional" in
> >>nature where the latter are promulgated within constitutionally
> >>enumerated powers.
> >>
> >>With those qualifications in mind, I believe the following discourse by
> >>the "Informer" has considerable merit, particularly with respect to
> >>explaining duplicity common in virtually all state and federal courts.
> >>
> >>FICTION OF LAW
> >>
> >>Well People, It's about time to wake up and smell the coffee. What I am
> >>about to give you is nothing but the truth from the courts and laws of
> >>the United States. When you know what to look for you will find it in
> >>the oddest places. Places that the ordinary man would not expect to find
> >>it. Every one talks about government being a corporation as cited in 28
> >>USC 3002 (15). Every one complains when taken to court where is the
> >>contract. All people argue these contracts, whether implied, adhesion or
> >>what ever. So there is a lot in common with all the arguments. Of course
> >>when you go into court you most always lose even when bringing in the
> >>law, regulations and court cases that you feel supports your position.
> >>
> >>For years now I have been trying to make people understand that
> >>citizenship, of what ever government nature, is what sucks you into
> >>being a taxpayer, or requiring you to get whatever license is needed to
> >>survive and being controlled by government (corporation). How the
> >>government operates is by Fiction of Law. A fiction of law is stated
> >>from Lectric Law Library on the net as follows:
> >>
> >>The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person
> >>or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently
> >>establishes, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be
> >>repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does
> >>not exist, but which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from
> >>presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false;
> >>whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true.
> >>
> >>The law never feigns what is impossible. Fiction is like art; it
> >>imitates nature, but never disfigures it. It aids truth, but it ought
> >>never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but
> >>which does not exist; but it will never feign that what was impossible
> >>actually is.
> >>
> >>Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the
> >>power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it
> >>under the pretense of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness
> >>which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to
> >>be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his
> >>object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin
> >>to the legislative usurpations of the bench.
> >>
> >>It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of
> >>law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. To
> >>prevent their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further
> >>than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.
> >>
> >>The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine
> >>of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold and
> >>afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good
> >>title; that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding
> >>time by the doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved,
> >>another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all
> >>presumptions; that the heir, executor, and administrator stand by
> >>representation in the place of the deceased are all fictions of law.
> >>"Our various introduction of John Doe and Richard Roe; our solemn
> >>process upon disseisin by Hugh Hunt; our casually losing and finding a
> >>ship (which never was in Europe) in the parish of St. Mary Le Bow, in
> >>the ward of Cheap; our trying the validity of a will by an imaginary
> >>wager of five pounds; our imagining and compassing the king's death, by
> >>giving information which may defeat an attack upon an enemy's settlement
> >>in the antipodes; our charge of picking a pocket or forging a bill with
> >>force and arms; of neglecting to repair a bridge, against the peace of
> >>the king, his crown and dignity are circumstances, which, looked at by
> >>themselves, would convey an impression of no very favorable nature, with
> >>respect to the wisdom of our jurisprudence."
> >>
> >>Now notice that Assumption is the word used to describe how fiction
> >>operates. The word presumption is the opposite, see opening paragraph
> >>for this sentence "It differs from presumption because it establishes as
> >>true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof
> >>of something true."
> >> Now lets use this material from Black's 3rd Edition Law book and a
> >>case to wit:
> >>
> >>Fiction. Derived from Fictio in Roman Law, a fiction is defined as a
> >>false averment on the part of the Plaintiff which the defendant is not
> >>allowed to traverse, the object being to give the court jurisdiction.
> >>Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. (1969) Pg. 468; In the case of "Willful
> >>failure to File," the Plaintiff and court invents the "fiction" that
> >>defendant is a "taxpayer", A.K.A. "Person." Motions and briefs which
> >>rely on precepts of law will thereafter be denied or found frivolous.
> >>This point was made clear in Roberts v. Commissioner, 176 F 2d 221, 225
> >>(9 C.A., 1949)
> >>
> >>Now you know why all your arguments are frivolous. You are a fiction and
> >>fictions have no constitutional protection from encroachment on your
> >>unalienable rights. What is this fiction that you are? This is a list of
> >>words or phrases that describe a fiction, remembering "fiction" is
> >>artificial in character, PERSON, RESIDENT, U.S. CITIZEN, STATE CITIZEN,
> >>and INDIVIDUAL.
