Re: Bill-13, is not valid, a trustee cannot hold title!

Subject:

Comments:
: : : As someone who has absolutely no stake in the Thunder Bay issue, I find the amount of fervently ignorant distrust of the sanctuary and NOAA to be highly suspicious. History teaches us to beware of individuals who spew dogmatic mantras of fear and mistrust - this is how the Communists exerted their influence over those with weak minds and wills. All this zeal against what is essentially an underwater National Forest suggests in the strongest manner that the opposition views this area as its own fiefdom to use as it wishes. I seriously doubt that those who cite this situation as an example of governmental expansionism truly have the "state's" best interests at heart. Rejection of the sanctuary benefits only a select few who are enjoying the privileges of the status quo. I fail to see how a Michigan citizen living in Wyoming or Monroe benefits from this shared state resource if they are unaware that it exists. I find it highly amusing that Mr. Trotter cites the Alpena referendum as evidence against the sanctuary. First, the lakes and the bottomlands do not belong to the city of Alpena, rather they belong to the state and all of its citizens. Second, the percentage is only of the voter turnout - 70% of say 50% of the electorate is far from a majority. Minority rule is a typical hallmark of liberalism. I believe the National Marine Sanctuary would provide greater access and awareness for Michigan's citizens of this shared resource. There is no rational reason to oppose the sanctuary unless one fears it may interfere with current activities that profit at the expense of the citizens of the state of Michigan. : : : Brad Wayne : : : I'm an NRA member and I VOTE. : : : : : : Their at it "again"! New legislation to restrict the rights of the diving community. : : : : Responsible divers already support many of the goals in this legislation, now they are : : : : trying to restict your freedom to explore and enjoy the shipwrecks that we, the diving : : : : community have researched, discovered and preserved. : : : : This legislation is "scary" and will only harm divers, dive shops, charter boat : : : : operators and others, who rely on tourism from Canada and the United States to visit : : : : these shipwrecks. : : : : Divers, make your voice heard on Bill 13, 1999. An Act to Preserve Ontario's Marine : : : : Heritage and Promote Tourism by Protecting Heritage Wrecks and Artifacts. Which reads : : : : in part: "No person shall"..."Enter a heritage wreck"... : : : : : : : : http://www.ontla.on.ca/Documents/StatusofLegOUT/b013_e.htm : : A public servant cannoyt hold on to your "title", because he is your "trustee" : : by reason of being a public serevant, see UCC 1-102 and 3 and 4-405. : : ? How can "police" (archaeologist) as a student at a University turn on you : : and offer to you in turn to sell your own title of your own : : sovereingty back to you? How? : : What kind of a scam is this BILL-13 now? : I heard that diver Colin Zylka was charged with theft of bottom junk. Is this the sworn truth? : Did the servant hold title, your title as a HIDC? : Did the public servant hold a contract with yoy based on the UCC rules, Admiralty Law? : Further, this blame game. The public servants are giggling all the way to the bank. The diver is not the problem. : There is no oath, appraisal, contract, offere, firm offer, or HIDC, or even a bond securing the public servant in his wants or demands. : I did not see any agreement to nulify the antiquiteies LAW stating that the scrap or rasting iron, or wrotten wood is in fact older than 500 years, pursuant to such archaeological requirements, such as indian berial graounds : ....and... The Question: The "allegedly" above can be converted from offer to contract (from $13.44 of brass scrap , to $1,000.00) just by signing the contract with the servant, and stipulating (by the diver) as to its worth. Do you understand? : No signature by the diver, no stipulation. : Only the diver can ASSERT its worth., There has not been on this world even a single archaeologist that has ever been able to himself to stipulate what the worth is. He cannot. He does not hold TITLE. : The diver holds TITLE, and allowed the servant to serve the sovereign, only to the extent as prescribed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and no more. : Has the diver assigned that scrap to that archaeologist? I doubth that very much. : Therefore, if the diver files his SECURITY, the servant is in receivership, by failure to hold TITLE, pursuant to the US bancrupcy proceedings of 1933, the Securities Act and subsequent regulations. : That's why the servant cannot ever evaluate, or appraise "your property" as pertains to your uneliable rights as a sovereing person, but not as a contracted person for hire. : The public servant is MAKING AN OFFER, would you obey his desires and surended to him, to his impositions of "traffic-fines", on the water penalties, and Hitler like confiscations of your sport? likely not. You are not stupid. : THe charge on Rob Farrow is only an offer, if Rob accends to it, Will he? : It is only an alledged "offer", the servant wants to make sure the offer is done by presentment in a looking like official capacity, to make Rob believe, he cannot refuse the offer, and be subject to the new contract he HAS JUST ACCENDED TO. : The servants are there only by the permission of the diver by and in ....IN TRUST OFF, AND TO... the people, (IN CANADA OR US ALIKE). Did you ever tried to obtain wreck info from a servant? Why? You are the master of your TITLE, why deal with a servant? : How can a (servant) trustee dictate terms to you??? Is this idiocy still goin on?

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: