The British Legal System of Mixed Common and Roman Law has been used to Enslave US(A)

[umeda89]

Presented and Edited in Thirteen Parts by Eldon G. Warman

Admiralty and Civil US Flags
Guess which is the true flag of the People of the United States of America?

Image of the true peacetime flag

http://www.uscivilflags.org/images/flagstraight.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

THE ANSWER
PROLOGUE

The following brief is believed to have been presented to a Grand Jury in the State of California circa 1982 in an attempt to correct judicial abuse of people involved in patriot and income tax protest movements. Many were being incarcerated as political prisoners of what is apparently a "shadow government" now in control of the USA. These patriots were attempting to educate as many of the general public as would hear their message. Unfortunately, short-sighted self-interest and apathy seem to have prevailed.

This narrative is based upon the American system, however, for Canadian readers, the American system of government and the Canadian system, are but "slips", or more appropriately "suckers" off the same plant, the British limited monarchy. Most of the following is, therefore, also directly applicable to the Canadian dilemma.
Before proceeding, you should know that there is a vast difference between 'British Common Law' and 'Anglo-Saxon Common Law'. To learn which is the true Common Law and which is the hoax; and, which version you may have been attempting to access in attempts to get out of 'admiralty law', go to:
Treason

Learn the facts about the Vatican's and British Crown's continued claimed ownership of the USA; and, their continued collection of 'tribute' from Americans through the Pope's 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Read about this here.
Additional, and VERY IMPORTANT information on this topic is available through LINKS at the end of PART THIRTEEN.

Editors note: Apologies to the original authors of this treatise. When this came to me the authors were anonymous.
New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is, therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law 'operating orders' or 'ship's orders'; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system.
The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a 'body politic' - both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire. All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are 'ship's orders' of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause. (In the US Constitution, it is the 'general welfare' clause). This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion. 'The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY 'rules or regulations' when he DEEMS it necessary 'for the GOOD of the ship.' That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the 'common sense' realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land.
Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.

INTRODUCTION

We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution? And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing -- playing the wrong ball game.

We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce -- Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).
Editors note: New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is, therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law "operating orders". All such Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause. This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion.

Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war -- such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property -- both real and personal, etc.

Another way to understand admiralty law -- it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700's. As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments -- the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.
Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don't have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law -- and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.
Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal. Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc. In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction -- only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.
For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case -- the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination. There's no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways -- but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses. There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business -- only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain's regulations.
Having identified the symptoms of the problem, we must diagnose the cause to find a solution. We have been fighting the effects too long while the disease rages unabated. Since we have identified the cause, and understand its nature and characteristics, we [hopefully] can build a winning case.
In marshalling our information and facts it is necessary to go back in time. Let us examine the evidence and facts: Back at the time, just before the revolution -- when our Colonies were festering and threatening revolt from the King -- when we had the Common Law of the Colonies. The King's men came over to collect their taxes. They didn't use the Common Law on us, they applied Admiralty Law on us -- arrested people, held Star Chamber proceedings and denied us our common rights as Englishmen.
This, more than any one thing, (sure, taxation without representation was part of it) -- but it was denial of our Common Law rights by putting us under Admiralty Law wherein the King was the Chancellor. His agents deprived us of jury trials, put us on ships, sent us down to ports in the British West Indies -- where many died of fever in the holds of ships -- and very few returned. This was one of the main reasons for the revolution in 1776.
What is the Common Law? Historically, the Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon Common Law in England. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England. In it was the Golden Rule (Rule of Civil Justice) that in the negative form reads: "Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you." P.S. The positive form deals with Social Justice.
Where did this law come from -- this Anglo-Saxon Common Law? Did it come from Christianity's introduction to England? Apparently not. . . It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany "already have the law". It is suspect that early Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ.
So what has happened? The English people had this simple and pure Common Law of rights and property rights. But there also existed along side of it, even in those days, the law of commerce, which is the Maritime Law. The earliest recorded knowledge we have of Maritime Law is in the Isle of Rhodes, 900 B. C. -- then there's the Laws of Oleron, Laws of the Hanseatic League, Maritime Law, which was part and parcel of their civil law. This is the law of commerce, whereas the Common Law was the law that had to do with the land, and with the people of the land.
William the Conqueror subjugated all the Saxons to his rule except London Town. The merchants controlled the city and their walls held off the invaders. The merchants were able to provision the city by ships and William's soldiers were not able to prevail. Finally, acknowledging that he could not take the City by force, he resorted to compromise. The merchants demanded "the "Lex Mercantoria" [the Maritime Law]. This was granted and remains to this day. The inner City of London has its special law where the Merchant's Law is the law of the City of London.