> >>
> >>I am using the full case as it is so important, not only for the fact
> >>that I am writing on Fiction of Law, but other parameters that I have
> >>written long ago and that people pooh-poohed it as ridiculous as it
> >>dealt with admiralty. I had showed where both revenue and driving was
> >>maritime in nature and almost everyone said I was way off base even
> >>though I had shown, through Benedict on Admiralty, that licensing and
> >>registering your car was in the nature of maritime. So all revenue
> >>situations, Income tax and Driving are in the admiralty jurisdiction
> >>because of the maritime nature. That is why the courts will not tell you
> >>the nature is maritime and the cause is that you have violated your
> >>promise to perform under fiction of law. Now you are going to say, oh no
> >>the Informer is going off the deep end again. Well hear these cases out
> >>and the Fiction of Law premise. Take off the blinders you have had on so
> >>long and use the brain that the Lord gave you. The Lord did say that not
> >>all that have eyes to see will see and, therefore, if you do not see you
> >>will forever be doomed to the existence you have. I am going to bold, in
> >>the case, to show how maritime is used whenever you carry passengers for
> >>hire, be it boat, plane, wagon, scooter, rickshaw or car. Do not lose
> >>sight of the fact that you are a fiction and have contracted with
> >>government when reading this case. Oh by the way go to Find Law and
> >>search for Fiction of Law and have a good time reading.
> >>
> >>U.S. Supreme Court
> >>ARCHAWSKI v. HANIOTI, 350 U.S. 532 (1956)
> >>350 U.S. 532
> >>ARCHAWSKI ET AL. v. HANIOTI.
> >>CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
> >>SECOND CIRCUIT.
> >>No. 351.
> >>Argued March 5, 1956.
> >>Decided April 9, 1956.
> >>
> >>A libel in admiralty alleged that petitioners paid moneys to respondent
> >>for transportation to Europe on respondent's vessel, and that respondent
> >>breached the contract by abandonment of the voyage. The libel further
> >>alleged that respondent wrongfully appropriated the passage money to his
> >>own use and committed other fraudulent acts. Held: The cause of action
> >>alleged
> >>was within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal District Court. Pp.
> >>532-536.
> >>
> >> (a) The essential character of the libel as a claim for breach of a
> >>maritime contract was not altered by the allegations of
> >>wrongfulness and fraud. Pp. 534-535.
> >>
> >> (b) So long as the claim asserted arises out of a maritime contract,
> >>the admiralty court has jurisdiction over it. P. 535.
> >>
> >> (c)Admiralty has jurisdiction even where a libel reads like
> >>indebitatus assumpsit at common law, provided that the unjust enrichment
> >>arose out of the breach of a maritime contract. Pp. 535-536.
> >>
> >>223 F.2d 406, reversed and remanded.
> >>
> >>Harry D. Graham argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.
> >>
> >>Israel Convisser argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
> >>
> >>MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
> >>
> >>The sole question in the case is whether the cause of action alleged
> >>comes within the admiralty jurisdiction of the District Court. The
> >>District Court held that this was an action on a maritime contract,
> >>within the admiralty jurisdiction, 129 F. Supp. 410. The Court of
> >>Appeals reversed, holding that the suit was in the nature of the [350
> >>U.S. 532, 533] old common law indebitatus assumpsit for money had and
> >>received, based upon the wrongful withholding of money. 223
> >>
> >>F.2d 406. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we
> >>granted, 350 U.S. 872, because of the seeming conflict of that ruling
> >>with Krauss Bros. Co. v. Dimon S. S. Corp., 290 U.S. 117, 124.1
> >>
> >>The libel alleges that respondent, doing business in his own and in
> >>various trade names, owned and controlled a passenger vessel, known as
> >>the City of Athens, and held out that vessel as a common carrier of
> >>passengers for hire, and that petitioners paid moneys for passage upon
> >>the vessel, scheduled for July 15, 1947, to Europe. A contract for the
> >>transportation of passengers is a maritime contract within admiralty
> >>jurisdiction.2 The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411. The allegations so far
> >>mentioned are plainly sufficient to establish such a contract. The libel
> >>goes on to allege a breach of that contract through an abandonment of
> >>the voyage. If this were all, it would be plain that petitioners stated
> >>a claim for breach of a maritime contract. But the libel further alleges
> >>that the sums paid by petitioners as passage money were "wrongfully and
> >>deliberately" applied by respondent to his own use and benefit "in
> >>reckless disregard of his obligations to refund [350 U.S. 532, 534] the
> >>same" and that respondent "has secreted himself away and manipulated his
> >>assets . . . for the purpose of defrauding" petitioners. Then follow
> >>allegations of certain fraudulent acts and transactions.
