what about this http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml

and this http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

There is no HUMANS in court....Only applicants, persons and citizens... :(

of course as a corporation can only deal with a corporation,,,,

No....APPLICANTS, PERSONS and CITIZENS.....and corporations....

a state has exclusive sovereignty over all persons, citizens or aliens, and all property, real or personal, within its own territory.� They deal with PERSONS, and these persons they deal with, has been created by the state, so therefor, these persons are considered INVENTORY sitting in the state's warehouse.....

so which definition of person and citizen are you using?

or should I say "they"

In THEIR bunkers, I have to play by THEIR rules, if of course, I am the APPLICANT....because I have to APPLY with the person I have in my pocket if I want to go there.....and the person I have in my pocket seems to be a TRUSTEE to their view......they even make you swear an AFFIDAVIT on that when you apply....

In that case, R. v. Jones was the APPLICANT, so he definitly admitted being a PERSON and/or a CITIZEN when he applied.....with or without knowing that a state has exclusive sovereignty over all persons, citizens or aliens, and all property, real or personal, within its own territory.�

Operative-phrase- "...within its OWN territory".....theres a Maxim-of-law that says, all jurisdictions have their BOUNDARIES ;)

And when you APPLY in THEIR jurisdiction, well you're right in it ;)

I can't get my head around this. It leaped off the page at me as being so ludicrous as to be laughable. Am i missing something here? VI. Conclusion [38] ..."The Royal Proclamation of George III contemplated licensing for purposes of CONDUCTING COMMERCE and DID NOT DEAL WITH the issues of sovereignty and JURISDICTION." Questions: Doesn't COMMERCE (by its very nature) itself dictate (deal with) the use of a specific JURISDICTION known as ADMIRALTY/COMMERCE? In other words, can commerce occur in any other jurisdiction other than admiralty? How can the court deny that it is engaging in commerce and that commerce does indeed "deal with" a (admiralty) JURISDICTION?

As Kate of Gaia drives home- "Until your ship-comes-to-shore, you are lost-at-sea"