RSS

Admiralty Law Reconsidered

15 Jan

Voiture amphibie / Amphibious car

Amphibious car.  Admiralty Jurisdiction? (Photo credit: vincen-t)

In theory, admiralty law only applies to things “nautical” . . . at sea or in large bodies of water.

However, there’s a “wing” in the legal reform/patriot/sovereignty movement that contends that our government has brought admiralty law onto the land.  Under this contention, automobiles are deemed “vessels“; police cars are deemed “cruisers”; the streets are deemed to be “rivers of asphalt”; and court rooms are structured in such a way that if you pass through the gate at the “bar” and enter into the court “arena”, you’re deemed to have voluntarily entered into admiralty jurisdiction and exposed yourself to a law form that is harsh and, for most people, nearly incomprehensible.

The admiralty-law-on-the-land theory is not new. I was aware of it 20 years ago.

Therefore, back about A.D. 1993, when the Texas Bar conducted a seminar on Admiralty Law, I bought a copy of the resulting 400-page collection of all the speeches presented at that seminar.  I read those 400 pages.  Much of it was incomprehensible to me.  But I was looking for some clue that admiralty law had been brought onto the land of Texas.  Surely, if the State Bar would hold a two-day seminar on admiralty law, and if admiralty law lay at the foundation of modern traffic law, there should be some clue to that fact in the 400-pages of speechs.  I found no such clue.

That’s not proof, but it is evidence that the admiralty-law-on-the-land theory was at least flawed and possibly false. Therefore, I’ve not paid much attention to that theory for the past 20 years.  I still doubt the validity of that that theory, but I can’t prove that it’s wrong.

However, the Supreme Court has just issued an order in the matter of LOZMAN v. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA which involves admiralty law.  The case involved a man (Lozman) who had a “floating home was a house-like plywood structure with empty bilge space underneath the main floor to keep it afloat.”  It had no means of self-propulsion.

Lozman parked his “floating home” in a local marina and offended the City of Riviera Beach.  “After various disputes with Lozman and unsuccessful efforts to evict him from the marina, the City brought a federal admiralty lawsuit in rem against the floating home, seeking a lien for dockage fees and damages for trespass.”

Lozman moved to dismiss the suit for lack of admiralty jurisdiction.

“The District Court found the floating home to be a “vessel” under the Rules of Construction Act, which defines a ‘vessel’ as including ‘every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water,” 1 U. S. C. §3, concluded that admiralty jurisdiction was proper, and awarded the City dockage fees and nominal damages. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the home was a ‘vessel’ since it was ‘capable‘ of movement over water despite petitioner’s subjective intent to remain moored indefinitely.”

Judging from the the decisions of the District Court and Eleventh Circuit Court, it’s conceivable that–if a house floating on water can be deemed a “vessel”–so might an automobile since automobiles are truly “capable of movement over water”.

Think not?  When I was a kid, my dad used to take us up to Lake Geneva, Wisconsin and drive us out on the ice on that huge lake.  While driving and spinning on that huge lake of ice we were clearly “moving over water”.  Thus, insofar as ice is deemed to be “water,” the patriot theory of bringing admiralty onto the land, may have been true.

Even so, Lozman appealed to the Supreme Court which declared in part:

2. Lozman’s floating home is not a §3 “vessel.” Pp. 3-15.

          (a) The Eleventh Circuit found the home “capable of being used . . . as a means of transportation on water” because it could float and proceed under tow and its shore connections did not render it incapable of transportation. This interpretation is too broad. The definition of “transportation,” the conveyance of persons or things from one place to another, must be applied in a practical way. Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co.543 U. S. 481, 496. Consequently, a structure does not fall within the scope of the statutory phrase unless a reasonable observer, looking to the home’s physical characteristics and activities, would consider it designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water. Pp. 3-5.

          (b) But for the fact that it floats, nothing about Lozman’s home suggests that it was designed to any practical degree to transport persons or things over water. It had no steering mechanism, had an unraked hull and rectangular bottom 10 inches below the water, and had no capacity to generate or store electricity. It also lacked self-propulsion, differing significantly from an ordinary houseboat. Pp. 5-6.

Hmph.  Is this evidence that–because “no reasonable observer” would consider an automobile to be designed for carrying people or things over the water”–that an automobile also can’t be a “vessel” and therefore can’t implicate admiralty law on the land?

Or, is that evidence that an automobile–which does have a “steering mechanism” (while on ice), a “capacity to generate and store electricity,” and a capacity for “self-propulsion”–might be construed to be a vessel and therefore subject to admiralty law?

And note that the Supreme Court starts point #2 of this order with “Lozman’s floating home is not a §3 ‘vessel’.”  By specifying that this ruling applies only to [section] §3 vessels, the Supreme Court leaves open the issue of whether another class of “vessels” (perhaps found at §2 or §22, or even some completely different law) might exist that could “reasonably” include automobiles.

I can’t yet answer those questions.  At first glance, I thought the Supreme Court had trashed the “admiralty-on-the-land” theory.  But on reconsideration, I’m not so sure.  If there’s a class of vessel other than §3, automobiles might still be deemed “vessels”.  If so, by operating one of those “vessels” you might be subjecting yourself to admiralty law.

So, what do you think?

Do any of you still embrace the “admiralty-on-the-land” theory (especially in relation to traffic law)?  Or, do you suppose that theory to be just another patriot “rabbit trail”?

The Lozman court order is fairly brief and offers more insight into whether an automobile might arguably be–or not be–a “vessel”.  Take a look.  See what you think.  Let me know.

 
96 Comments

Posted by on January 15, 2013 in Admiralty, Traffic Law

 

Tags: ,

96 responses to “Admiralty Law Reconsidered

  1. patrick

    January 15, 2013 at 2:51 PM

    morpe insidiuous than that even…maritime came into home through water pipes…ingress/egress of water brought the maritime onto land…

    david myller is making the rounds right now and if his claim is accurate, the first US astronauts claimed earth under admiralty jurisdiction with the claim that “we truly are a vessel floating in a cosmic sea”…

    basically the law of the sea flooded the law of the land…got common? thought not…

    law of sea is law of war…gotta get away from that to get out of this quandary…commerce is only operable in fiction ie, non living…and brings war…want peace? sue for peace like the US did with Japanese to end the war :)

    or

    sue for breach of trust is the easiest/fastest way as an individual, but only if you are prepared to take the trustee position when its collapsed :)

     
  2. patrick

    January 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM

    wow, that was weird, posted before ready…hugh mydllton and his new river company accomplished the maritime liens via water back in england…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_River_(England)

    look how they named a school after myddleton…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Myddelton

    across from Westminster Abby :)

     
  3. 1st trustee

    January 15, 2013 at 3:16 PM

    Many things have been based on this theory. However, basing the whole theory on one 400 page doc that is not trying to reveal anything, doesn’t confirm or deny the theory. Reading “Law Merchant Law” explains the theory. I’m not saying it proves it, but it gives the history of the admiralty courts which brings in the admiralty jurisdiction. There many people have had success (according to my findings and interviews with people) using this theory. If one really wants to know, put it to the test. After a while, postulating can only go so far.

     
    • Ann Williams

      April 10, 2014 at 1:00 AM

      It’s simple and a fact. Under the uniform commercial code (criminal law) the special maritime and admiralty jurisdiction includes by definition any commercial vehicle engaged in commerce or trade on the navigational waters and seas to include land. “And the Navigational waters are the public highways and shall forever be free to the citizens of the U.S…” In 2006, the federal government changed the definition of Navigational waters to encompass all land surrounding those waters. Any thing that receives federal funding or is in a federal zone such as a highway or a state, local government is included. It is Title 18 of the uniform commercial code. Uniform means all laws are in harmony with federal law. Just tell them they must [prove you are a commercial driver or engaged in commerce. If not, Title 18 exempts you from penalty. There is no more criminal law at state level. It is a civil action with a penalty attached. Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The only way a ticket or charge is enforceable is if you show up. They have 120 days to get you in and it’s void under the statute of limitations. Been this ways since 1966. .