> >>
> >>The allegations of wrongfulness and fraud do not alter the essential
> >>character of the libel. For the ancient admiralty teaching is that, "The
> >>rules of pleading in the admiralty are exceedingly simple and free from
> >>technical requirements." Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Vance, 19 How. 162,
> >>171-172. And see 2 Benedict, American Admiralty (6th ed. 1940), 223,
> >>237. Though these particular allegations of the libel sound in fraud or
> >>in the wrongful withholding of moneys, it is plain in the context that
> >>the obligation to pay the moneys arose because of a breach of the
> >>contract to transport passengers. Lawyers speak of the obligation in
> >>terms of indebitatus assumpsit, a concept whose tortuous development
> >>gave expression to "the ethical character of the law." See Ames. The
> >>History of Assumpsit, 2 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 53, 58 (1888). As Mr. Justice
> >>Holmes once put it, "An obligation to pay money generally is enforced by
> >>an action of assumpsit and to that extent is referred to a contract even
> >>though it be one existing only by fiction of law." Thomas v.
> >>Matthiessen, 232 U.S. 221, 235.
> >>
> >>I HAVE INCLUDED A PORTION OF THIS CASE AFTER THIS ONE,
> >>THE INFORMER.
> >>
> >>The fiction sometimes distorted the law. A line of authorities emerged
> >>to the effect that admiralty had no jurisdiction to grant relief in such
> >>cases "because the implied promise to repay the moneys which cannot in
> >>good conscience be retained - necessary to support the action for money
> >>had and received - is not a maritime contract."3 United Transp. & L. Co.
> >>v. New York
> >>& B. T. Line, 185 F. 386, 391. Yet that duty to pay is often referable,
> >>[350 U.S. 532, 535] as here, to the breach of a maritime contract. As
> >>Mr. Justice Stone said in Krauss Bros. Co. v. Dimon S. S. Corp., supra,
> >>at 124:
> >>
> >>". . . Even under the common law form of action for money had and
> >>received there could be no recovery without proof of the breach of the
> >>contract involved in demanding the payment, and the basis of recovery
> >>there, as in admiralty, is the violation of some term of the contract of
> >>affreightment, whether by failure to carry or by exaction of freight
> >>which the contract did not authorize."
> >>
> >>The truth is that in a case such as the present one there is neither an
> >>actual promise to repay the passage moneys nor a second contract. The
> >>problem is to prevent unjust enrichment from a maritime contract. See
> >>Morrison, The Remedial Powers of the Admiralty, 43 Yale L. J. 1. 27
> >>(1933). A court that prevents a maritime contract from being exploited
> >>in that way does not
> >>reach beyond the domain of maritime affairs. We conclude that, so long
> >>as the claim asserted arises out of a maritime contract, the admiralty
> >>court has jurisdiction over it.
> >>
> >>The philosophy of indebitatus assumpsit is, indeed, not wholly foreign
> >>to admiralty. Analogous conceptions of rights based on quasi-contract
> >>are found in admiralty. One who saves property at sea has the right to
> >>an award of salvage, regardless of any agreement between him and the
> >>owner. See Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch 240, 266; The Sabine, 101
> >>U.S. 384, 390; 1 Benedict, supra, 117 et seq. Likewise, where cargo is
> >>jettisoned, the owner becomes entitled to a contribution in general
> >>average from the owners of other cargo which was saved without the aid
> >>of any agreement. See Barnard v. Adams, 10 How. 270, 303-304; Star of
> >>Hope, 9 Wall. 203, 228-230; 1 Benedict, supra, 98. Other examples could
> >>be given. See Chandler, Quasi Contractual Relief [350 U.S. 532, 536] in
> >>Admiralty, 27 Mich. L. Rev. 23 (1928). Rights which admiralty recognizes
> >>as serving the ends of justice are often indistinguishable from ordinary
> >>quasi-contractual rights created to prevent unjust enrichment. How far
> >>the concept of quasi-contracts may be applied in admiralty it is
> >>unnecessary to decide. It is sufficient this day to hold that admiralty
> >>has jurisdiction, even where the libel reads like indebitatus assumpsit
> >>at common law, provided that the unjust enrichment arose as a result of
> >>the breach of a maritime contract. Such is the case here.
