slug.com slug.com

1 0

14th Amendment US federal citizens really need a crash course in the CONstitution granting Congress exclusive and plenary power over Inter-state and foreign commerce which gives Congress exclusive and plenary power over statutory power over ADMIRALTY/MARITIME. A man has NO access to natural and common law RIGHTS when he chooses to operate under the statutory commercial law (UCC and Admiralty/Maritime), just like a man has NO access to natural and common law RIGHTS when he chooses to operate under the statutory MARTIAL law as a "soldier". SEE QUOTES:

American Jurisprudence 2d. Volume 2, p. 720
ADMIRALTY

Section 1 – Origin & Nature of Admiralty Jurisdiction & Practice

The historical development of admiralty jurisdiction and procedure is of practical as well as theoretical interests since opinions in admiralty cases frequently refer to the historical background in reaching conclusions on the questions at issue. The special jurisdiction of admiralty has a maritime purpose and is different from Common Law. It [admiralty] is not exclusively rooted in the civil law system although it includes substantial derivations there from. It has a strong international aspect, but it may under go independent changes in the several countries that an admiralty law and such international features are given serious consideration by admiralty courts.

By the end of the 17th century the admiralty jurisdiction in England had been restricted until it was not as extensive as in other European maritime countries due to a long controversy in which the Common Law courts with the aid of Parliament had succeeded in limiting the jurisdiction of admiralty to the high seas and excluding its jurisdiction from transactions arising on waters within the body of a country.

The Development of Admiralty in the United States.

The admiralty jurisprudence system was brought to America by British settlers along with the Common Law and Equity. The courts for the administration of the maritime law were commissioned in many, if not all, of the colonies. These tribunals continued to exercise of the power conferred upon them until the organization of the federal government in 1787.

Now before the adoption of the Constitution jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime cases was distributed between the confederation of the individual states, but when the Constitution of the United States was framed a system of exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction was incorporated placing the entire subject, substantive as well as procedural, under national control because of its intimate relation to navigation and to interstate and foreign commerce. Now the provision in the Constitution did not abrogate the maritime law theretofore in force; the maritime law became law of the United States subject to the paramount power of Congress to alter, qualify or supplement it as experience and changing conditions might require, subject only to constitutional and treaty limitations.

The power of Congress is paramount in matters of maritime law and it was exercised at an early date when Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789 conferring on the federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction of seizures under the law of impost, navigation or trade of the United States and made on navigable waters within the respective districts. This jurisdiction [of Admiralty] has since been modified and enlarged by numerous enactments.”


“This power [Congress’ power over Commerce] 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. 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… Courts of admiralty have been found necessary in all commercial countries, not only for the safety and convenience of commerce and the speedy decision of controversies, where delay would often be ruin, but also to administer the laws of nations in a season of war and to determine the validity of captures and questions of prize or no prize in a judicial proceeding.”
Chief Justice Taney, The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhue, 53 U.S. 12 How. 443 443 (1851)


“But there is no middle ground on which to place such jurisdiction; when we once break over the line which restrained it by acts of parliament and prohibitions, we are necessarily thrown back on the civil law and the royal prerogative, for the rules and principles on which the right of trial by jury depends. It is in vain to contend that the seventh amendment will be any efficient guarantee for this right, in suits at common law, if an admiralty jurisdiction exists in the United States, commensurate with what is claimed by the claimant in this case. Its assertion is, in my opinion, a renewal of the contest between legislative power and royal prerogative, the common and the civil law, striving for mastery; the one to secure, the other to take away the trial by jury; and until the authoritative judgment of a higher court shall make it my duty to surrender my judgment to their decree, it will never be sanctioned by me.” - Judge Baldwin in the case, Bains v. The Schooner James & Catherine, 2 Fed Cas. 27, case #756 (1832)


"I concur with my brethren in sustaining the decree below, but cannot consent to place my decision upon the ground on which they have placed theirs. I think it high time to check this silent and stealing progress of the admiralty in acquiring jurisdiction to which it has no pretensions. Unfounded doctrines ought at once to be met and put down, and dicta, as well as decisions that cannot bear examination ought not to be evaded and permitted to remain on the books to be commented upon and acquiesced in by courts of justice, or to be read and respected by those whose opinions are to be formed upon books. It affords facilities for giving an undue bias to public opinion, and, I will add, of interpolating doctrines which belong not to the law." - Justice Johnson, Ramsey v. Allegree, 25 U.S. 611 (1827)


“But surely this doctrine cannot be true; for it is perfectly clear, that the admiralty from the highest antiquity, has exercised a very extensive criminal jurisdiction, and punished offences by fine and imprisonment. The celebrated inquestion at Queensborough, in the reign of Edward III., would alone be decisive. And even at common law it has been adjudged, that the admiralty might fine for a contempt. As to the other reason for its not being a court of record, viz. that it proceeds according to the course of the civil law, and that an appeal, and not a writ of error, lies from its decrees; they have nothing to do with the question, for whether a court of record or not does not depend upon the form of proceeding in any court. Besides, the admiralty is expressly recognised as a court of record in King Edward's ordinance at Grimsby, where it is said, ‘La cause estoit pour ce que l'admiral et ses lieutenants sont de record’ (Exton, 27); and, in the articles in the Black Book of the Admiralty, it is articulately declared, ‘Quod admirallus et locum tenentes sui sunt de recordo’.” - Justice Story, US Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, Delovio v. Boit, 7 F. Cas. 418 (1815).