Protection of their shipping industry was one of the main reasons for the resistance by the merchants of London. The Saxon Common Law had no provision for fictitious persons (companies) or limited liability; but, recognized only natural persons and full liability. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. Identifying features of Roman Common Law are the usage of precedent and judgement by magistrate(s) in courts of Summary jurisdiction.

At Runnymede, in 1215, the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, one of three primary documents establishing the fundamental rights of the English people to this day, {The others being the revision of the Magna Carta in 1225, the Petition of Rights [1628] and the Bill of Rights [1689]}. The primary objective and content of the Magna Carta was the prohibition of the use of Summary jurisdiction [the Roman or Admiralty Law] as a means of unauthorized taxation and seizure of property without due process of Law or just compensation. The colonists were, on the whole, very well schooled in the Common Law and were quite aware of the wrongs that King and Parliament were committing against them. This eventually forced them to rebel.
The Common Law that we had in our land is parallel to another ancient law. You will find that when our Founding Fathers set up the declaratory trust, known to us as the Declaration of "Independence", Jefferson listed 18 grievances and in each one of these grievances he showed how we were being denied our rights as free-born Englishmen. So, he made an appeal to the nations of the world that the acts being committed against the colonists were acts committed against the Laws of Nations, and it (the Declaration of Independence) became an ordinance, a public trust, within the Law of Nations -- and those Founding Fathers knew that they would have to fight to win the independence that they had so declared.
Editors note: It now appears that Jefferson used George Mason's 'Virginia Declaration of Rights' (June 12, 1776) as the basis for his Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776); but Jefferson deleted the very specific 'property rights' included by George Mason. Read here.
After the English surrendered at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation period followed. Then our Founding Fathers implemented the Constitution into this Public Trust, which was the mechanism to provide for us our hopes and aspirations. In the Constitution you will find principles; but, not necessarily those found in the Declaration of Independence.
Editor's note: To learn the reality of the grand deception by the Founding Fathers, read here.
Some of the writers of the Constitution thought it was a little too restrictive. It was generally conceded, for instance, that the people had the right to bear arms, but they also knew that if we ever were placed or allowed ourselves to be brought under Maritime Admiralty Law concerning our persons and property, we would have dire need of a guarantee for our rights -- thus, the ten amendments were added to the Constitution, and that became the substantive part of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the Maritime Admiralty jurisdiction.
How have we been tricked out of our Common Law rights; and, into the Admiralty courts? How has equity as well as Admiralty been corrupted? How has the Federal Government made it almost impossible for us to receive our constitutional rights -- our substantive rights in the Constitution?
Now, to understand the Constitution -- we must examine the Declaration of Independence and those 56 men who signed it, and pledged their lives, liberty, family, property, and their honor to this sacred trust. All of these men were very knowledgeable and learned in the Common Law -- they knew the law because they studied the law, they may not have had a high school education (many of them). But they could read, and they read and studied law. They were men of the age of reason and they knew and they understood. They knew exactly what the king was doing. They knew the law.
Knowledge is a very important thing. And, as James Madison wrote years ago: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Education should never be terminal! The First Amendment to the US Constitution cites "Freedom of Religion" that in actual fact is "Freedom of Education" since the church controlled education, at the time of its writing.
Now, there is a chronological sequence of events that placed us where we are today. We can almost assure you that you will reject, or want to reject, parts of what you are about to see and hear. There is a theory known as the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) that holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions. Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you heretofore believed to be true. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware!