> >>
> >>The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of
> >>Appeals for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
> >>
> >>Reversed and remanded.
> >>
> >>Footnotes
> >>
> >>[Footnote 1] There is also an apparent conflict with Sword Line v.
> >>United States, 228 F.2d 344, 346, decided, after we granted certiorari,
> >>by a different panel of the Second Circuit from the one which sat in the
> >>instant case.
> >>
> >>[Footnote 2] The Court in New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v.
> >>Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 392, stated that in determining admiralty
> >>jurisdiction the inquiry is "into the nature and subject-matter of the
> >>contract, - whether it was a maritime contract, and the service a
> >>maritime service, to be performed upon the sea, or upon waters within
> >>the ebb and flow of the
> >>tide. And, again, whether the service was to be substantially performed
> >>upon the sea, or tide-waters, although it had commenced and had
> >>terminated beyond the reach of the tide; if it was, then jurisdiction
> >>has always been maintained."
> >>
> >>[Footnote 3] And see Israel v. Moore & McCormack Co., 295 F. 919; Home
> >>Ins. Co. v. Merchants' Transp. Co., 16 F.2d 372; Silva v. Bankers
> >>Commercial Corp., 163 F.2d 602. [350 U.S. 532, 537]
> >>
> >>The following is the case cited above that bears importance on the
> >>fiction and how you are compelled to pay an income tax for your contract
> >>with the government. It is based on a level of a dollar amount which is
> >>the possession and use of a federal Reserve Note which is a debt you had
> >>and received in a transfer to which you are to pay back a portion for
> >>the use of the notes. This is based on the promise to follow all the
> >>rules and regs as a citizen of, resident therein of the contract, by
> >>implied consent for accepting the artificial character of individual,
> >>which is a word definition defining person in statute that is the
> >>subject of liability. When reading the following replace
> >>"stockholder"/"members" with citizen/person/ resident and "corporation"
> >>with State or United States.
> >>
> >>Thomas v. Matthiessen, 232 U.S. 221, 235.
> >>There remains only the question whether the liability is of a kind that
> >>will be enforced outside of the California courts. Analysis on this
> >>point often is blurred by the vague statement that the liability is
> >>'contractual.' An obligation to pay money generally is enforced by an
> >>action of assumpsit, and to that extent is referred to a contract, even
> >>though it be one existing only by fiction of law. But such obligations
> >>when imposed upon the members of a corporation may very very largely.
> >>The incorporation may create a chartered partnership the members of
> >>which are primary contractors, or it may go no farther than to impose a
> >>penalty; or again, it may create a secondary remedy for a debt treated
> >>as that of the corporation alone, like the right to attach the
> >>corporation's real estate; or the liability may be inseparable from the
> >>local procedure; or the law may be so ambiguous as to leave it doubtful
> >>whether the liability is matter of remedy, and local, or creates a
> >>contract on the part of the members that will go with them wherever they
> >>are found McClaine v. Rankin, 197 U.S. 154, 161 49 L. ed. 702, 705, 25
> >>Sup. Ct. Rep. 410, 3 Ann. Cas. 500; Christopher v. Norvell, 201 U.S.
> >>216, 225, 226 S., 50 L. ed. 732, 736, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502, 5 Ann. Cas.