Buter v Boston & Savannah Steamship Co. 130 US 527 (1889)

Quotes regarding LIMITED LIABILITY: Policies of Insurance under the Admiralty/Maritime Law

The law of limited liability was enacted by Congress as part of the maritime law of the United States, and is coextensive in its operation with the whole territorial domain of that law.
While the general maritime law, with slight modifications, is accepted as law in this country, it is subject under the Constitution to such modifications as Congress may see fit to adopt.
The Constitution has not placed the power of legislation to change or modify the general maritime law in the legislatures of the states.
"But it is enough to say that the rule of limited responsibility is now our maritime rule. It is the rule by which, through the act of Congress, we have announced that we propose to administer justice in maritime cases."
"But, whilst the rule adopted by Congress is the same as the rule of the general maritime law, its efficacy as a rule depends upon the statute, and not upon any inherent force of the maritime law. As explained in The Lottawanna, the maritime law is only so far operative as law in any country as it is adopted by the laws and usages of that country, and this particular rule of the maritime law had never been adopted in this country until it was enacted by statute. Therefore, whilst it is now a part of our maritime law, it is nevertheless statute law."
"The rule of limited liability prescribed by the act of 1851 is nothing more than the old maritime rule, administered in courts of admiralty in all countries except England from time immemorial, and if this were not so, the subject matter itself is one that belongs to the department of maritime law."
These quotations are believed to express the general, if not unanimous, views of the members of this Court for nearly twenty years past, and they leave us in no doubt that, while the general maritime law, with slight modifications, is accepted as law in this country, it is subject to such amendments as Congress may see fit to adopt. One of the modifications of the maritime law as received here was a rejection of the law of limited liability. We have rectified that. Congress has restored that article to our maritime Code. We cannot doubt its power to do this. As the Constitution extends the judicial power of the United States to "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," and as this jurisdiction is held to be exclusive, the power of legislation on the same subject must necessarily be in the national legislature, and not in the state legislatures. It is true, we have held that the boundaries and limits of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction are matters of judicial cognizance, and cannot be affected or controlled by legislation, whether state or national. Chief Justice Taney, in The St. Lawrence, 1 Black 522, 66 U. S. 526-527; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 88 U. S. 575-576. But within these boundaries and limits, the law itself is that which has always been received as maritime law in this country, with such amendments and modifications as Congress may from time to time have adopted."


"The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. .. .", 1 R.C.L. § 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. §40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. §32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. §17, p. 416.


Delovio v Boit, 7 Cas.418 (No.3776) (C.C.D. Mass. 1815) “The next inquiry is, what are properly to be deemed "maritime contracts." Happily in this particular there is little room for controversy. All civilians and jurists agree, that in this appellation are included, among other things, charter parties, affreightments, marine hypothecations, contracts for maritime service in the building, repairing, supplying, and navigating ships; contracts between part owners of ships; contracts and quasi contracts respecting averages, contributions and jettisons; and, what is more material to our present purpose, policies of insurance."


U.S. v. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, 322 U.S. 533 (1944) “Our basic responsibility in interpreting the Commerce Clause is to make certain that the power to govern intercourse among the states remains where the Constitution placed it. That power, as held by this Court from the beginning, is vested in the Congress, available to be exercised for the national welfare as Congress shall deem necessary. No commercial enterprise of any kind which conducts its activities across state lines has been held to be wholly beyond the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. We cannot make an exception of the business of insurance.”


"The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)." -- The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966


United States supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): “In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law...It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation (civil law) began generally to replace the common law.”


United States supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875): “The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government...he owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties.”

Melancton 6 Dec 29
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

"The admiralty jurisprudence system was brought to America by British settlers along with the Common Law and Equity. The courts for the administration of the maritime law were commissioned in many, if not all, of the colonies. These tribunals continued to exercise of the power conferred upon them until the organization of the federal government in 1787."

The federation in America was formed between 1774 and 1789. In 1787 a group of criminals decided to replace the federation with a Consolidated Nation State Oligarchy based upon Legal Fiction.

Admiralty, Equity, Exchequer, and Chancellery Summary JustUS Courts have been, are, and will continue to be tools by which Oligarchs collect fraudulent DEBT.

Why this is new to anyone I can't confess. It isn't news to me.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:166494
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.