       
  4. greg

    January 15, 2013 at 3:43 PM

    http://youtu.be/Tua-ddwNZkU Quantum Language 3 of 17 (watch via playlist) Hey Alfred, you should look at this when you have time

     
  5. David Merrill

    January 15, 2013 at 3:49 PM

    One way I have heard about to understand is that Federal Reserve notes are not truly bank notes. There is no consideration offered on loans. See the Credit River Money Decision about that. Back in around 1993 when we were exploring through War and Emergency Powers I adopted a good mental model that has worked quite well over time.

    The Federal Reserve note is an insurance policy that upon redemption will be good (by the OCC and FDIC). Since this promise to cover a claim is made in the good faith and credit of the US government (look at the signatures) then the bill holds value (for now). So we trade them for goods and services.

    Look at DeLovio v. Boit for the thorough explanation. All insurance (arising from bottomry) carries admiralty jurisdiction above the high tide mark.

     
  6. David Merrill

    January 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM

    Here is another interesting example. Ronald Dean got his life savings restored in a week. The ATM gave him a message to come inside the lobby. Ron thought, Oh my God, they swept out my funds AGAIN! They wanted him to sign a waiver of indemnity never to sue the bank. He called me and we got a laugh out of that! They wrote letters of apology instead.

    Now that case is against many bank accounts, many of which were set up by a trustee named John and the first thing you see Ron doing was firing John. Here is what I mean from the docket (docking permit) report:

    Better 4 Life represented by Better 4 Life c/o John Schlabach P.O. Box 248 Colbert, WA 99005 PRO SE

    Claimant
    John (I) Schlabach individually, acct. no. 153591184756 represented by John (I) Schlabach (See above for address) PRO SE

    Claimant
    A&A Estates represented by A&A Estates c/o John Schlabach P.O. Box 248 Colbert, WA 99005 PRO SE

    Claimant
    John (I) Schlabach individually, acct. no. 153592309071 represented by John (I) Schlabach (See above for address) PRO SE

    Claimant
    Cascade Evergreen Trust

    Claimant
    John (I) Schlabach individually, acct. no. 153591423287 represented by John (I) Schlabach (See above for address) PRO SE

    Claimant
    English Stone represented by English Stone c/o John Schlabach P.O. Box 248 Colbert, WA 99005 PRO SE

    Claimant
    John (I) Schlabach individually, acct. no. 153553949352 represented by John (I) Schlabach (See above for address) PRO SE

    So Ron got his money restored by taking responsibility for it. All those other claimants never saw their money even though the action was vacated. John and the other claimants had no clue about the action being in admiralty so they never filed a verified statement of right and interest within the 30 Day deadline.

     
  7. David Merrill

    January 15, 2013 at 4:11 PM

    This one is my favorite though! Notice how I used the US Geodetic Survey to determine the limitations of the high tide mark:

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOWMwMjUxZTYtZmViNy00NmI1LWEyNzItMDgxYzFkZWMxNmVi/edit

    If you notice Robert RUBIN resigned the same day. In fact he resigned so fast that it made the 5:00 News!

    David Wynn MILLER has a lot more claims about this kind of synchronicity than I do – so many more, being the Emperor of Hawaii and the only federal judge around… However he made a few things known as fact that are either so far-fetched or just plain untrue that I have my doubts about his claim to be prosecutor of judges and so forth. If push ever comes to shove about it I am going to hire a private investigator to tell me what is really going on there.

    I certainly relate to the mathematics and have used similar tactics to defeat the admiralty/international organization like METRO organization – the global municipal league operating through home rule cities and towns. So I really don’t know what to think about a man who makes these claims and admits that he never sleeps. I hear that when somebody does not sleep they hallucinate and have seen how somebody in delirium can come out of that with very real and elaborate memories of events that never transpired. But many of the substrates under David’s anecdotes bear a metaphoric resemblance to my experiences like above in the link.

    Regards,

    David Merrill.

     
  8. David Merrill

    January 15, 2013 at 4:22 PM

    I have always attributed David’s “technology” to the rumor he is severely dyslexic and able to hide the symptoms because of his incredible intelligence quotient. I don’t know if knowing more psychology would help because I view David as an anomaly. The similarities in his speech mathematics and my explorations though, especially his insistence on reading each sentence the same forward and backwards is in my estimation due to a basic mother language of all others being Hebrew and that is read right to left. It is a very mathematical alphabet with each letter assigned a specific numeric value:

    Note this state court prayer is in admiralty:

    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6653/statecourtprayer.pdf

    The fellow is living in peace, off the grid. However his shower froze this morning after three days in the teens so he has some discomfort.

     
  9. palani

    January 15, 2013 at 5:10 PM

    EPA … Surf Your Watershed … http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm

    Find out which watershed you LIVE in. Watersheds are Federal Zones. Each has an independent identifier (HUC) number. Watersheds are NATURAL boundaries as opposed to the straight lines you typically find in POLITICAL boundaries.

    The early empires in Mesopotamia were called watershed empires. Water was of PRIME importance. It was the most valuable commodity in the empire. IT STILL IS.

    The Louisiana Purchase was based upon no survey. Instead the French ceded the WATERSHEDs of the Mississippi, Missouri and Red Rivers. When Iowa was settled in the 1830s no land patent could be issued until treaties were established with the Indians. Maybe what that says is the Feds had nothing to transfer in terms of land or maybe they were loathe to relinquish control of the watersheds.

    Watersheds extend over state political boundaries. They extend on either side of a river. There are watersheds in Iowa that are also in Illinois….. go by the same HUC number.

    Does this equate to admiralty jurisdiction? I expect it does.

     
  10. sem

    January 15, 2013 at 6:24 PM

    I am intrigued by this subject do to the fact that it has come to my attention, recently, that the last four(4) Presidents of the United States have been flying two flags (one of them is the of Admiralty).

    We have not been quite able to understand the reason(s) for such phenomenal occurrence, but this article (above) adds another piece to the puzzle. I have been involved in “Color of law” issues which is very time consuming and very technical; so, I haven’t had adequate time to dabble in conjecture. However, the question remains…what does it mean for the President (last four of them) to be flying two flags (particularly as it relates to Admiralty)?

    PeaceOut

    PS there’s much more going on that just that which meets the eye! ,

     
    • Yartap

      January 16, 2013 at 1:48 PM

      Great to hear from you – my friend!

       
      • sem

        January 16, 2013 at 2:30 PM

        Same/Same! Happy New Year.

        PeaceOut

         
  11. Char

    January 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM

    2 points – mt hood – pike’s peek – mt mckindley all have been surveyed to have high water marks this was done by our navy per noah’s story in the bible this gives them jurisdiction so anything below these water marks are subject to international and national waters just that it is low tide at this point

    – with admiralty law in the high seas – letters of marque can be enforced as pirates they are study letters of marque and then you know that all is commerce

     
  12. David Merrill

    January 15, 2013 at 7:32 PM

    I forgot to link Ronald Deans prosecution. Notice especially the Warrant – clearly admiralty.

    http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/2245/ronalddeansprosecution.pdf

     
  13. Anthony Clifton

    January 15, 2013 at 7:36 PM

    if there really is an Admiral, it would be a gesture of Good Faith to intervene on behalf of Ambassador Robert Fox, as the inland pirates intend to put alligators in his holding tank

    and that is an act of Bad Faith piled on top of many many years of BAD FAITH harassment

    whoever the Admiral really is and whatever alleged “Law” he might be using to justify the crimes against the inhabitants on the soil of Texas…with seemingly Malice Aforethought

    לדוד מזמור ליהוה הארץ ומלואה תבל וישבי בה׃

    http://biblos.com/psalms/24-1.htm

     
    • Doug

      January 16, 2013 at 9:32 AM

      Hi Clifton, just a shout out to say hello from Vega, Texas. Hope all is well in your neck of the “ocean” … I think the blather about Admiralty comes primarily from water-logged noggins !

      E-mail me for my number – I hooked the old one to my FAX. (Good to know you’re still kickin it).