> >>740. In the present case we think that there can be no doubt of the
> >>meaning of the California statute. It reads: 'Each stockholder of a
> >>corporation is individually and personally liable for such proportion of
> >>its debts and liabilities,' etc., as we have stated, and supposes the
> >>action against him to be brought 'upon such debt.' Civil Code, 322. This
> >>means that by force of the statute, if the corporation incurs a debt
> >>within the juris- [232 U.S. 221, 236] diction, the stockholder is a
> >>party to it, and joins in the contract in the proportion of his shares.
> >>
> >>Now, I hope you are ready to understand what you have read. All statutes
> >>are written for persons, residents, individuals and are premised on one
> >>thing, citizenship. Citizenship means you are a member of the corporate
> >>body politic of the state or federal government. So go ahead and call
> >>yourself a citizen of so and so state and you immediately become a
> >>"stockholder" of that State and assume all its debts. Plus the fact that
> >>the State you claim citizenship in is a "political subdivision" of the
> >>United States. Since all States are corporations and have joined the
> >>parent corporation, The United States, you are bound to a contract as
> >>stated in the cases above. Now you have ASSUMED the character of a
> >>FICTION OF LAW, namely that of a person, to which all statutes apply.
> >>Now in the definition of person the word INDIVIDUAL describes person in
> >>26 USC 7701 (a) (1). In my books, The New History of America and Which
> >>One Are You. I used two cases wherein the Judges stated that the
> >>defendants did not dispute that they were NOT United States citizens so
> >>they were taxpayers. Why people did not pick up on this is because there
> >>is very little logical thinking minds anymore to deduce the obvious.
> >>
> >>Here is how you become part of a contract, that all talk about existing,
> >>but no one can figure out where this contract is, to promise to pay the
> >>debt of the State and United States. As the above cases states, it is
> >>where ever the person (stockholder/member) is that the jurisdiction
> >>follows. That is why the IRS can go into a State contrary to what you
> >>all believe that they can not. Oh yes they can, and you did it to
> >>yourself when using a fiction of law and they came right back on that
> >>fiction of law and nailed you with your own actions which you cannot
> >>shake no matter how hard you try. They even went to Mexico to get the
> >>person, and when you now read Cook v Tate, it will become so clear that
> >>you will wonder why you did not see it before. You did not see it before
> >>because you did not have this information before you to digest.
> >>
> >>Here is how they did it and looking back to the cases above it should be
> >>evident to you.
> >>
> >>You are born a MAN, not a person, or individual. God created MAN. Did
> >>God create person, individual or citizen? No statutes are written with
> >>Man in them, only person. For only artificial entities can go after
> >>other artificial entities, they cannot attack MAN. Read "PERSON" article
> >>written on www.atgpress.com/ <http://www.atgpress.com/> for further
> >>clarification. The constitution is for members only, the States, not
> >>people. People cannot join the Union. To prove it try to join the Union.
> >>States are corporations. People, MAN, can become a member of a State by
> >>registering to vote or taking an oath to support that contract called a
> >>constitution. Once doing that you are a stockholder and therefore a
> >>citizen of that state. Citizen is an artificial character and a Fiction
> >>of Law. The statutes of contract are geared toward person which is
> >>artificial in character. Now that you have claimed citizenship of a
> >>State, you are deemed by the Courts as a person of artificial character.
> >>Artificial characters have no constitutional protections and are in the
> >>same class as other artificial entities (corporations). To prove this
> >>look at the words that define person in 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1) which are
> >>individual, corporation, association, partnership, trust, estate, and
> >>company, all being artificial entities. Being this is so,your part of
> >>the debt of the government is predicated on the membership (read in the
> >>case above), wherever you might be. The debt the State has to the United
> >>States, as a Union member, is transferred to all its members to pay a
> >>federal income tax. So it matters not where you are the IRS can go into
> >>the state, any state, and has jurisdiction because you are a "person"
> >>described in the statutes who is resident in their political
> >>subdivision, the state.
> >>
> >>So you are taken into court and claim that you are a sovereign citizen.
> >>Remember "citizen" is an artificial entity, a Fiction of Law. "Citizen"
> >>is not natural. So the court notes you, by your own admission, are a
> >>"member" of the body politic and proceeds on that Fiction of Law. You
> >>argue you are not the person liable because the statutes do not define
> >>the activity that makes you liable. The fact of the matter is, is that
> >>you are the "person" in the statute and the taxpayer in 7701 (a) (14).
