Regarding road pirates. Definition of war means fighting over a terminal end. The terminal end they are going to war for is our fetal DNA in the feto-maternal DNA as they believe we are trespassing on the vatican's property mother gaia. Have a drivers license or real ID then there's summary judgement you're guilty even though we all came into this world innocent. Further, did not the blood of Christ (eukaryotic cell/amnion) that protected us in the maritime womb of mother until delivery into this madhouse?! Was not a deposit (pound of flesh/rest, residue and remainder) already deposited @ mom's port of entry? OH! That's right! we left our baggage and effects on the airport caraway and it was put into the lost and found until the owner returns. Per 12 USC 288b, if the owner arrives in this shit hole with his baggage and effects - baby, umilical cord and feto-maternal afterbirth, there is no IRS or duties! They pull you over, break your window, pull out of the car, take to jail and impound their registered car. Is that not subject to double jeopardy?
Con with AI:
Therefore, without a clear and present war or defined enemy, the meaning and utility of a letter of marque are effectively nullified in contemporary practice.
When there is no war for a terminal end (phantom limb (placenta feltal DNA) there cannot be letters of marque
You are correct: when there is no war with a defined and terminal end, there cannot be valid letters of marque.
Explanation:
A letter of marque and reprisal is a formal license issued by a sovereign power (like a nation-state) that authorizes a private individual or vessel to attack, capture, or harass enemy ships during declared or recognized hostilities. It is a wartime instrument, rooted in both historical and international maritime law.
Key Conditions for Validity:
Existence of War or HostilitiesThere must be an actual, recognized state of war or conflict between sovereign powers. Without a declared conflict or a clearly defined enemy, there is no legal basis for issuing such letters.
Terminal End (Defined Objective or Duration)The letter must specify (explicitly or implicitly) the target and the scope of the commission. This includes who the enemy is and under what conditions the authority ends — hence the phrase "terminal end." This distinguishes a letter of marque from general piracy or unregulated aggression.
Sovereign AuthorizationThe issuing authority (e.g., a nation’s government) must have legal standing and must act within the framework of international law.
Historical and Legal Context:
Historical Use: Letters of marque were commonly used during the 16th through 19th centuries, especially during the Age of Sail, to augment state naval power without maintaining large standing fleets. Famous privateers like Sir Francis Drake and John Paul Jones operated under such commissions.
Legal Basis: The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, explicitly grants Congress the power "to declare War" and "to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." However, the U.S. has not issued such letters since the 19th century.
Modern Relevance: With the advent of the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (1856) — which abolished privateering among signatory nations — and the evolution of modern warfare, letters of marque have largely fallen out of practice. Today, such actions would likely be classified as piracy or unlawful warfare under international law (UNCLOS, 1982).
Conclusion:
In the absence of a declared war or a defined enemy with a foreseeable end, letters of marque are legally invalid and cannot be issued in good faith.
Any use of such a term outside of these strict conditions may be metaphorical, symbolic, or illegal under contemporary international law.
When there is no war for a terminal end there cannot be letters of marque
You are correct: when there is no war with a defined and terminal end, there cannot be valid letters of marque.
Explanation:
A letter of marque and reprisal is a formal license issued by a sovereign power (like a nation-state) that authorizes a private individual or vessel to attack, capture, or harass enemy ships during declared or recognized hostilities. It is a wartime instrument, rooted in both historical and international maritime law.
Key Conditions for Validity:
Existence of War or HostilitiesThere must be an actual, recognized state of war or conflict between sovereign powers. Without a declared conflict or a clearly defined enemy, there is no legal basis for issuing such letters.
Terminal End (Defined Objective or Duration)The letter must specify (explicitly or implicitly) the target and the scope of the commission. This includes who the enemy is and under what conditions the authority ends — hence the phrase "terminal end." This distinguishes a letter of marque from general piracy or unregulated aggression.
Sovereign AuthorizationThe issuing authority (e.g., a nation’s government) must have legal standing and must act within the framework of international law.
Historical and Legal Context:
Historical Use: Letters of marque were commonly used during the 16th through 19th centuries, especially during the Age of Sail, to augment state naval power without maintaining large standing fleets. Famous privateers like Sir Francis Drake and John Paul Jones operated under such commissions.
Legal Basis: The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, explicitly grants Congress the power "to declare War" and "to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." However, the U.S. has not issued such letters since the 19th century.
Modern Relevance: With the advent of the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (1856) — which abolished privateering among signatory nations — and the evolution of modern warfare, letters of marque have largely fallen out of practice. Today, such actions would likely be classified as piracy or unlawful warfare under international law (UNCLOS, 1982).
Conclusion:
In the absence of a declared war or a defined enemy with a foreseeable end, letters of marque are legally invalid and cannot be issued in good faith.
Any use of such a term outside of these strict conditions may be metaphorical, symbolic, or illegal under contemporary international law.
Erin Valenti, age 33, Murder most foul.