Proceed to PART TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN Any Questions? cmlaw1.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Elizabeth]

Well, one thing is for sure. The US election system is a sham, and an expensive one.
The Australian election system is by far superior.

[Stacy Oliver]

We aren't governed by common law or maritime law. We're governed by a Constitution. This whole post is nonsense. Many people have tried to raise this "maritime" issue and they've been laughed out if court every time.

[gnolaum]

[DELETED BY AUTHOR] at the request of a reader who was offended.

My apologies. I didn't intend to offend anyone.

[Stacy Oliver]

Gnolaum,

Please, please, please take down your post. It is 100% false.

1. If you get a ticket, you will be brought under the state's authority, not the US Constitution. States have general police power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_ ... tional_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

2. Occasionally, you get municipal judges who don't have law degrees who won't know what's going on, and they may just dismiss your case if you're a headache. But the word is out on this and most judges will be pissed if you start doing this nonsense. You'll just get a much worse sentence if you do this.

3. Do you really think that anyone could/should be able to get out of ANY crime, just by doing this?

[gnolaum]

Gnolaum,

Please, please, please take down your post. It is 100% false.

1. If you get a ticket, you will be brought under the state's authority, not the US Constitution. States have general police power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_ ... tional_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

2. Occasionally, you get municipal judges who don't have law degrees who won't know what's going on, and they may just dismiss your case if you're a headache. But the word is out on this and most judges will be pissed if you start doing this nonsense. You'll just get a much worse sentence if you do this.

3. Do you really think that anyone could/should be able to get out of ANY crime, just by doing this?

Firstly, Wikipedia is probably the absolute last place I would look for the truth. States are absolutely under the authority of the US Constitution, period. See 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of The Land. The individual States are contractually obligated and subject to it. The only way that can stop is if a State secedes. That has been tried, see "Civil War".

In addition Police Power is subject to limitations of The Constitution and due process

Regarding point number 2: I've done it and seen it action on multiple occasions and in multiple jurisdictions.

Point number 3: Absolutely not! Again, I am not attempting to give legal advice. The point is to determine for oneself how the judicial system actually operates in this context. It is to show oneself that we are indeed under Admiralty jurisdiction in the US. I believe according to D&C 98:6-7 in the very literal sense:

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

I do not believe the Lord accidentally threw the world 'constitutional' in there. In the next verse He makes it pretty clear:

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Clearly you are not going to accept what I have empirically discovered to be true. I really do understand that, and it is OK. But that fact does not preclude the truth of it.

Peace be to you... and remember that the Lord has His hand on it all and everything will work out as it should.

[gnolaum]

PS: See Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. @ 630-631 & 634

"And these: The Police Power of the State is valid as it relates to trade or Commerce, not as to private rights and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as it relates to the manner in which trade or commerce is carried on in the public. (The U.S. Supreme Court Stated in Munn v Illinois, 94 U.S. 113-116)
"The term ‘Commerce' comprehends more than the mere exchange of goods; it embraces commercial intercourse in all its branches, including transportation of passengers and property by common carriers, whether carried on by water or land. In re Second employers' Liability cases, 223 U.S. 1, 46 (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Page 532.)"

[Stacy Oliver]

Firstly, Wikipedia is probably the absolute last place I would look for the truth. States are absolutely under the authority of the US Constitution, period. See 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

YES, the power of the states exists independent of the Constitution. That's why powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of The Land. The individual States are contractually obligated and subject to it. The only way that can stop is if a State secedes. That has been tried, see "Civil War".

In addition Police Power is subject to limitations of The Constitution and due process

It is supreme. But that is totally irrelevant. The question here is do the States have powers that the Federal government does not? The Tenth Amendment expressly states that they do. That's why states have general policing power and the federal government does not.