       
  14. MVG-AVG

    January 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM

    Could it be that many of the references in the bible pertaining to water imply admiralty jurisdiction?Jesus ,walking on (admiralty) water,the parting of the (admiralty)Red Sea,just a few ,many more examples.Maybe the Christ knew things like you Al , inso far as admiralty law is concerned.I’ll bet the Christ was a sovereign and did not consent to be defined as an” Animal”.Rememder nuthin new under the sun .The ancient code of the merchants, same today and the same yesterday .Al ,maybe you are giving insight to the many,teaching them to walk on water .

     
    • Adask

      January 15, 2013 at 8:23 PM

      I’m not trying to teach anyone to walk on water. I might try to teach some to skate on the “ice” we call the legal system, or drink water rather than softdrinks, or maybe bathe a little more often, but other than that, there’s not much I can tell folks about water.

       
    • Ummer

      January 16, 2013 at 7:58 PM

      Jesus walked over a sea, specifically that sea of Galilee.

       
  15. gary lee

    January 15, 2013 at 8:22 PM

    If the US Supreme Court and Attorney General (Janet Reno) have stated that the activities that state DMVs license is “intergrally related to interstate commerce”, i.e., commercial activity, not private, then wouldn’t it follow that since state DMVs specifically license “vessels” (not “boats”, unless it is a “vessel”), then “vessels” are boats used in commerce (trasportation of passengers or property for hire or compensation), thus probably, conceivably subject to maritime or Admirality jurisdiction. If it is not a “vessel” used in commerce, though, it would seem it might come under “household property”, subject only to constitutional limitations, if any even existed. I am thinking “car” vs. “motor vehicle” here…..what do you think?

     
  16. Jerry Lee

    January 16, 2013 at 3:20 AM

    This is why the Navy had the mission to survey the geographic ‘United States’ for the High Water Mark not the Army Corp of Engineers. Congress brought Admiralty law on land in 1845. Cannot recall case at this time.

    As for Letters of Marque the ‘United States, I wonder why as the IRS seizures are in Admiralty Jurisdiction in Rem. And printed in the paper in legal notice to seize property as booty.
    By the Declaration of Paris (April, 1856), privateering was abolished, but the United States, Spain, Mexico, and Venezuela did not accede to this declaration. It has been thought that the constitutional provision empowering the Congress to issue letters of marque deprives it of the power to join in a permanent treaty abolishing privateering.
    Piracy and privateering are federal offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.
    Note: this is the reason police vehicles are known as “cruisers.”

    DEFINITIONS; per Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition:
    Letter of marque and reprisal: page 905;
    An authorization formerly granted in time of war by a government to the owner of a private vessel to capture enemy vessels and goods on the high seas.

    CATRONA 297 Fed.Supp. p. 827, 1924 District Court decision. In admiralty, they fictionalize the vessel; they make the vessel a juristic person. Public Vessels Act, 1925 – they fictionalized the vessels.

    CAPTURE, war. [Title 50 USC] [Lieber Code of 1863 ] goes to “Reprisal.” Reprisal is being upon the Land.
    1. The taking of property by one belligerent [The U.S. corporation moves as a belligerent as against] The American people and are in fact, presumed to be the enemy of the state of the forum and thereby, presumed to be “treated” as a belligerent enemy.
    2. To make a good capture of a ship, it must be subdued and taken by an enemy in open war, or by way of reprisals, or by a pirate [being “Policy” Officers, also termed “Police”]and with intent to deprive the owner of it.
    3. Capture may be with intent to possess both ship . . . [NOTE: the creation by a “Berthing of a ” VESSEL” aka “Estate” in duality and the same time with the live Borne child and registration (of the VESSEL) thereby] . .

    U.S. Code collection
    TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 44A > § 2432 Definitions
    For purposes of this chapter—

    (10) Vessel of the United States
    The term “vessel of the United States” means—
    (A) a vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46 or a vessel numbered as provided in chapter 123 of that title;
    (B) a vessel owned in whole or in part by—
    (i) the United States or a territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;
    (ii) a State or political subdivision thereof;
    (iii) a citizen or national of the United States; or
    (iv) a corporation created under the laws of the United States or any State, the District of
    Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;

    According to U.S. Code. Title 18 ß 7. Admiralty Jurisdiction is applicable to the following areas:
    1. The High Seas 2. Any American Ship 3. Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the state……

    As for the yellow fringe around the American flag
    Authorization for indoor display.
    Each military courtroom.” Army Regulation 840-10, October 1 1979
    Admiralty and Maritime, Military Law

    This is the 14th amendment person,subject US citizen.

     
    • sem

      January 16, 2013 at 2:37 PM

      Good answer Jerry!

      peaceOut

       
  17. palani

    January 16, 2013 at 7:29 AM

    The concept of insurance is embedded into maritime law. Common law recognizes no contract where nothing of substance changes hands. Congress enacted legislation concerning insurance around 1845 ( hearsay .. I wasn’t there but recall hearing that). Liability insurance still includes a concept called ‘INLAND MARINE’.

    There is a difference between maritime and admiralty law. They are not the same. Admiralty concerns ships carrying cannon.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=6z4SAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=admiralty+law&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dpr2UJamF-nH0QHH0oCoDQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=admiralty%20law&f=false

     
    • Jethro

      January 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

      I can verify palani’s statement. I have an insurance policy for my musical instruments and equipment. These instruments live their lives in a very dry studio nowhere near water. Yet the first page of the policy reads “COMMERCIAL INLAND MARINE”. So maritime law can obviously come onto land; what precisely all facts and circumstances are that allow it to come onto land is something someone on this blog could hopefully help elucidate.

       
  18. Jerry Lee

    January 16, 2013 at 9:25 AM

    Treason in Government!
    Admiralty on Land!!
    Where’s the Water?
    Just part of the complete text:

    However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

    “The committee also alluded to “the great force” of “the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution….” – Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

    This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note – remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land.” — Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

    “Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.” — Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

    “These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” — Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

    Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.
    This HTML presentation is copyright by Barefoot, April 1997

     
    • sem

      January 16, 2013 at 2:48 PM

      Inasmuch as The United States Constitution was not meant to restrain the People, but, to restrain the Government; it is not very difficult to conceptualize where this Admiralty phenomena is heading. Well researched Jerry.

      PeaceOut

       
  19. David Merrill

    January 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

    The Libel of Review, fashioned to provide a court of competent jurisdiction outside the scope of admiralty was fashioned from a rare book titled, Are You Lost at C?

    http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf

    I was a friend of one of the authors.

     
  20. David Merrill

    January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

    This book describes the diversity of citizenship between a man on the land and admiralty jurisdiction by stating the cause to be – No action was filed in the district courts when the respondent (in counterclaim) came up on the land making claims.

    http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf

    Now days, for the last six or seven years the Libel of Review (linked in the post above) has been modified more to describe the diversity being whether or not the suitor is in contract with the Fed by endorsing checks or not, by demanding lawful money.

     
    • pop de adam

      January 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM

      David-

      As there seem to be no popular or workable alternatives in regards to FRNs at this point, am I correct that if one does demand lawful money they still hand us FRNs? The only difference being that the demand was made? If so how can this endorsement be conflated into anything more than it is?

      Their assertion: Well you did endorse this, and therefore condone the entire practice of usury, fractional reserves, and whatever else occurs to us to project upon you.

      My response: So what?

      Them: So we can do this to you, as you have agreed to it.

      Me: No I haven’t.

      Is this roughly correct? A common theme I seem to keep coming back to is that while they wish to paint us as perpetual debtors and minimize any payments to us either through taxes, fees, interests or other mechanisms it is actually they who are refusing to make the full payment that is due to us.

