 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/default.html
My response:
http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=961&forum_id=10
Where can I find a copy of Codex Justinian and the false version?
____________________________________________________________________________
Canon 2928
In the 6th Century, Emperor Justinian went further in developing a new version of the Holly Roman Law called the Codex Justinian that outlawed the Menesheh altogether and made the worship of Ba'al or Mithra a capital crime. In response, King Julianus ben Sabar of Israel ordered the writing of an anti-law against the Codex Justinianus called the Gemara, which was to become the second unholy installment of the Talmud.
Canon 2963
Civil Law, also falsely known as “Law of Justinian” is a fraudulent system of law created in the late 16th century by the Jesuits and claimed as legitimate Holly Roman Law.
Canon 2964
While it is without dispute that Emperor Justinian did in fact create a master codex of law, the work of secret Jesuit Denis Godefroy published in 1583 as Corpus Iuris Civilis is a complete and utter fraud, therefore null and void from the beginning.
__________________________________________________________________________
What is Wampum Law?
Canon 2875
As Wampum Law descends from Atl Law and incorporates the laws and knowledge of its common ancestry with the peoples of Central America and South America, Wampum Law remains the unbroken legitimate system of law of the land of North America.
Why is there a dispute?
Canon 2917
(i) Cormac introduced a new class of professional jurists called “breithem”, whose job it was to actively seek out and resolve property disputes using the a code of law that actually placed a commercial price on various property disputes called an “honor - price” - connecting the strength of one’s word (still the bedrock of the law), the list of injuries and a commercial price for restoring honor. Later, these considerations were to become the basis of the corruption of the law under the guilds of Genoa, Florence and Venice; and
Why is the so called dispute a dispute so called when a competitive concept, or law, defining the form of the connection would be an effort to know better as to the right way to continue from a point of confusion concerning that right way to proceed?
Work shop type answer is to provide an example and then solve the confusion exemplified.
Person A seeks control of a thing while, at the same time, person B seeks control of the same thing.
What causes the connection between Person A and Person B to become a dispute instead of the connection being a mutual effort to benefit by seeking the facts concerning the matter?
Example:
The concept of exclusive right to use, or ownership, appears to be a false and misleading concept since a more accurate concept would be such that one Person is more or less able to employ the thing so as to increase benefits of both people, or all people, and therefore the better able person is then entrusted with that responsibility more so than the person less able to employ the thing so as to increase benefits of both people, or all people.
That is highest and best use dogma, which to me is the same root concept as is the concept of divine trust.
Instead of one person demanding exclusive ownership the concept is a contest to promise a greater employment of God’s gifts to man, with an oath to keep that promise of higher yield or in case of failure to then yield control of said thing to another because of that obvious proof of inability to honor the oath and the promise.
Would that not completely alter the concept of dispute?
More workshop type illustrations:
Person A submits a claim of potential productivity in improving the value of said thing, or in employing said thing to produce more things that are of greater use to any human being individually or to human beings as a whole.
Person B submits a counter claim of relative productivity.
Person C is hired by both Person A and Person B to estimate the truth or likely future conditions of this life on Earth at this cross road, to then proceed on the better path rather than proceeding on the next best to the better path.
Call it the replacement of the lesser of two evils with the greater of two goods dogma, if you will, the actual measurable physical reality of the situation can be meticulously documented in fact.
More workshop type illustrations can proceed with specific examples of specific people who are currently employing lesser of two evils dogma, which to me is part and parcel with the use of the word dispute.
Note: Private and Public (private = privateer = pirate = criminal OR private = sovereign = not owned by anyone other than self (or God) = noncriminal AND public = no ownership = open to everyone = owned by everyone equally = non-criminal OR public = no ownership = close to everyone = owned by those in power = criminal)
To trust in retaining value?
Canon 2959
To ensure uniformity of leases and rights of use of land between terra- land held through lords, barons and earls as well as lend- land held directly by the church, Anglo-Saxon Law from the 8th Century CE invented the concept of the Tenant and the Tenancy Agreement (from Latin tenere meaning to ‘hold/keep’) which meant literally “one who holds land by tenure” – with tenure meaning “an agreement for holding immovable property (tenement), equivalent to lease.” The concept of “hold” was also significant to the Franks as the word itself denoted certain obligations namely “to keep, tend and watch over (the land)”:
Here is the use of the word equity:
(i) The right of equity (equite) was the right of fairness and fair use whereby a tenant has the right of fair use of the property without constraint by the landlord and may seek remedy from a higher authority if the landlord creates unreasonable impediments or demands; and
I think there is a need here to challenge the idea of fairness because of many possible situations whereby one person may fail by relative comparison to another person in taking good care of any land anywhere, but the true test of the principle being used involves those extreme ends of human interaction.
Example:
The land whereby the location is of vital importance to many people other than the individual who may currently be located on that specific land is an extreme end of this fairness dogma/doctrine/ownership/right/law/consent/negotiation/agreement/trust/promise/oath/duty stuff.
A very obvious example would be a water source in the desert whereby the current owner refuses to allow access to the water while such a decision results in the death of people who may have made their own errors in arriving on that spot in the desert where their lives are then within the power of the owner of that location on Earth to give or take away those human lives.
So the idea here can be expressed again with a workshop type example of 3 people as such:
Person A owns the land where there is water in a desert.
Person B makes the severe error of arriving at that spot in the desert, but none-the-less is at that place at that time.
Person C is hired by both Person A and Person B to judge the highest and best use of that land at that time in that place since there appears to be a confusion concerning right from wrong and the LAWS of supposed EQUITY place POWER in the hands of the OWNER of that land and that OWNER can then, by that LAW refuse access to the potential trespasser.
Person C, naturally, says something along the lines of, hey, give the guy a drink of water, what is the matter with you?
Person A says, the law is the law, this is my land, go pound sand.
Person B says if I don’t gain access I will die.
What is the principle in claiming such ownership? It is ridiculous. Highest and best use of the land, obviously, is not ownership, it is a case of trust in which the trustee does not abuse POWER in such a way as to cause injury. There is a principle at work here and it is well illustrated and explained by Josiah Warren in his work called Equitable Commerce.
What is the meaning of the word “equity”?
On to Common Law:
Canon 2974
Common Law is an inequality system of law created by King Henry VIII and Venetian advisers in 1548 upon the complete remodeling ofthe Executive, Legislature and Judiciary Branches of Rule in England whereby the private Guild (Livery) of Judges and Notaries (from which the private Bar Associations were spawned) was granted royal warrant to convert judicial assemblies into their private courts (cautio) and for the rulings and judgments of the private Guild to take precedence over ancient customs of Anglo-Saxon law and rights, except those needed to make the law still technically function.
common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”.
How does that compare to the following?
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/default.html
Common Law Grand Jury?
I could not find references to the minimum number of people required to regain control over rule of law, as I thought that was a reference to Grand Juries and therefore appropriate to this topic of discussion.
In one video presentation for Jurists there is a claim that Civil Law is Babylonian Justinian Law and Maritime Admiralty Law.
Canon 2893 Babylonian Law, also known as Hammurabi Law is the world's first written equality system of law and language emerging around 1760 BCE across the Babylonian Empire by King Hammurabi (died around 1750 BCE).
Someone has the dates mixed up?