Regarding point number 2: I've done it and seen it action on multiple occasions and in multiple jurisdictions.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on this one.

Point number 3: Absolutely not! Again, I am not attempting to give legal advice. The point is to determine for oneself how the judicial system actually operates in this context. It is to show oneself that we are indeed under Admiralty jurisdiction in the US. I believe according to D&C 98:6-7 in the very literal sense:

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

I do not believe the Lord accidentally threw the world 'constitutional' in there. In the next verse He makes it pretty clear:

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Clearly you are not going to accept what I have empirically discovered to be true. I really do understand that, and it is OK. But that fact does not preclude the truth of it.

Peace be to you... and remember that the Lord has His hand on it all and everything will work out as it should.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Are you saying that the Tenth Amendment did not reserve power to the states?

[Stacy Oliver]

PS: See Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. @ 630-631 & 634

"And these: The Police Power of the State is valid as it relates to trade or Commerce, not as to private rights and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as it relates to the manner in which trade or commerce is carried on in the public. (The U.S. Supreme Court Stated in Munn v Illinois, 94 U.S. 113-116)
"The term ‘Commerce' comprehends more than the mere exchange of goods; it embraces commercial intercourse in all its branches, including transportation of passengers and property by common carriers, whether carried on by water or land. In re Second employers' Liability cases, 223 U.S. 1, 46 (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Page 532.)"

I read Shapiro v. Thompson and I have no idea how it relates to our discussion.

The punctuation is the quoted portion is misleading. Munn v. Illinois states that States can enact criminal laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, but not interfere with private rights. That's exactly what I've been saying.

[gnolaum]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Are you saying that the Tenth Amendment did not reserve power to the states?

That much is clear.

What I'm saying is the Constitution outlines some of the unalienable rights that a child of God may enjoy. Among those are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Further, supreme court case law has interpreted, sometimes incorrectly IMO, what those three rights mean. Accordingly, the States do NOT have supreme authority beyond that which the Constitution spells out. You do not have to believe that. The fact remains it is true. As you have been told in other forums: if you want to know do you own research. I am not going to do research to post here for you to subsequently ignore or deny. Look up the pertinent case law decisions for yourself.

The Tenth Amendment does reserve power to the states that is not outlined in the Constitution itself. They are subject to what it says. "Life, Liberty and PoH". Do you understand what unalienable means? The State cannot remove those rights from you or me.

I hope this helps.

Peace.

[gnolaum]

PS: See Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. @ 630-631 & 634

"And these: The Police Power of the State is valid as it relates to trade or Commerce, not as to private rights and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as it relates to the manner in which trade or commerce is carried on in the public. (The U.S. Supreme Court Stated in Munn v Illinois, 94 U.S. 113-116)
"The term ‘Commerce' comprehends more than the mere exchange of goods; it embraces commercial intercourse in all its branches, including transportation of passengers and property by common carriers, whether carried on by water or land. In re Second employers' Liability cases, 223 U.S. 1, 46 (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Page 532.)"

I read Shapiro v. Thompson and I have no idea how it relates to our discussion.

The punctuation is the quoted portion is misleading. Munn v. Illinois states that States can enact criminal laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, but not interfere with private rights. That's exactly what I've been saying.

OMG!!! Read it again.

"The Police Power of the State is valid as it relates to trade or Commerce, not as to private rights and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as it relates to the manner in which trade or commerce is carried on in the public."

If you are not conducting commerce or employed in doing so, Police Power does not relate to your activities. How can that be any more clear?

[Stacy Oliver]

[

What I'm saying is the Constitution outlines some of the unalienable rights that a child of God may enjoy. Among those are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

Now I'm really showing my ignorance. In all my years of practicing constitutional law, I missed the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness clause of the Constitution. Where is it exactly?