      I do think this remedy intrigueing, it just seems as if at the end of it all nothing of any real substance has really changed, so it seems to me there should be a more solid nexus between unconditional lawful money and conditional legal notes. If I offer a local child $5 or 5FRNs to shovel my walk he is likely to accept either, they both spend the same for him(candy and soda), if I make the same offer yet inform him their may or may not be conditions attached he is likely to think me a nutter. The numbers and currency going back and forth in commerce are evidence of nothing they just exist, a shoveled walk for a chicken, a chicken for a shovel, a hundred shovels for a walkway, a hundreth of a walkway for a chicken….Oh look its snowing and I don’t have any chickens…

      -pop

       
      • David Merrill

        January 19, 2013 at 9:42 AM

        Dear Pop;

        You describe removing the contractual nexus in admiralty. Part of the Libel of Review is to declare the Law of the Flag. (Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:27.) Of course they could just ignore the Record. A court not of record has not authority to fine and imprison while a court of record does. So if your LoR is an evidence repository for your Demands for Lawful Money and your other Refusals for Cause – who is the court of record?

        The federal judge on the matter, according to the clerk of court, is a taxpayer! So isn’t he recused by execution of law for a conflict of interest? The clerk does not think so. The attorneys do not think so… But is it not obvious? That attorney in the black robe is not a judge – period. So that leaves room (even in admiralty) for a competent court of record (you) to be the court of competent jurisdiction in lieu of there being no competent judge in the federal courthouse. Simple fact. – Even if there are only fellow suitors recognizing you as such. The clerk of court will always file your judgments, even as foreign judgments to the municipal districts (admiralty).

        http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf

         
    • sem

      January 16, 2013 at 2:54 PM

      David:

      You may have touched on something here.

      It is not-so-common knowledge that Democracy originated on Sea Vessels. Is that a fact or theory?

      PeaceOut

       
  21. Oldraskill

    January 16, 2013 at 12:27 PM

    Los Angeles Times, January 16 2013, page A6
    Quote.
    Justices uphold laws on floating homes.
    Washington
    A house that floats on the water and has no power to move on its own is a house not a vessel,
    the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, January 15 2013.
    The 7-2 decision upholds laws in California, Washington and other States that say floating homes that are attached to the shore and do not travel are governed by local laws applying to homes and not by federal admiralty law regulating ships and boats.Quote.

     
  22. David Merrill

    January 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM

     
    • Adask

      January 16, 2013 at 5:04 PM

      It depends on whether they’re filled with fresh water or sea water.

       
  23. David Merrill

    January 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM

    Page 18 of this doc led me to find WISWALL’s 1994 treatise above.

    http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/Special%20Maritime%20Exposed.pdf

    …The delay may seem strange, especially in light of the quite rapid effects
    of the 1938 merger of the Equity Rules into the first Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
    But the late depression era was one of great social activism on the part of the
    Federal government, and this faded seamlessly into wartime legislation which
    appropriated control of private property. The District Courts under the new FRCP
    were quickly forced by the volume of litigation into the wholesale application of
    equitable remedies in actions “at law”.

    The 1938 merger of law and equity rules left no loose ends; the procedure is entirely
    uniform regardless of the nature of the remedy prayed, though of course issuance of an
    injunction requires at least an ex parte hearing in chambers. The 1966 merger, however,
    leaves six special Supplemental Admiralty Rules appended to the body of the FRCP,
    and in order to apply those Supplemental Rules it is necessary that the complaint
    specifically invoke the jurisdiction of the “admiralty side” of the Court…

    This passage connects Erie Doctrine through blending law and equity to admiralty jurisdiction.

     
  24. David Merrill

    January 16, 2013 at 12:47 PM

    You can view this on StSC too. (savingtosuitorsclub.net)

     
  25. Yartap

    January 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM

    Our Governments practice pure son-of-a-bitchery.

    The majority of traffic laws were introduced by states during the time (1933) of FDR’s New Deal. The driver’s license has morphed from licensing of commercial vehicles to licensing drivers. The states claim that statute law is “common law,” which is not true. The Admiralty was added into our commercial laws like and with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

    I know this is very generalized, but can anyone give a better generalized and simpler explanation of where we are?

     
    • pop de adam

      January 16, 2013 at 2:39 PM

      Yartap-

      Licensing I believe is usually reserved for professions that need bonding aka insurance. It attempts to create a minimum standard of competance so that insurance can be issued. People became fearful of losing their homes and buisnesses in the event of mishap or lawsuit so they sought insurance. Insurers found it in their interest to support and lobby for ever more restictions and regulations to reduce expenses, in doing so they have become rather intwined with the state itself. If they are actual corporations, at some point they must have been incorporated, a good question is: Incorporated into what? The state of course. They are all actually franchises of the state, although the state grants the stewards of these franchises permission to choose the name or logo that we see in their letterheads, advertisements and such.

      Most “drivers” don’t fit the same definitions that apply to the professions such as gasfitters, doctors, dentists, plumbers etc. The principle difference being they don’t recieve compensation, as opposed to those who are actual drivers such as taxi-driver, truck-driver, delivery-driver, courier etc. This doesn’t stop people from seeking insurance and voluntarily subjecting themselves to this definition.

      -pop

       
    • David Merrill

      January 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM

      Endorsement of private credit from the Fed – Yartap. That is what makes the SSN a valid income tax – admiralty. Use the Driver License for competency only.

      Find (Colorado) C.R.S. 42-2-107:

      Do you have a SSN? If not you can still get a Driver License but for competency purposes only. Even if you have a Social Security Number why use it to drive? If it is part of your identity use it to identify yourself with through your Driver License. If you do you are using your Driver License for Social Security and are part of that taxation system – Department of Revenue. That is your identity.

      I would never use a Driver License to identify myself. Just for competency only and to show I have the insurance policy like he says above. Rule E(8) – Restricted Appearance. Not the SSI Social Security Insurance but my policy for in case of an accident!

      Look:

      “(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), an application for a driver’s or minor driver’s license shall include the applicant’s social security number, which shall remain confidential and shall not be placed on the applicant’s driver’s or minor driver’s license; except that such confidentiality shall not extend to the state child support enforcement agency, the department, or a court of competent jurisdiction when requesting information in the course of activities authorized under article 13 of title 26, C.R.S., or article 14 of title 14, C.R.S. If the applicant does not have a social security number, the applicant shall submit a sworn statement made under penalty of law, together with the application, stating that the applicant does not have a social security number.”

      Now look at Rule E(8):

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_E

      “(8) Restricted Appearance. An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.”

      See how you keep your contract with the SSA out of your insurance contract for operating the motor vehicle? You never get your feet wet at all until you are in an accident.

      If you hand the Driver License card to the police officer at a stop for speeding etc. and tell him, “I am not showing you the card for identification purposes. That is my name as I signed it there (First and Middle only). I am just showing you the card for competency purposes only and to assure you that I have an insurance policy in effect should I get into an accident.” Then typically he will give you the card back in ten minutes without any comment but “Drive carefully.”

      However the other day a suitor was doing just this and the cop wigged out. He started calling the fellow mentally unbalanced and called an ambulance. The EMT’s cleared him as stable and sober, asked about medications and psychiatric history etc. The cop gave IT the speeding ticket anyway but he will just Refuse for Cause (R4C) timely and put a copy in his Libel of Review evidence repository. The original R4C went to the Chief of Police with a copy of the US clerk instruction. Before the hearing he will get a certified copy from the USDC and show up under Rule E(8) – Restricted Appearance to prevent fraud on the court. (In case the chief of police neglected to forward a copy of the R4C to the courthouse.)

      Regards,

      David Merrill.

       
      • sem

        January 17, 2013 at 7:42 PM

        David:

        I have re-read an pondered this comment three(3) times. Each time I read it and ponder it…I envision Rodney King.

        PeaceOut

         
      • David Merrill

        January 17, 2013 at 7:54 PM

        Once a suitor Refused for Cause to the police officer. The suitor pulled his copy from the clipboard and the officer kept demanding he return it and got so upset that he did. Big Mistake!

        The officer returned to the minivan ten minutes later with an identical presentment but when he got a few feet from the driver window he darted forward and shoved it into the van and ran back to the cruiser.

        Then the suitor did a new and wonderful blunder. He was so surprised at the officer’s behavior that he threw the Summons and Uniform Penalty Assessment out the window on the roadside. The officer seemed confounded so the suitor presumed business was done and drove away only to be stopped by four officers from two counties (he was near the county line anyway). They captured him at gunpoint.