Gladio Military Murder tagged with signs & symbols everywhere. (META Death):
https://juxtaposition1.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/167502161?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts
Reply to pirates
I'll check it out.
Regarding road pirates. Definition of war means fighting over a terminal end. The terminal end they are going to war for is our fetal DNA in the feto-maternal DNA as they believe we are trespassing on the vatican's property mother gaia. Have a drivers license or real ID then there's summary judgement you're guilty even though we all came into this world innocent. Further, did not the blood of Christ (eukaryotic cell/amnion) that protected us in the maritime womb of mother until delivery into this madhouse?! Was not a deposit (pound of flesh/rest, residue and remainder) already deposited @ mom's port of entry? OH! That's right! we left our baggage and effects on the airport caraway and it was put into the lost and found until the owner returns. Per 12 USC 288b, if the owner arrives in this shit hole with his baggage and effects - baby, umilical cord and feto-maternal afterbirth, there is no IRS or duties! They pull you over, break your window, pull out of the car, take to jail and impound their registered car. Is that not subject to double jeopardy?
Con with AI:
Therefore, without a clear and present war or defined enemy, the meaning and utility of a letter of marque are effectively nullified in contemporary practice.
When there is no war for a terminal end (phantom limb (placenta feltal DNA) there cannot be letters of marque
You are correct: when there is no war with a defined and terminal end, there cannot be valid letters of marque.
Explanation:
A letter of marque and reprisal is a formal license issued by a sovereign power (like a nation-state) that authorizes a private individual or vessel to attack, capture, or harass enemy ships during declared or recognized hostilities. It is a wartime instrument, rooted in both historical and international maritime law.
Key Conditions for Validity:
Existence of War or HostilitiesThere must be an actual, recognized state of war or conflict between sovereign powers. Without a declared conflict or a clearly defined enemy, there is no legal basis for issuing such letters.
Terminal End (Defined Objective or Duration)The letter must specify (explicitly or implicitly) the target and the scope of the commission. This includes who the enemy is and under what conditions the authority ends — hence the phrase "terminal end." This distinguishes a letter of marque from general piracy or unregulated aggression.
Sovereign AuthorizationThe issuing authority (e.g., a nation’s government) must have legal standing and must act within the framework of international law.
Historical and Legal Context:
Historical Use: Letters of marque were commonly used during the 16th through 19th centuries, especially during the Age of Sail, to augment state naval power without maintaining large standing fleets. Famous privateers like Sir Francis Drake and John Paul Jones operated under such commissions.
Legal Basis: The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, explicitly grants Congress the power "to declare War" and "to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." However, the U.S. has not issued such letters since the 19th century.
Modern Relevance: With the advent of the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (1856) — which abolished privateering among signatory nations — and the evolution of modern warfare, letters of marque have largely fallen out of practice. Today, such actions would likely be classified as piracy or unlawful warfare under international law (UNCLOS, 1982).
Conclusion:
In the absence of a declared war or a defined enemy with a foreseeable end, letters of marque are legally invalid and cannot be issued in good faith.
Any use of such a term outside of these strict conditions may be metaphorical, symbolic, or illegal under contemporary international law.
When there is no war for a terminal end there cannot be letters of marque
You are correct: when there is no war with a defined and terminal end, there cannot be valid letters of marque.
Explanation:
A letter of marque and reprisal is a formal license issued by a sovereign power (like a nation-state) that authorizes a private individual or vessel to attack, capture, or harass enemy ships during declared or recognized hostilities. It is a wartime instrument, rooted in both historical and international maritime law.
Key Conditions for Validity:
Existence of War or HostilitiesThere must be an actual, recognized state of war or conflict between sovereign powers. Without a declared conflict or a clearly defined enemy, there is no legal basis for issuing such letters.
Terminal End (Defined Objective or Duration)The letter must specify (explicitly or implicitly) the target and the scope of the commission. This includes who the enemy is and under what conditions the authority ends — hence the phrase "terminal end." This distinguishes a letter of marque from general piracy or unregulated aggression.
Sovereign AuthorizationThe issuing authority (e.g., a nation’s government) must have legal standing and must act within the framework of international law.
Historical and Legal Context:
Historical Use: Letters of marque were commonly used during the 16th through 19th centuries, especially during the Age of Sail, to augment state naval power without maintaining large standing fleets. Famous privateers like Sir Francis Drake and John Paul Jones operated under such commissions.
Legal Basis: The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, explicitly grants Congress the power "to declare War" and "to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." However, the U.S. has not issued such letters since the 19th century.
Modern Relevance: With the advent of the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (1856) — which abolished privateering among signatory nations — and the evolution of modern warfare, letters of marque have largely fallen out of practice. Today, such actions would likely be classified as piracy or unlawful warfare under international law (UNCLOS, 1982).
Conclusion:
In the absence of a declared war or a defined enemy with a foreseeable end, letters of marque are legally invalid and cannot be issued in good faith.
Any use of such a term outside of these strict conditions may be metaphorical, symbolic, or illegal under contemporary international law.