> >>The person is what makes you liable, not so much the activity. So as was
> >>posted in the Cooper case on the internet, that everyone wants to
> >>believe that the use of the post office makes for dual citizenship is
> >>totally wrong. Dual citizenship is predicated on the fact you are a
> >>"member" of a political subdivision (State)of the United States, ergo
> >>have dual citizenship for taxation as you are responsible for the debts
> >>of both corporations, the State and the United States. So you are an
> >>"individual" required to file an individual income tax form. I include
> >>an excerpt from The New History of America that proves the point.
> >>
> >>U.S. v Slater, 82-2 USTC 9571
> >>
> >>"There is a tax imposed, in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 1, on the income of `every
> >>individual.' No provision exists in the tax code exempting from taxation
> >>persons who, like Slater, characterize themselves as somehow standing
> >>apart from the American polity, and the defendant cites no authority
> >>supporting his position. Slater's protestations to the effect that he
> >>derives no benefit from the United States government have no bearing on
> >>his legal obligation to pay income taxes. (cites omitted) Unless the
> >>defendant can establish that he is NOT a citizen of the United States,
> >>the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax
> >>liability."
> >>
> >>Notice the last sentence, and also, they can only attempt on a U.S.
> >>citizen. Now to the other case which is an Appeal in the Seventh Circuit
> >>and she lost;
> >>
> >>Rachel Templeton v Internal Revenue Service, 86-1363 on appeal from 85 C
> >>457.
> >>
> >>"Finally, we address Templeton's second argument in which she claims
> >>that she is not a 'person liable' or a 'taxpayer', as those terms are
> >>defined by the Internal Revenue Code and the relevant case law, and as a
> >>result that the provisions of section 6103 do not apply in her case. We
> >>agree with the district court that this claim is patently frivolous. As
> >>Templeton does NOT dispute that she is a citizen of the United States,
> >>and because the Code imposes an income tax on `every individual who is a
> >>citizen or resident of the United States,' 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1-(1) (a)
> >>(1985), it would clearly contradict the 'plain meaning' of the term to
> >>conclude that Congress did not intend that Templeton be considered a
> >>'taxpayer' as the term is used throughout the Code."
> >>
> >>In both cases the people claimed to be citizens of (belonging to) the
> >>United States, so the tribunals were absolutely right in their
> >>determinations because they fell under 26 Sec. 1 in USC and CFR. Most
> >>certainly they consented to the jurisdiction in question. Argue against
> >>their codes as mightily as you want, it matters not. They joined the
> >>insurance club as Spooner stated, didn't they?
> >>
> >>END OF EXCERPT.
> >>
> >>I don't know how much plainer it can get. That is why I published the
> >>fact that "in law" person, resident, and individual are all artificial
> >>entities. They are working a fiction of law because you fell right into
> >>legal terminology while NOT, in your mind, thinking the "legal"
> >>definitions applied to these terms. You helped put the nail in your own
> >>coffin so to speak, by helping the fiction of law prevail against you.
> >>So all the law that you use as a defense is for naught. As evidenced
> >>from the Slater and Templeton case, this is exactly what has happened
> >>all across this country in every court case before that time, (look at
> >>the Cook v Tate Case) and every case after that. Now you can appreciate
> >>why you lose by this definition statement to wit;
> >>
> >>" a fiction is defined as a false averment on the part of the Plaintiff
> >>which the defendant is not allowed to traverse, the object being to give
> >>the court jurisdiction. Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. (1969) Pg. 468;
> >>In the case of "Willful failure to File," the Plaintiff and court
> >>invents the "fiction" that defendant is a "taxpayer", A.K.A. "Person."
> >>Motions and briefs which rely on precepts of law will thereafter be
> >>denied or found frivolous."
> >>
> >>Now, this is not a false averment on the Plaintiff because YOU created
> >>the fiction of law either by your actions, or inactions in denying that,
> >>you are a registered voter; a resident of a State; a person, a
> >>individual; a member of a State; a citizen of a State; a United States
> >>citizen; that your constitution is designed to protect you, OR, claiming
> >>that you are a sovereign citizen. Use any of these and you, not them,
> >>are operating a fiction of law. Do you think they are going to tell you
> >>all these things? NO!