        They searched his car and found his properly signed (True Name dba FIRST M LAST) Driver License and took it from him.

        http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf

         
      • David Merrill

        January 23, 2013 at 4:01 AM

        Time is an illusion.

        To Have, give all to all.
        To Have Peace, teach peace to learn it.
        Be vigilant only to God and His kingdom.

        http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/909/usavthomas319f3d6402003.pdf

         
      • sem

        January 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM

        It seems the moral of the story is in the age-old adage, “if you gonna play with fire, you’d betta be damned careful.”

        PeaceOut

         
    • Jerry Lee

      January 16, 2013 at 4:40 PM

      Yartap; You need to realize we are under Military Rule and a State of Emergency exists. That since FDR all US persons have been declared an enemy of the Corporation ie the United States DC. Therefore you are granted permission to live and work in Their Territory hence the need to be license to do just about anything. Here in Ohio I have found that the BMV does make a distinction between commercial or non-commercial licensing this I believe would confirm ‘this State’ is operating under Title 12, Section 95 (b) that is Trading with the Enemy Act. Just don’t be that 14th amendment person a legal Alien, in their Political World one needs to be a non-resident Alien.
      The State operates on the presumption you are a legal person or trust/estate and it is their duty to protect that entity you must establish who you are and claim ownership to direct that ‘Vessel’ that was created by your parents and the State, in other words become the Administrator of that Cestui que vies trust ie 14th amendment person for you are the Creditor and Debtor and the State the Trustee.

       
      • Yartap

        January 17, 2013 at 9:29 AM

        Pop, David and Jerry Lee,

        Thanks, for the info. It does make sense of how we have come to this. I will still make all attempts to stand on the Common Law to fight them.

         
  26. sem

    January 16, 2013 at 3:06 PM

    Pop:

    The next time someone asks, “why did you sell your property?”, I’m going to use your answer (above).

    peaceOut

     
  27. Ummer

    January 16, 2013 at 8:10 PM

    I personally believe that rather than Admiralty laws, the law is based in corporation law. The rhetoric is in the form of Admiralty orders.

     
  28. Anon4fun

    January 17, 2013 at 3:14 AM

    This case makes the admiralty-law-on-the-land theory less, not more, plausible. If admiralty law had taken over as theorized, there would be no question whether it applies in circumstances like these. Its application to all cases would be taken for granted even well inland, more so on water.

    Secondly, the admiralty-law-on-the-land theory does not seem compatible with the Adask School theory that United States territorial jurisdiction has been extended over the several States. Unless territorial waters are what is meant, this invokes law forms of the land.

     
    • David Merrill

      January 17, 2013 at 4:42 AM

      If I may;

      The ‘saving to suitors’ clause reads:

      …saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it,

      That is from Page 77 of the Judiciary Act (1789). You might take a look on savingtosuitorsclub.net some time for more reading material but taken in its proper context, if you are not competent in common law (of the land) then you will automatically default into admiralty.

      http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/834/judiciaryactof1789.pdf

      Look for yourself. The judge is easily recused if you know who you are. A suitor has a Libel of Review in the federal courthouse as an evidence repository. Any presentments in admiralty are refused for cause timely. – Avoidance rather than collision (collusion with the false balances of elastic currency).

      Redeem lawful money and know your name. Be included in “They”:

      They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand…

      Everything is in admiralty alright. Except those who know the remedy!

       
    • Adask

      January 17, 2013 at 12:20 PM

      I support the theory that “Texas,” “STATE OF TEXAS” and/or “TX” signify a “territory” rather than a State of the Union. The important point in this theory is not that “TX” (for example) is a “territory” but that it’s something other than a State of the Union. If Admiralty Law had been brought onto the land, it’s possible that “TX” still signified something other than a State of the Union that was not a “territory” in the sense of land, but something else that was a territorial jurisdiction in the sense of the oceans within 12 miles of our shores. It’s not impossible that “TX” is deemed to be a jurisdiction that exists, not on land, or on water, but in the air. None of those details are particularly important to me. For me, the object is to establish that I am working, living, dwelling within the borders of a State of the Union.

      Why? Because I read the Declaration of Independence’s obligation to “secure” the God-given, unalienable Rights to be imposed on the governments of the States of what later became the “Union”. It’s not clear to me that the federal government ever had an obligation to secure the people’s God-given, unalienable Rights. Maybe such obligation exists; maybe it does not. But it seems certain to me that such obligation absolutely applied to the governments of the States of the Union–in fact, that obligation is probably the basis of the “republican form of government” that’s expressly guaranteed to each of the States of the Union at Article 4.4 of the Constitution.

      Similarly, it seems “easier” to me to assert my God-given, unalienable Rights from within the venue of a State of the Union. I.e., I have better “standing” within the venue of a State of the Union than I do within any territory (be it land, sea or air) of “TX” or “OR”. I don’t doubt that, thanks to the 9th Amendment, I can still lay claim to my God-given, unalienable Rights from within the federal jurisdiction of any “territory”. Still, I generally plan to start making such claims from within the venue of a State of the Union and then back those claims with the 9th Amendment “just in case” they deem me to be in a federal “territorial” venue that is other than a State of the Union.

       
      • David Merrill

        January 17, 2013 at 12:44 PM

        The States seem to be synonymous to the Districts more and more. The city of Washington, District of Columbia. This only describes municipal jurisdiction – a global METRO organization like I linked with the State Court Prayer. It does not prove that international equals admiralty.

        In the Libel of Review suitors use the Original Thirteenth Amendment as found in the Territory of Colorado in 1861.

         
      • sem

        January 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM

        Al:

        As I examine the word usage (above) I can’t help but realize that the “This state/The State” concept is more than just ‘theory’. For instance; when we look at the concept from a Global perspective, it is not difficult to appreciate that a State is a Country (and/or vise-verse). Therefore, United States of America is the same as The United Countries of America. Whence, as it relates to Admiralty includes the 12 miles of water (including the Territories) upon being enjoined (Union). Hence, two(2) flags.

        That, therefore, encompasses a lot of area (Air, Land, Water), thus, signalling vast control (particularly as it relates to Sea Lanes); but also, traffic lanes–any other way.

        PeaceOut

         
  29. David Merrill

    January 17, 2013 at 5:04 AM

    http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?693-Substance-of-the-R4C&p=9452&viewfull=1#post9452

    That is an interesting comment:

    The King could not sustain any convictions in Common Law courts of the colonists, so he moved the cases and jurisdictions to Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts.

     
    • sem

      January 17, 2013 at 9:49 AM

      Please note my inquiry below.

       
  30. sem

    January 17, 2013 at 9:43 AM

    David:

    Would you kindly expand on the following excerpt taken from your above comment;

    The 1966 merger, however,
    leaves six special Supplemental Admiralty Rules appended to the body of the FRCP,
    and in order to apply those Supplemental Rules it is necessary that the complaint
    specifically invoke the jurisdiction of the “admiralty side” of the Court…

    Also…as queried above (r u lost @ c), is not Democracy a product of conduct on a Sea Vessel at sea?

    PeaceOut

     
    • David Merrill

      January 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp#supp

      Look at the end where the rules are letters instead of numbers.

      Democracy on a sea vessel? That seems very irregular. I understand democracy as mutiny.

       
      • sem

        January 17, 2013 at 7:07 PM

        Exactly! Majority Rule.

        Peaceout

         
  31. Jerry Lee

    January 17, 2013 at 11:39 AM

    Citizen-SHIP is this your vessel? Just a thought so by attacking US to this citizen-Ship you have placed yourself in jeopardy to be taken by the Pirates like the ones base in the Caribbean better known as The Internal Revenue Service. These Pirate use a Service Contract ie Letters of Marque with CON-gress.

    The flagship of these International Pirates is the USS Columbia it is this Ship of “STATE” that’s needs to be sunk.

