the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other
: a demand for civilian due process is a denial of being a "war rebel" and now to proceed, the maxim of law reads the burden lie on he who affirms, not on he who denies
; the attorney bringing the claim needs to provide PROOF of the claim to one is a "war rebel" ... and simply using the ALL CAP NAME just doesn't cut it
which the WHY for the asking of the warrant issued by the Treasury warranting the collection effort.
Now, this also corresponds to the Courts of Heaven for that is where one is brought to address the accusations by the Accusor. One would invoke the Courts of Heaven ask that the Scoll be read and then PRAY using the the blood of the lamb to wash those sins clean.
Well, each court case is just an accusation that one is NOT worthy of entrance into the Kingdom and if you are undergoing some sort of trial or tribulation, there must be something there granting the 'lil devils
jurisdiction and it ain't the NAME, it is the operator: much like the problem with most computers is the space between the keyboard and the seat, ask any IT guy about that one.
Military jurisdiction is treated in the following pages in its two branches of Military Government and Martial Law. The former is exercised over enemy territory; the latter over loyal territory of the State enforcing it ...
The enemy territory over which military government is established may be either without the territorial boundaries of the dominant State, or comprise districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents within those boundaries.
It has, however, been determined by numerous decisions of the Supreme Federal Tribunal that, for all war purposes, districts thus occupied by rebels are foreign. From a belligerent Point of view, therefore, the theatre of military government is necessarily foreign territory. Moreover, military government may be exercised not only during the time that war is flagrant, but down to the period when it comports with the policy of the dominant power to establish civil jurisdiction.
On the other hand, martial law as here considered is purely a domestic fact, being instituted only within districts which, in contemplation of law, are friendly. However it may be brought into existence, the key-note of the situation is that martial law is, as just stated, a domestic fact
The distinction is important. Military government is thus placed within the domain of international law, its rules the laws of war, while martial law is within the cognizance of municipal law ... ~ Military Government and Martial Law, first 4 points
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Yea, it is jurisdictional issue as all courts are constituted under a form of Martial Law; all attorneys are licensed to operate within that environment ONLY; therefore, for them to have "authority" there MUST exist the "war rebel" and the maxim of law is