> >>
> >>So let me play devil's advocate. If you are a "Sovereign citizen" and
> >>claim they are your servants, you are supposed to know all the law that
> >>your servants are to use and you would not use any of the terms listed
> >>in the above paragraph. So why do you use those terms? Using these terms
> >>proves that sovereign citizen is truly an oxymoron as I have always
> >>stated. The reason is, sovereign is the opposite of citizen. This is
> >>what the masses and the most educated so called "patriot" cannot fathom
> >>because of the fraud and deceit placed upon you since childhood. You
> >>carry the fraud with you to your grave and in doing so pass it on to
> >>your children so everyone believes there is this thing called sovereign
> >>citizen. Why people cannot think for themselves is beyond me. All one
> >>has to do is research the word citizen to see he is under a legal
> >>disability, while Sovereign is not under any legal disability. The
> >>equivalent, respectively, are prose/pro per and sui juris. Legal terms
> >>are not common terms and are drafted to deceive.
> >>
> >>So who is working a fiction of law that will never allow you to prevail?
> >>It is not the government. It is you. The government courts are only
> >>following the law and what you say. Place yourself as the judge and you
> >>know the "legal terms" that apply in court. You are bound by oath to
> >>give justice. A man comes before you and claims he is a "person", only
> >>not one liable to pay a income tax. He also claims he is a sovereign
> >>citizen of the State of So & So. He brings in the argument that there is
> >>no statute stating he is required to file an income tax form or pay a
> >>tax. Knowing he has just stated Fictions of law, you have to rule by the
> >>law. The law says person liable. He stated he was a person. Since this
> >>"person" has received a transfer over a certain sum of debt obligations,
> >>he, is made liable for the use and transfer of these debt obligations,
> >>see 'Use and Transfer' and 'Is this what makes you liable', on
> >>atgpress.com. This man did all the work for you in presenting all the
> >>fictions of Law to convict him. You, as a judge cannot rule against the
> >>law. See my point? Well this concludes another facet of our problem. Not
> >>one single argument will win, but this is as close as you are going to
> >>get. All the articles on www.atgpress.com/ <http://www.atgpress.com/>
> >>dovetail to make a neat package. I give this freely so that YOU, and no
> >>one else, can make the decision that I am lying or telling the truth. As
> >>I say, check my information out and everyone that states it is wrong.
> >>Leave no stone unturned, as you are the one that suffers, not us.
> >>
> >>Sincerely,
> >>
> >>The Informer
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Henry K van Eyken wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>We bandy about the word "democracy" a lot, blissfully unaware of the
> >>>fact that it comes in many flavors. And qualities. A new book reviewed
> >>>by The Economist claims that "democracy and liberty are not the same;
> >>>that policymakers and the public overlook institutions and patterns of
> >>>behaviour that embody liberty, while exaggerating the virtues of those
> >>>that build democracy; and—most important—that democracy has spread so
> >>>far that it is now eroding liberty."
> >>>
> >>>http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1621699
> >>>
> >>>And on another front is the looming world water shortage,
> >>>
> >>>http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1621254
> >>>
> >>>Quoting from this article, "But the United Nations complains, in a
> >>>report published this week, that most of the promises of action made at
> >>>such gatherings go unfulfilled and that politicians do not take the
> >>>issue seriously enough."
> >>>
> >>>Just two issues here, one concerning our spiritual needs and another our
> >>>bodily needs, out of hundreds. Clearly, one can't stay abreast of
> >>>important strains of thought in an ever-complexing society without the
> >>>assistance of digital tools. Which brings up the question, what kind(s)
> >>>of digital tools? And what changes will they permit in the manner of
> >>>developing our thoughts and human-values-oriented discussions?
> >>>
> >>>And on the subject of values, prominent among the arguments for war
> >>>against Saddam is the concern for the Iraqi people now suffering under
> >>>his yoke. And then, suddenly, we learn that British foreign minister
> >>>Jack Straw is quite content to leave the Iraqi regime in place as long
> >>>as the country rids itself of its WMD. How sickening the cynicism that
> >>>abounds.
> >>>
> >>>H.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> (07)