    U.S. Code collection
    TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 44A > § 2432 Definitions
    (10) Vessel of the United States…
    (iii) a citizen or national of the United States; or
    (iv) a corporation created under the laws of the United States or any State, the District of
    Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;

    I need to research but I recall that corporations under the IRC are also consider trust/estate which is the Cestui Que Vie trust or US citizen
    Please read Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
    CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2… next post
    You are “Dead at Sea” ie civilly dead or in their scheme a Debtor. You as the Creditor must Capture that trust as the Administrator [Creditor] you have a dual part in their debt money system.

    I also believe that Title 42 sec 1981 & 82 are for the trust/estate, do not think for one minute it is for the “people of color” as they pretend.
    I do recall that I had sent Al a E-mail and on his program was Lloyd Smith who said this was not applicable to the “people of color” that a Statue of 1870 had replaced this section for people of color. I think we all missed this the true meaning of Title 42 sec 1981 & 82.

    Any comment Al?

     
  32. Jerry Lee

    January 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM

    Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
    1666 CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2
    An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.
    X1Recital that Cestui que vies have gone beyond Sea, and that Reversioners cannot find out whether they are alive or dead.
    Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often happened that such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and Reversioners cannot finde out whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many yeares after all the lives upon which such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt upon it to prove the death of their Tennants when it is almost impossible for them to discover the same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners.
    Annotations:
    Editorial Information
    X1Abbreviations or contractions in the original form of this Act have been expanded into modern lettering in the text set out above and below.
    Modifications etc. (not altering text)
    C1Short title “The Cestui que Vie Act 1666” given by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 2
    C2Preamble omitted in part under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1
    C3Certain words of enactment repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1888 (c. 3) and remainder omitted under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3

    [I.]Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead.
    If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead.
    II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1
    Annotations:
    Amendments (Textual)
    F1S. II repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1
    III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2
    Annotations:
    Amendments (Textual)
    F2S. III repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125)

    IV If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.
    [X2Provided alwayes That if any person or [X3person or] persons shall be evicted out of any Lands or Tenements by vertue of this Act, and afterwards if such person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate or Estates depend shall returne againe from beyond the Seas, or shall on proofe in any Action to be brought for recovery of the same [to] be made appeare to be liveing; or to have beene liveing at the time of the Eviction That then and from thenceforth the Tennant or Lessee who was outed of the same his or their Executors Administrators or Assignes shall or may reenter repossesse have hold and enjoy the said Lands or Tenements in his or their former Estate for and dureing the Life or Lives or soe long terme as the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives the said Estate or Estates depend shall be liveing, and alsoe shall upon Action or Actions to be brought by him or them against the Lessors Reversioners or Tennants in possession or other persons respectively which since the time of the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements recover for damages the full Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawfull Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements, and kepte or held out of the same by the said Lessors Reversioners Tennants or other persons who after the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements or any of them respectively as well in the case when the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives such Estate or Estates did depend are or shall be dead at the time of bringing of the said Action or Actions as if the said person or persons where then liveing.]
    Annotations:
    Editorial Information
    X2annexed to the Original Act in a separate Schedule
    X3Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: O. omits [O. refers to a collection in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge]

     
    • palani

      January 17, 2013 at 12:43 PM

      “If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive”

      This might be proved in one of several ways.
      1) contact your local coroner and have him issue an opinion that you are alive
      2) see your physician and have him write a letter to the effect that you are diagnosed with life
      3) go to your local blood bank and get an ID from them. The dead are not known for the quality of the blood they donate.

       
      • David Merrill

        January 17, 2013 at 7:01 PM

        There might be a better way – see if you can get a death certificate issued on the FIRST MIDDLE LAST.

         
    • sem

      January 17, 2013 at 7:03 PM

      In other words…ADMIRALTY is as close to the Letter of the LAW as earthly possible!

      PeaceOut

       
    • David Merrill

      January 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM

      We study that a lot in the brain trust. A fellow going by Robb Ryder too. That certainly helps to understand the admiralty nature of finances and estate but falls short I believe when you get into the current Rules of Probate Court.

      Of course I have not even read the Rules of Probate Court when I say that. You might find some of the Form (forum) still there.

       
  33. NDT

    January 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM

    Admiralty is a civil process with criminal penalties (same as “statue law”). In admiralty an action is brought by a libelant. The libel could involve representing a man as a person.

    And then there’s the “dock”.

     
    • Adask

      January 17, 2013 at 8:15 PM

      What authority declares Admiralty to be “civil process with criminal penalties”? I’m not a student of Admiralty, but if Admiralty really is a “civil process with criminal penalties,” I am surprised that I hadn’t previously heard that description. I am particularly surprised because I understand the definition of “penal” to mean a “civil process with attached criminal penalty”. Much or most of what pass for “crimes” these days are actually penal (civil) offenses. And, of course, we have “Penal Codes” for Texas, Oregon, Florida, etc.

      So, if it turned out to be true that Admiralty Law and penal law were both “civil processes with criminal penalties,” then it would also likely be true that “Admiralty” and “penal” were synonymous.

      Thus, it would be important if you (“NDT”) or some other reader of this blog could provide an authority–not just a vague recollection–declaring that Admiralty Law was a “civil process with attached criminal penalties”.

       
      • NDT

        January 19, 2013 at 10:16 PM

        Civil process: … the U.S. Supreme Court approved amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that brought admiralty and maritime procedural rules into accord with those used in other civil suits.

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Admiralty+and+Maritime+Law

        Criminal penalties: eg imprisonment for abandonment of seamen, barratry, wrecking, etc

        Source: The Law of the Sea: A Manual of the Principles of Admiralty Law for Students, Mariners, and Ship Operators, page 252

         
      • sem

        January 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM

        NDT:

        The request for authority has not been met. Though I can see the argument.

        PeaceOut

         
  34. Anon4fun

    January 17, 2013 at 9:25 PM

    Adask:

    You seem to mean that your “the State” vs. “this state” theory uses a distinction between States of the Union and United States territories without committing to what the nature of these territories are in relation to land, sea, etc. That’s fine, and the logic works as is.

    My point is only to add that what the US government calls territories are, it turns out, legally characterized as entities of land, which suggests an incompatibility with applying admiralty law to “this state” and its citizens. For example:

    “The Federal government was created in 1777 by the union of thirteen colonies of Great Britain in ‘certain articles of confederation and perpetual union,’ the first one of which declared that ‘the stile of this confederacy shall be the United States of America.’ Each member of the confederacy was denominated a state. Provision was made for the representation of each state by not less than two nor more than seven delegates; but no mention was made of territories or other lands, except in article 11, which authorized the admission of Canada, upon its ‘acceding to this confederation,’ and of other colonies if such admission were agreed to by nine states.”

    – Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

     
  35. indio007

    January 17, 2013 at 10:33 PM

    The basis of admiralty law in the colonies is that the colonists where members of a charter party on foreign land. The law governing the colonists didn’t change simply because they rowed ashore.

     
    • sem

      January 18, 2013 at 10:44 AM

      Very succinctly and well stated … Mr. Bond.

       
    • pop de adam

      January 19, 2013 at 8:47 AM

      I find this concept of admiraltry a bit disconcerting, if it is contract; fine produce the contract bonding me to administration. If it is of a military, martial, maritime or administrative nature, again produce the contract nexus. Why am I listening to an admiral, I am not in the navy, if it is to be believed, it should be easy to produce an express oath of office like the one a serviceman signs and swears to before assuming his duties.

       
  36. palani

    January 20, 2013 at 8:18 AM

    Paper is a vessel and the words thereon are cargo. I suspect law does not include things written on paper. Lex non scripta. Unwritten. The emphasis given to ‘testimony’ (standing giving oral evidence with the right hand cupping the balls). Why does everyone use a ‘diction’ary rather than a ‘definition’ary? Pronunciation could be more important than meaning. The U.S. constitution is maritime because it is set down on a ‘vessel’ made of animal skin.

    I don’t know when ‘rocks, paper, scissors’ became a logical means to resolve problems but the rules are straightforward. Rocks sink in a maritime environment while paper floats so paper wins. Scissors cut paper so scissors win. Rocks cannot be cut by scissors so rocks win.