Further, supreme court case law has interpreted, sometimes incorrectly IMO, what those three rights mean. Accordingly, the States do NOT have supreme authority beyond that which the Constitution spells out. You do not have to believe that. The fact remains it is true. As you have been told in other forums: if you want to know do you own research. I am not going to do research to post here for you to subsequently ignore or deny. Look up the pertinent case law decisions for yourself.

LOL! I'm going to guess that I've read a bit more of the case law in police power than you have. Although the US Constitution limits certain state activities, it is the State constitutions that define them. That's kind of what the definition of a "state constitution" is.

The Tenth Amendment does reserve power to the states that is not outlined in the Constitution itself. They are subject to what it says. "Life, Liberty and PoH". Do you understand what unalienable means? The State cannot remove those rights from you or me.

I hope this helps.

Peace.

Let's assume that the Constitution does talk of " Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," what does challenging a speeding ticket have to do with it? Do you have a fundamental right to speed?

[Stacy Oliver]

PS: See Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. @ 630-631 & 634

"And these: The Police Power of the State is valid as it relates to trade or Commerce, not as to private rights and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as it relates to the manner in which trade or commerce is carried on in the public. (The U.S. Supreme Court Stated in Munn v Illinois, 94 U.S. 113-116)
"The term ‘Commerce' comprehends more than the mere exchange of goods; it embraces commercial intercourse in all its branches, including transportation of passengers and property by common carriers, whether carried on by water or land. In re Second employers' Liability cases, 223 U.S. 1, 46 (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Page 532.)"

I read Shapiro v. Thompson and I have no idea how it relates to our discussion.

The punctuation is the quoted portion is misleading. Munn v. Illinois states that States can enact criminal laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, but not interfere with private rights. That's exactly what I've been saying.

OMG!!! Read it again.

"The Police Power of the State is valid as it relates to trade or Commerce, not as to private rights and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as it relates to the manner in which trade or commerce is carried on in the public."

If you are not conducting commerce or employed in doing so, Police Power does not relate to your activities. How can that be any more clear?

I actually read Munn v. Illinois. Have you? It says what I said, not what you said. If I am wrong, please quote from Munn and tell me where it says what you say it does.

[gnolaum]

It seems like you actually believe that a State can trounce upon your constitutional rights. It cannot.

Although the US Constitution limits certain state activities, it is the State constitutions that define them. That's kind of what the definition of a "state constitution" is.

So according to your definition, the State defines the limits of the governed without regard to the US Constitution? Sorry, I know that is wrong. All States are subject to the US Constitution, period.

Regarding Munn v. Illinois my notes may be off. I don't really have time to do the research to prove it while at work but again, my point is not to make a case to defend oneself with regard to traffic law. However, I am positive there is case law to support my notes, which are in effect that police power is subject to the constitution. Otherwise a State could make up some arbitrary law that says you have to buy insurance to operate a motor vehicle. Oh wait...

Again, now that we have veered completely off topic, the first post I made was not meant to make any statement about one's "fundamental right to speed". You miss the point entirely. My point is that we are under Admiralty law, and that the constitution is all but a farce today. "Hanging by a thread?" And both federal and state governments routinely get away with trouncing upon it.

You seem to conveniently ignore everything in my posts except the point I am trying to make.

I am NOT suggesting that anyone try to circumvent the law. I am NOT making any statement about the right or wrong of speeding. My posts are not about the right of the state to use its "police power".

It is becoming tiresome trying to convince you of the Gadianton, Admiralty situation. There is plenty of material available on the forums here to support this fact, and it appears you have ignored or denied that material as well. I hope that you find out for yourself. I cannot spend any more time beating my head against a brick wall. Have fun spinning another answer that you can read to yourself. If you want to know you can find it yourself. I'm out.

[gnolaum]

PS: See Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. @ 630-631 & 634
The punctuation is the quoted portion is misleading. Munn v. Illinois states that States can enact criminal laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, but not interfere with private rights. That's exactly what I've been saying.

My apologies. You are correct, but again beside the point.