    The 10 commandments were set down on stone. Court orders come to you by way of paper. Always carry a pair of scissors with you to court. It gives you a good test by which you can check the authority of the judgment.

     
    • David Merrill

      January 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      The security guards will take them away. No metaphysicians!

       
  37. sem

    January 20, 2013 at 11:12 PM

    It will be difficult to over-simplify the reality that (in view of Admiralty) the last four(4) United States Presidents are flying two(2) Flags. The obvious, seriousness of such a event is in the Act itself; not to mention the implications to travel, security, and war.

    It seems, (from reading most of the above) that the imposition of Admiralty not only erects and invisible barrier measured by a predetermined grid (early Maritime mapping), but also sole authority to chart a course by the Commander-In-Chief (Admiral-ty).

    From that perspective we are not just talking ‘Martial Law’; nor’ Maritime Law’; but ‘Draconian Law’ once the gauntlet is thrown down.

    PeaceOut

    PS Things that make you go … Hmmmm!

     
  38. kanani

    January 21, 2013 at 10:57 PM

    Are we under Admiralty Law? The answer is simple; next time you are in your district court room to get a traffic ticket reduced, notice the flag behind the judge, most likely admiralty. The admiralty flag also graces your sporting events, and you’ll find your state & local politicians + sheriffs conducting business in front of admiralty flags. Lastly, you will find eagles at the top of many of those admiralty flag staffs. The Roman Empire still rules the west.

    We are under a military jurisdiction. Stay a slave bitchez.

     
    • palani

      January 22, 2013 at 9:05 AM

      “The Roman Empire still rules the west”
      In that case pay particular attention to this passage from Aulus Gellius “Attic Nights”

      We read it recorded in a certain letter of Atteius Capito, that Labeo Antistius was particularly distinguished by his knowledge in the laws, customs, and civil courts of the Roman people. But a certain degree of wilful obstinancy, he observes, misled the man, insomuch that when Caesar Augustus became emperor, he did not allow the justice or propriety of any act, which he could not find sanctioned by the ancient usages of the Romans. He then relates what this same Labeo (when summoned by a messenger from the tribune of the people) answered: “when”, says he, “at the instigation of a certain woman, the tribunes of the people sent Gellianus to him, desiring that he would appear and answer to the woman’s complaint, he ordered him who had been sent, to return, and tell the tribunes, that they had no right either to summon him or any one else. That by the custom of our ancestors, the tribunes of the people ha a right of arresting but not of summoning any one; that they might therefore come and order him to be seized, but had no right to summon him when absent. Having read this in Capito’s letter, I found the same thing afterwards spoken of more at large in the 21st book of Varro’s “Res humanae,” whose words upon the subject I have transcribed: “In the magistracy,” says he, “some have the power of summoning, some of arresting, others can do neither. The power of summoning belongs to the consuls, and others of high authority, that of arrest to the tribunes of the people, and those officers who are attended by a messenger; but the quæstors and others, who have neither a cictor nor a messenger, have neither power to summon, nor to arrest. They who have the right of summoning, are also able by law to seize, confine, and carry away, and this whether the persons are present, or are cited by their command. The tribunes of the people have no right of summoning. Nevertheless, many ignorant persons have used this authority, as if they were entitled to it. For some have ordered, not only a private individual, but a consul, to be summoned to the forum. I myself, one of the triumvirs, being summoned by Portius, a tribune of the people, did not appear: depending upon the authority of established custom, I claimed this ancient privilege; and when a tribune myself, I ordered no man to be summoned before me, nor to obey the summons of my colleague, unless he thought proper.” As to this right, of which Marcus Varro speaks, I am of opinion that Labeo, when a private man, acted with an idle sort of confidence, in not appearing to the summons of the tribune. For what could be the reason for being unwilling to obey the summons of those, whom you allow to have the power of arresting you? For he who by law may be seized, may also be imprisoned. But while we are enquiring why the tribunes , who have a power of using coercive measures, have not the power of summoning, it occurs to recollection, that tribunes of the people appear to have been formerly created, not for the purpose of passing sentence, nor for taking cognisance of causes and complaints where the parties were absent, but by their presence, in causes, to take care that injustice be banished from their courts. Therefore the right of summoning was taken from them, because their office was to prevent, by their attention and presence, all acts of violence.

      If Roman Law is going to be used then why not USE Roman Law?

       
      • sem

        January 22, 2013 at 9:29 AM

        Palani:

        Wot ye not that there are two(2) sets of Law in effect in America; one set of Laws for the one(1)% and a different set of Laws for the ninety-nine(99)%.

        Hence, (todays’) bankers are not summoned to court: (excerpted from your comment above):

        … For what could be the reason for being unwilling to obey the summons of those, whom you allow to have the power of arresting you? For he who by law may be seized, may also be imprisoned….

        Seems to me that Roman Law is being “USED” (at lease sometimes).

        PeaceOut

         
      • Adask

        January 22, 2013 at 3:31 PM

        In A.D. 2007, I was still involved with a lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General over the “man or other animals” drug laws. The chief administrative judge for Travis County (the seat of State government) in Texas was John K. Dietz. Mr. Dietz had taken control of the case and was working hard to cause a settlement. Dietz is a brilliant man. He had a masters degree in psychology before he went to law school. I liked the man. I would like to have been friends and had an opportunity to talk with him and learn from him.

        During one of our settlement conferences, Judge Dietz made the following, offhand remark. He said (more or less), “This legal system has been here for 2,000 years and I don’t expect to disappear any time soon.” That’s all he said, but I was amazed. I thought our “system” started about A.D. 1776, but Judge Dietz thought is started 2,000 years ago. He didn’t elaborate, but I assumed that he must’ve been talking about Roman Law.

        Dietz is no dummy. I don’t know that he was absolutely referring to Roman Law, but he was too intelligent to have made such a remark by mistake.

        Whatever “system” we’re under, I’d bet Dietz was right and that “system” is 2,000 years old. If so, it’s almost certain that that “system” must be Roman Law.

         
      • palani

        January 22, 2013 at 6:21 PM

        There is little need to CHANGE the law. There is a great need to keep from contracting into others law systems. Ignorance is your best friend. I mean it. Go to Bouviers 1856 law dictionary http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm and study up on ‘ignorance’. There are two sorts of ignorance: of law and of fact. Ignorance of a foreign law is classed as ignorance of fact. Ignorance of facts are never criminal. So how do you tell whether a law is foreign or domestic? Possibly contract law leaves some clues? The goal might be to claim ‘in itinere’ status … transiting through and not domiciled.

        You might know the English people are crazy when it comes to speeding in an automobile. The larger the engine the faster you are required to go. A British friend and his Scottish wife got themselves stopped in Miami once when there for vacation .. speed. While waiting in court they first watched a German tourist get his speeding ticket dismissed because his English was terrible. When it came time for my friends case to come up and it looked like he was going to get a fine his wife steps forward and in a fine Scottish accent asks the judicial actor “you let the German guy off because he doesn’t speak English are your going to fine us because we do?” End result … no fine.

         
  39. sem

    January 22, 2013 at 8:38 AM

    Kanani:

    it is prudent that I follow-up on your comment withe an excerpt from one of Al’s previously posted ‘insights’,as:

    …What follows is my “insight du jour” concerning Notice. And while I always stand to be corrected, I think this subject is BIG. IF my analysis is roughly correct, we can probably stop most Notices with a series of astute questions. If that’s true, we can probably stop most court and administrative proceedings by simply asking questions. (They can’t give us the hearing without first giving us a complete Notice.)
    I’m giving the system notice that I’m starting to grin. I’m starting to giggle. I’m starting to laugh. I might be wrong, but I think we gotcha!
    Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition A.D. 1979:
    Notice. Information; the result of observation, wheth¬er by the senses or the mind; knowledge of the existence of a fact or state of affairs [“this state”?]; the means of knowledge. Intelligence by whatever means commu¬nicated. Koehn v. Central Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha, Neb., 187 Kan. 192, 354 P.2d 352, 358.
    [Notice “by whatever means communicated” can include notice by writing, oral speech or even by “sign” (infra).
    I suspect that a man’s uniform, badge or business card, or a corporation car with emergency lights or a gold-fringed flag can be construed as a “sign”/“notice” of some material facts that show the individual is in “law enforcement”. But if that uniform, business card, badge, cop car, judicial robe or gold-fringed flag is a form of notice, it not only gives partial disclosure of material facts, it also puts the recipient on his duty and/or entitles him to the right of INQUIRY (right of NOTICE?). The uniform (or black robes for the judge) INVITES and even mandates MORE QUESTIONS relative to material facts…

    The prudence, therefore, is in always acknowledging “TIME and PLACE”.

    PeaceOut

     
    • David Merrill

      January 22, 2013 at 10:18 AM

      Rather that if you are incompetent in the common law then you will automatically default into admiralty law.

       
    • David Merrill

      January 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM

      I probably linked this paper already…

      http://www.freedom-school.com/the-1994-ebsworth.pdf

       
  40. sem

    January 22, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    The United States Attorney General (Eric Holder):

    …Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process….

    TIME and PLACE!

    PeaceOut

     
  41. David Merrill

    January 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM

    The history of admiralty law is outlined quite well in DeLovio v. Boit.

    http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Delovio_v_Boit.zip

    Further research indicates that the Laws of Oleron came upon the land to accommodate the plunder of the Knights Templar returning from the Holy Land. Execution of which was done by Eleanor of Aquitaine mother of two kings in two different nations – international. I don’t remember all the details but the Merovingians of France also played a part – Mer being Sea – and the mother of the first Merovingian King rumored to have been raped while swimming in the sea by a sea monster, giving a maritime issue to this Bloodline of Jesus CHRIST.

     
  42. sem

    January 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM

    It is imperative to know the origin of a subject matter. It is therefore equally imperative to be familiar with the effects/affects of said at the present. It seems that Law has degenerated from being a line in the sand for those who would trespass, to being a tool used for bridging the same line.

    Innovations to Law has the same effect/affect as tightening or widening the margins on a type-writer … SPACE is manipulated. Said space is most commonly Personal Space; which of course speaks to Movement and therefore, Freedom.

    If Freedom is controlled or anywise manipulated; the only descriptive word for such an act is SLAVERY.

    Slavery is one hundred(100)% taxation (minus food, clothing and shelter). For instance, can you own LAND? Can you walk across the borders of the American Plantation without the proper papers? If you answered no to any of these questions, you are a slave; and therefore, subject to the Roman Law.

    Please be referred to kanani’s comment (above).

    PeaceOut

     
  43. Don Quixote de la Mancha

    April 12, 2013 at 7:11 AM

    Justice Joseph Story was a leading nineteenth century proponent of expansive federal admiralty jurisdiction. His circuit court decision in De Lovio v. Boit (1815) rejected the applicability of the English precedents and broadly asserted that the admiralty jurisdiction extended to all contracts “which relate to the navigation, business, or commerce of the sea.” This position was consistent with Story’s views in the famous Supreme Court case of Swift v. Tyson (1842) that federal courts are not bound by state court determinations of common law in commercial law cases. If a federal court was to be an effective commercial court, Story and others believed that it had to have the power to declare the law in commercial cases and in admiralty cases, which were intimately tied to commercial dealings. A majority of the Court generally adopted Story’s broad view.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/admiralty-and-maritime-law#ixzz1WiYxLIVB

    http://www.answers.com/topic/admiralty-and-maritime-law?cat=biz-fin

     
  44. Don Quixote de la Mancha

    April 12, 2013 at 7:14 AM

    http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_l.htm

    1856 definition of LAW, MERCHANT.

    A system of customs acknowledged and taken notice of by all commercial nations; and those customs constitute a part of the general law of the land; and being a part of that law their existence cannot be proved by witnesses, but the judges are bound to take notice of them ex officio. See Beawes’ Lex Mercatoria Rediviva; Caines’ Lex Mercatoria Americana; Com. Dig. Merchant, D; Chit. Comm. Law; Pardess. Droit Commercial; Collection des Lois Maritimes antÇrieure au dix hutiäme siäcle, par Dupin; Capmany, Costumbres Maritimas; II Consolato del Mare; Us et Coutumes de la Mer; Piantandia, Della Giurisprudenze Maritina Commerciale, Antica e Moderna; Valin, Commentaire sur l’Ordonnance de la Marine, du Mois d’Aoñt, 1681; Boulay-Paty, Dr. Comm.; Boucher, Institutions au Droit Maritime.

    Here is a free pdf: Introduction to Law Merchant (57 pages)
    http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_62/1816000/1816120/1/print/6_law_merchant.ps.pdf

     
  45. yvonne

    September 26, 2013 at 10:41 PM

    In 1845 congress passed an act saying admiralty laws could come on land the bill may be traced in congress {congress glob 28th cong 2d session 43, 320, 328, 337 345, 1884

     
  46. EarlatOregon

    May 16, 2014 at 1:42 PM

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    (Limits of Admiralty jurisdiction)
    .
    .
    .

    Commentaries On the Laws of England
    by Blackstone

    Book 3
    Pg 107
    .
    .
    .

    (Limits of Admiralty jurisdiction)

    ” All admiralty cases must be therefore
    causes arising wholly upon the sea,
    and not within the precincts of any county. (i)
    .
    .
    .

    For the statute 13 Ric. II, c.5,
    directs that the admiral and his deputy
    shall not meddle with anything,
    but only things done on upon the sea;
    .
    .
    .

    and the statute 15 Ric.I,I c. 3,
    declares that the court of the admiral
    hath no matter of cognizance of any contract,
    or of any other thing,
    done within the body of any county,

    either by land or by water;
    nor of any wreck of the sea:
    for that must be cast on land before it becomes a wreck.(j)
    .
    .
    .

    But it is otherwise of flotsam, jetsam, and ligan;
    for over them the admiral hath jurisdiction,
    as there are in and upon the sea.(k)

    If part of any contract,
    or other cause of action doth rise upon the sea,
    and part upon the land,
    the common law excludes the admiralty court
    from its jurisdiction;
    for, part belonging properly to one cognizance
    and part to another,
    the common or general law
    takes place of the particular.(L)
    .
    .
    .

    … … … .
    .
    .
    .

    And indeed it hath been farther holden,
    that the admiralty court
    cannot hold plea
    of any contract under seal. (o)1
    .
    .
    .

    Fictions to Evade Jurisdiction

    … … … .

    .
    .
    .

    (footnote)

    In the United States,
    the admiralty and prize jurisdiction
    is in the district courts of the United States,
    and is very full and complete in civil cases.

    See 1 Kent,353, et seq
    Conklin’s Treatise part 3;
    Parsons on Maritime Law.

    .
    .
    .

    No state can amplify of modify
    the admiralty jurisdiction.

    The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 526.

    .
    .
    .

    The criminal jurisdiction of these courts
    is only such as by acts of congress
    is conferred upon them:

    U.S. v McGill, 4 Dall. 426;
    U.S. v Bevans 3 Wheat 336;
    U.S. v Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76;
    Tyler v. People, 8 Mich . 320.

    These acts, however,
    are designed to confer jurisdiction
    of all cases
    properly cognizable in admiralty.
    .
    .

    All Above from:

    Commentaries On the Laws of England
    by Blackstone

    Book 3
    Pg 107
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Free to Read Here:

    http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-001.htm

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    or Buy it Here
    .
    .
    .

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1428645705/ref=sr_1_31?p=S035&keywords=contracts+under+seal&ie=UTF8&qid=1400261960.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

     
    • David Merrill

      May 17, 2014 at 4:38 AM

      My current mental model involves redemption through Jesus’ model and Title 12 USC §411. One is redeemed from the contract (endorsement) with the Fed with legal tender FRN’s being insurance policies and redemption making claim to value – lawful money. All insurance policies are in admiralty.

      Therefore one is redeemed from the (default) law of the sea to the law of the land.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s